VOIP objectors combine forces

Johannesburg, 07 May 2001

Value-added network service providers (VANS) have offered what the SA VANS Association (SAVA) describes as practical alternatives to "the current onerous and counter-productive restriction" on voice over Internet protocol (VOIP).

SAVA reacted with shock at the publication of draft telecommunications policy directions, which proposed to continue current restrictions on VOIP carriage in order to protect telecoms operators, saying it was generally expected that such restrictions would be lifted.

In a strongly worded submission on the policy directions, SAVA describes such restrictions as technologically retrogressive and unenforceable.

Written submissions on the proposed policy were due last week, at the close of a 30-day comment period.

The newly formed Communications Users Association of SA (CUASA) and the Internet Service Providers Association (ISPA), both of which offered submissions similar in many respects to that of SAVA, support SAVA in its condemnation of the VOIP restrictions. The three organisations have a number of members in common.

Alternative approaches

SAVA suggests two alternatives to the restrictions, both of which would allow limited use of VOIP services. The first calls for VANS to be treated similarly to private telecommunications networks, which are allowed to carry voice traffic and connect to the public telecommunications network, but may not bypass that network completely. Voice calls may break into the public network from the private network, or may break out of the private network into the public, but may not do both.

The second proposal calls for VANS to be allowed to negotiate with public operators such as Telkom and the second national operator to carry and switch VOIP traffic. "SAVA maintains...that, if an operator sees an opportunity to grow its market share by entering into an agreement that allows VANS to carry and switch traffic via its facilities, there should be no further reason for a prohibition on such traffic to exist in law," the submission reads.

CUASA expresses full support for the SAVA proposals in its own submission, while ISPA agrees in principle. "We believe that [VOIP] restrictions should be lifted as soon as possible to reduce the price of, and facilitate, both voice and Internet access," ISPA says in its submission. "At the very least, it should be diluted to allow the provision of VOIP services in certain circumstances."

Multiple competitors

The three bodies also combined forces in calling for at least two licences to be issued to fixed-line operators in competition with Telkom. In virtually identical wording, the associations point out that participants of the telecommunications colloquium during February called for multiple competitors to prevent price collusion.

"That this duopoly relates only to local telecoms services nonetheless subverts the intended goals of the 'managed liberalisation', which as ISPA has pointed out...can best be achieved by the introduction of proper competition," says ISPA.

The Cape Telecommunication Users' Forum (CTUF), a body convened by the Cape IT Initiative specifically to respond to the policy directions, echoes this view in a submission that calls for at least two new licences.

"We are not convinced by arguments that the need to roll-out new infrastructure to rural and other under-serviced areas requires protecting Telkom and the [second national operator] from competition," it says.

The CTUF also supports the call for VOIP freedom, arguing that although it represents a disruptive technology for current operators there is little use in postponing deregulation. "Delaying the day of reckoning by three years will only mean denying the potential benefits to all South Africans."