VoIP management: Floating or tightening?

Telecommunications service providers at VoIP World World Conference did not find a common voice in making legal provisions for VoIP.

According to industry experts, the provision of VoIP rules, to a degree is necessary, if it allows new technologies to create all conditions for deployment in the market and allows service providers to the case of maximizing the exploitation of new features of technology. ' We are not interested in VoIP-related regulations. As long as in the framework of those rules, if we can improve the technology to provide the cheapest service we must be unconditionally welcomed '- Jonathan Draluck, Vice President of Sales iBasis - International wholesale (wholesale) VoIP business, speaking at the Conference.

Jonathan Draluck argued that lawmakers initially wanted legal provisions for VoIP to ensure that telecom companies with dominant market share could no longer be monopolized in providing telecommunications services. However, the abolition of regulations and the liberalization of the telecom market can achieve the same purpose. Tightening regulations related to VoIP may prevent competition in countries where the telecommunications market is not yet open.

To ensure harmonization of management requirements and technological innovation, legislators need to answer questions such as: Are lawmakers reassured to know that a free telecommunications market Can do some big grandfather occupy the unrestricted market share not satisfied? Can customers access emergency services anywhere? How do governments intervene in the content of Internet phone calls to prevent illegal acts? Does the introduction of legal regulations negatively affect the quality of service?

Currently, the rules for VoIP in Asian countries are very different. The National Telecommunications Commission of the Philippines (NTC) has abolished regulations applicable to the country 's VoIP when considering VoIP as a' value - added service '- this means service providers Internet (ISP) can also provide VoIP services without having to apply for a license. Prior to this change, VoIP in the Philippines was considered a basic voice service and only offered by state-owned telecommunications companies.

Meanwhile, in China, the government has prevented PC-to-Phone calls but floated on PC-to-PC calls.

In Hong Kong, the Telecommunications Authority (OFTA) has also introduced rules for VoIP as soon as the Territory is returned to China. What PCCW Hong Kong, the largest telecommunications company, is concerned about, however, is the statement of John Bradfield, director of competition and legal affairs, not the rules themselves but the inconsistencies. in those regulations. In Hong Kong, fixed-line services are bound by regulations to ensure quality and security, while VoIP is not bound by such rules.

While lawmakers are considering which aspects of VoIP services need to be managed, Jonathan Draluck argues that the openness to VoIP-related regulations in the US and Europe has spurred technology development in these two areas. 'Restriction' is a phrase that no one wants to hear when talking about VoIP because this is what prevents competition.

Often, telecom companies want governments to make rules for VoIP that are holding the 'key of the industry' with a long history along with the existing network infrastructure. These companies do not want to invest in developing new technologies and services until they see competitors experiencing all the licensing processes to provide services - but that's not how to stimulate innovation. technology. iBasis said that although the legal environment for VoIP is not certain, the company is still willing to spend hundreds of millions of dollars researching new technologies.

Certainly, the controversy surrounding whether or not the rules for Internet-based services in general and VoIP in particular will be the subject of upcoming conferences.