Telcos debate new VoIP numbering system
In its submission responding to the Australian Communications Authority's (ACA) October public discussion paper on domestic Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) regulation, Telstra has called for a "new numbering scheme to differentiate between IP telephony services that meet current Standard Telephone Service (STS) obligations and those that don't."
Standard Telephone Service is a term defined in the Telecommunications (Consumer Protection and Service Standards) Act 1999. The ACA has not yet passed its judgment on whether a VoIP service may be classified as a STS. The Explanatory Memorandum to the Act says the "definition focuses attention on the functionality of the service, namely basic communications (by voice, or an equivalent service for end-users with a disability) ... [and] is technologically neutral."
If a service is classified as a STS, a carrier has certain obligations with respect to any provision of the service. These obligations include access to the emergency services numbers, operator and directory assistance and itemised billing.
Telstra also told the ACA that "a review of existing STS obligations across all voice technologies (for example, PSTN, mobile and IP) could be undertaken in about two years." According to the carrier, such a review would help to establish consistency across the various voice technologies, and should be undertaken once the IP telephony market has stabilised, the technology has further developed and consumers have become more savvy about the convergence of difference technologies.
While Telstra chose to focus on the STS classification, Optus in its own submission differentiated between numbering arrangements for 'Process A' IP telephony services, which are provided over "secure and managed end-to-end IP" networks, and 'Process B' services deployed over the public Internet. Optus said numbering arrangements for Process A services should be identical to the existing arrangements for the Public Switched Telephone Network.
But, according to Optus: "Process B Internet voice services should be regulated in a similar manner to digital mobile telephony services," with their own distinct numbering range.
Smaller providers AAPT and Vodafone were the only two carriers to come to a consensus on what they wanted the ACA to achieve in its proposed regulation. AAPT said: "Where VoIP services are offered at a primarily fixed location, it would be appropriate to allocate a geographic number, while a dedicated number range would be appopriate in the circumstances where a VoIP service is offered and used as a mobile service."
And while Vodafone said "the ACA does not need to define numbers specifically for IP services," the carrier went on to agree with AAPT's sentiments on mobile VoIP services, saying: "A new dedicated number range may be particularly important for providers of nomadic VoIP services and/or services that are provided at a quality below existing minimum requirements."
The Competitive Carrier's Coalition (CCC), which represents second-tier telcos like Macquarie Corporate Telecommunications, Comindico, Primus Telecom and Powertel, also made a submission to the ACA. The CCC said that VoIP "does not need to be treated as third call type lying somewhere between fixed and mobile for the purpose of numbering. VoIP providers should assign numbers from the existing geographic number range. Treating VoIP-based calls as -different" would be problematic for a number of reasons."
In addition, the CCC shot down any move towards a separate numbering system for mobile VoIP services, saying "Concerns that voice services delivered through VoIP have a greater portability than PSTN-based calls should not be overstated."
And the coalition even said a seperate numbering system could create problems with fair competition in the market: "The creation of a new number range would create an opportunity for incumbents to develop and exercise market power over new entrants as it would be likely to lead to a whole range of opportunities to construct interconnection bottlenecks. These would likely range from debate about appropriate pricing to debate around technical standards and issues such as porting."
The telecommunications industry was not the only party who made submission's to the ACA's public discussion paper; a number of emergency services organisations said in their submissions that the introduction of unregulated VoIP services could wreak havoc with emergency hotlines as telecommunications companies are only spurred to provide help to emergency services when it is in their own economic interest to do so.