VOIP debate raises hackles at colloquium

Johannesburg, 21 Oct 2004

Interconnection is the key issue to be resolved if voice over IP (VOIP) is to play a major role in bringing competition to the voice market.

This was one of a number of issues to be raised on the first day of the Independent Communications Authority of SA`s (ICASA) colloquium on the liberalisation of the telecoms industry.

The event produced arguments and counter-arguments regarding the provision of VOIP, the leasing of facilities and potential universal service obligations (USOs), among others.

The colloquium has been split into several streams, each one dealing with questions raised around one of the ministerial determinations on liberalisation that were made last month.

It was pointed out that if VANS providers are going to become meaningful rivals to fixed and mobile telephone operators, they will need the same rights as the telcos in terms of issues such as number plans, interconnection and number portability.

Interconnection concerns

When looking at the major interconnection issues, the colloquium was told that it is impossible to play in the telecoms space alone, and that operators already have mandatory interconnect agreements built into their licences, so it should also be a mandatory requirement to have interconnection between telcos and VOIP providers, as this is the only way to lower telecoms costs.

Hillel Schrock of Internet Solutions suggested the current interconnect guidelines are inadequate for the new environment, so there is a need for the operators, VOIP providers and the regulator to get together and work out new ground rules for this.

"We don`t want to find ourselves in the kind of situation that has happened before in the industries of other nations, where the incumbent has strangled challengers through a refusal to interconnect. This is something that has to be mandatory," said Schrock.

"If two private switched telephone services (PSTSs) interconnect at a certain rate, a PSTS and a VOIP provider must be allowed to interconnect at the same rate."

Quality issues

An MTN representative commented that although liberalisation is a fantastic concept, ICASA will need to ensure a certain level of service quality, so that consumers don`t get burnt by fly-by-night operators.

"I disagree with that concept, as I relish the idea of my telephone company going under and me having to find another operator, as this will mean that I know I am paying the right price for my service," said self-proclaimed VOIP activist Calvin Browne, of UniForum.

Gateway Communications` Mike van den Bergh agreed: "Regulation of quality of service is only necessary when the customer does not have freedom of choice - in a deregulated market, people should be allowed the choice of paying less for a lower quality service."

Universal service obligations

Another contentious issue raised was that of USOs, with some players of the opinion that there should be no obligations on VOIP providers.

This drew angry responses that suggested that if VANS providers wish to play in the PSTS space, they must understand the obligations and be prepared to honour these.

"Even the underserviced area licensees (USALs) have USOs, so the VANS providers need to understand that they cannot pick and choose what they want," said a member of one of the USAL consortiums.

Ultimately the conclusion was reached that the majority of players agree that USOs are necessary, but the main disagreement was with exactly what the USOs would be and how they would be implemented.

A further contentious question was whether voice should be regulated and whether a distinction should be made between corporate and commercial VOIP providers.

Many VANS providers claimed that while there would be different product bundles for corporate and commercial clients, there is no real difference in the service provided, so there should be no distinction made between the two categories.

Speaking on the regulatory steps that need to be taken to ensure the successful implementation of VOIP, Van den Bergh said: "The regulations are there to ensure that a dominant player cannot abuse its position.

"We need regulations that will ensure that if facilities are requested from a major player, they are required to provide these at a reasonable price."