|
|
||||
|
|
||||
| Description | ||||
| The policies governing IP-based communications are rapidly evolving around the world. During just the past few months, the level of interest and activity in VoIP regulations and in policy initiatives has grown exponentially. Countries that once banned VoIP for all purposes are beginning to understand its value to their citizens. Other countries that had taken hands-off approaches are reconsidering regulation. The IP-based communications industry can no longer afford to sit back while the rules governing our future are written for us. | ||||
| Companies that provide IP services and applications -- particularly VoIP -- need to know the status of current policies. Until now, there was no single source of information on VoIP policies. The Global VoIP Policy Status Matrix is a searchable, online resource tracking the status of VoIP regulation, legislation, and new initiatives in more than 30 countries. | ||||
| Users can quickly scan by region, search by country, and identify the most/least restrictive VoIP policies. The Global VoIP Policy Status Matrix provides a high-level snapshot of the state of VoIP policies so that companies can get a sense of the current policy environment. | ||||
| The Global VoIP Policy Status Matrix can be used in a variety of ways to track the status of VoIP policies. For example, it can be used to compare policies among several countries. The countries are grouped by region. For each country, the matrix provides information such as whether there are existing VoIP regulations, the general characteristics of existing laws, who may provide VoIP services, and whether there are any VoIP initiatives. | ||||
| Categories | Key to Categories | |||
| Key Government Oversight Agencies | Agencies with authority to develop VoIP policies and regulation. | |||
| Agency Link | Links to agencies described above. | |||
| Incumbent Operator(s) (PTT) | The dominant operator(s) in the country | |||
| Is There an Existing VoIP Law? | Yes/No. Note that existing law may not have been developed specifically for VoIP, but may be a legacy regulation that is being applied, either explicitly or implicitly, to VoIP. | |||
| General Characteristics of VoIP Law | Agencies with authority to develop VoIP policies and regulation. | |||
| Links to Regulations | Links to regulations (where applicable). | |||
| Is VOIP Allowed? | Yes/No; Can any providers offer VoIP service in the country. | |||
| Who Can Provide VOIP? | If VoIP is allowed, which providers can offer the service. | |||
| Active VOIP Proceeding? | Description of any active proceeding pertaining to VoIP. | |||
| Legal Disclaimer | ||||
| The information contained in this Document is for general guidance only. The application and impact of laws can vary widely based on the specific facts involved. Given the changing nature of laws, rules and regulations, and the inherent hazards of electronic communication, there may be delays, omissions or inaccuracies in information contained in this Document. Accordingly, the information in this Document is provided with the understanding that the authors and publishers are not herein engaged in rendering legal, accounting, tax, or other professional advice and services. As such, it should not be used as a substitute for consultation with professional accounting, tax, legal or other competent advisers. Before making any decision or taking any action, you should seek your own professional consultants. | ||||
| While we have made every attempt to ensure that the information contained in this Document has been obtained from reliable sources, the Global IP Alliance is not responsible for any errors or omissions, or for the results obtained from the use of this information. All information in this Document is provided "as is", with no guarantee of completeness, accuracy, timeliness or of the results obtained from the use of this information, and without warranty of any kind, express or implied, including, but not limited to warranties of performance, merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose. In no event will the Global IP Alliance, its related agents, consultants or employees thereof be liable to you or anyone else for any decision made or action taken in reliance on the information in this Document or for any consequential, special or similar damages. | ||||
| © 2005 Global IP Alliance All rights reserved | www.ipall.org | |||
| Categories | Canada | United States |
| Key Government Oversight Agencies | Canadian Radio Television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC): Charles Dalfen, Chairperson; Andree Wylie, Vice Chair, Broadcasting; Richard French, Vice Chair, Telecommunications; Commissioners: Barbara Cram, Rita Cugini, Elizabeth Duncan, James Stuart Langford, Joan Pennefather, Ronald Williams | Federal Communications Commission: Commissioners: Kevin Martin, Chairman; Kathleen Abernathy; Michael Copps; Jonathan Adelstein; 1 vacant position |
| Agency Link | www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/welcome.htm | www.fcc.gov |
| Incumbent Operator(s) (PTT) | Bell Canada | Verizon, SBC, Bellsouth, Qwest |
| Is There an Existing VoIP Law? | Yes: emergency service requirements and general VoIP regulations. | Yes: emergency service requirements |
| General Characteristics of VoIP Law | 1) April 4, 2005: Emergency service obligations for local VoIP service providers: The Commission directs Canadian carriers, offering fixed (i.e., non-nomadic) local VoIP service, where the end-user is assigned an NPA-NXX native to any of the local exchanges within the region covered by the customer's serving Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP), to provide 9-1-1/E9-1-1 service, where it is available from the incumbent local exchange carrier (ILEC), within 90 days from April 4, 2005. | May 19, 2005: The Order places obligations on interconnected VoIP service providers that are similar to traditional telephone providers in that they enable customers to receive calls from and terminate calls to the public switched telephone network (PSTN) :• Interconnected VoIP providers must deliver all 911 calls to the customer’s local emergency operator. This must be a standard, rather than optional, feature of the service. |
| 2) May 12, 2005: Regulatory framework for voice communication services using Internet Protocol: The Commission determines that local VoIP services should be regulated as local exchanges services and that the regulatory framework governing local competition, set out in Local Competition, Telecom Decision CRTC 97-8, 1 May 1997 (Decision 97-8) and subsequent determinations, applies to local VoIP service providers, except as otherwise provided in this Decision. In particular, the Commission addresses the following matters with respect to implementation of this regulatory framework: registration of VoIP resellers, access to numbers and local number portability, directory listings, equal access, winbacks, access for the disabled, message relay service, privacy safeguards, tariff filing requirements, regulation of non-dominant carriers, regulation of VoIP services in territories where local competition is not permitted, and IP interconnection. | • Interconnected VoIP providers must provide emergency operators with the call back number and location information of their customers (i.e., E911) where the emergency operator is capable of receiving it. Although the customer must provide the location information, the VoIP provider must provide the customer a means of updating this information, whether he or she is at home or away from home. • By the effective date, interconnected VoIP providers must inform their customers, both new and existing, of the E911 capabilities and limitations of their service. • The incumbent LECs are required to provide access to their E911 networks to any requesting telecommunications carrier. They must continue to provide access to trunks, selective routers, and E911 databases to competing carriers. The Commission will closely monitor this obligation. Interconnected VoIP providers must comply with these requirements, and submit to the Commission a letter detailing such compliance, no later than 120 days after the effective date of the Order. | |
| Links to Regulations | www.crtc.gc.ca/archive/ENG/Decisions/2005/dt2005-21.htm www.crtc.gc.ca/archive/ENG/Decisions/2005/dt2005-28.htm | http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-258818A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-28A1.txt |
| Is VOIP Allowed? | Yes | Yes |
| Who Can Provide VOIP? | Any provider, subject to tariffs depending on the Category of Service (1-4); Canadian Carriers must file tariffs | Any provider, subject to the E911 requirements stated above; note possible future requirements forthcoming from ongoing proceeding (below). |
| Active VOIP Proceeding? | No | Yes: February 12, 2004; Notice of Proposed Rulemaking proceeding to examine opportunities that allow users greater choices created by voice services provided over the Internet, and to provide a measure of regulatory stability to the communications marketplace and to further promote the development of these Internet-based services. |
| Categories | Argentina | Brazil | Chile | Colombia | Mexico | Panama | Peru | Venezuela |
| Key Government Oversight Agencies | Comision Nacional de Comunicaciones (CNC) Secretariat of Communications: Lic. Mario Guillermo Moreno Secretario de Comunicaciones | Agencia Nacional de Telecommunicaciones (ANATEL): Eunicio Oliveira, Minister of Communications | Subsecretaria de Telecommunicacaiones (SUBTEL), Subsecretaria de Telecommunicaciones: Christian Nicolai Orellana | Comisión de Regulación de Telecomunicaciones: Dra. Martha Pinto de De Hart Ministra de Comunicaciones, Presidente; Gabriel Jurado, Director Ejecutivo CRT; Carlos Herrera, Experto Comisionado; Jaime Andrés Estrada, Experto Comisionado; Santiago Montenegro, Director DNP; Eva María Uribe Tobón, Superintendente de Servicios Públicos | Federal Telecommunications Commission (COFETEL): Jorge Arredondo Martinez, President; Pedro Cerisola Y Weber, Secretary of Communications and Transportation | Ente Regulador de los Servicios Publicos: José Galán Ponce, Director Presidente, Ing. Carlos Rodríguez Bethancourt, Director, Nilson Espino, Director | Ministerio de Transportes y Comunicaciones (MTC) Organismo Supervisor de Inversión Privada en Telecomunicaciones (OSIPTEL): Juan Pacheco Romaní, Vice Minister of Communications; Guillermo Villanueva Pinto, Director General of Control and Supervision of Telecommunications | Comisión Nacional de Telecomunicaciones (CONATEL): Alvin Reinaldo Lezama Pereira, Director General |
| Agency Links | http://www.cnc.gov.ar http://www.secom.gov.ar | www.anatel.gov.br | Subsecretaria de Telecommunicacaiones (SUBTEL) | http://www.crt.gov.co | www.cft.gob.mx http//portal.sct.gob.mx/SctPortal | http://www.enteregulador.gob.pa | http://www.mtc.gob.pe http://www.osiptel.gob.pe | http://www.conatel.gov.ve |
| Incumbent Operator(s) (PTT) | Telecom Argentina, Telefonica Argentina | Empresa Brasiliera de Telecomunicaçôes | Empresa Nacional de Telecomunicaciones | Empresa Nacional de Telecomunicaciones (Coltel) | Teléfonos de México (Telmex) | Instituto Nacional de Telecomunicaciones | Telefónica del Peru | Compañia Anónima Nacional de Teléfonos de Venezuela (CANTV) |
| Is There an Existing VoIP Law? | Yes | Yes | No; there are proposed regulations but they have not been implemented. | No; but it is necessary to obtain a license for the service that VoIP is facilitating (local or long distance voice services). | Yes | No | No | Yes |
| General Characteristics of VoIP Law | Resolution 764/2000 of the Secretariat of Communications states that VOIP services are a free telecommunications service in competition in Argentina. VoIP services may be provided without restriction. | VoIP services are allowed. There are no specific regulations or legislation pertaining to VoIP in Brazil. | The regulations are not yet in place. | Licenses are issued by the Ministry of Communications according to the regulations currently in force, specifically Law 142 of 1994 and Resolution 087 of 1997; however, the licenses are prohibitively expensive and only the incumbent operators have them. | COFETEL considers VoIP providers to be voice telephony providers without distinction from traditional long distance or local service providers. VoIP providers have the same licensing requirements and contributions to universal service funds as any other voice (local or long distance) carrier. | There is no specific law. VOIP is allowed, subject to 12 percent services tax. The current decree is being challenged by the Supreme Court. | VoIP services are allowed with a license, but there is no specific law governing VoIP. VoIP providers have been licensed since 1996. | A license is required and services are subject to quality of service standards. |
| Links to Regulations | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Is VOIP Allowed? | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes, with a license | Yes, with a license. | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Who Can Provide VOIP? | Most major telecom carriers are engaged in the range of telecom services, including VoIP; there are no restrictions. | There are no limitations on who can provide VoIP. | Only licensed operators. | Only licensed operators. | COFETEL classifies a VoIP provider as an illegal carrier if it is not properly licensed or not making contributions to universal service funds. | Only licensed operators. | Only licensed operators. | Only licensed operators that meet quality of service standards. |
| Active VOIP Proceeding? | No | No | In July 2004, Subtel published its proposed VOIP rules and invited industry comment. The comments were published in September 2004, but the regulations are not yet in place. | Yes; June 2004: Ministry of Communications published an IP consultation paper to gather opinion from a range of interested parties concerning how IP services should be regulated within the market; September 2004: the Ministry held a public meeting on the consultation. | Yes; Mexico is currently studying the benefits of further deregulation in the VoIP market. | The regulator has issued a decree to regulate VOIP, but it is being challenged before the Supreme Court. | OSIPTEL is reviewing regulatory options, but is unlikely to adopt any new regulations that would limit the abilities of operators to provide competition to Telefonica. | No |
| Categories | Republic of Cyprus | Czech Republic | European Union | France | Germany | Greece | Hungary | Ireland | Israel | Italy | Poland | Russia | Spain | Turkey | United Kingdom |
| Key Government Oversight Agencies | Ministry of Communications: Nicos Timotheou, General Manager, Cyprus Telecommunication Authority; Haris Thrasou, Minister; Department of Electronic Communications | Czech Telecommunication Office: David Stádník, President | European Commission Information Society Directorate: Fabio Colasanti, Director General | Telecommunications Regulation Authority (ART): Paul Champsaur, President | Regulierungsbehoerde für Telekommunikation und Post (RegTP): Matthias Kurth, President | National Telecommunications and Post Commission (EETT): Mr. Anastasios Nerantzis, Deputy Minister of Transport and Communications | Communications Authority (HIF) Ministry of IT and Telecommunications: Kovács Kálmán, Minister | Commission for Communications Regulation (ComReg): Commissioners: Isolde Goggin (Chairperson), John Doherty and Mike Byrne | Ministry of Communications (MOC): Ms. Dalia Itzik, Minister | Ministry of Communications: Mario Landolfi, Minister | Ministry of Infrastructure: Krzysztof Opawski, Minister of Infrastructure Office of Telecommunications and Post Regulations: Wojciech Hałka, Undersecretary of State for Telecommunications | State Committee of Russian Federation on Communications & Information (Goskomsvyaz): L.D. Reyman, Minister | Telecommunications Market Commission (CMT): Reinaldo Rodriguez Illera, Chairman | Telecommunications Authority (Telekomunikasyon Kurumu): Binali Yildirim, Minister of Transport and Communications | Office of Communications (OFCOM): Stephen Carter (Chairman) Chief Executive |
| Agency Links | http://www.mcw.gov.cy | http://www.ctupraha.cz | http://europa.eu.int/information_society | http://www.art-telecom.fr | http://www.regtp.de/ | http://www.eett.gr | http://www.hif.hu http://www.ihm.gov.hu | http://www.comreg.ie | http://www.moc.gov.il/new/english/ | http://www.comunicazioni.it/en | http://www.mi.gov.pl/en http://www.urtip.gov.pl | http://www.minsvyaz.ru | http://www.cmt.es | http://www.tk.gov.tr | http://www.ofcom.org.uk |
| Incumbent Operator(s) (PTT) | Cyprus Telecommunications Authority (CYTA) | Cesky Telecom | N/A | France Telecom | Deutsche Telekom | OTE | Matáv Hungarian Telecommunications Company | Eircom | Golden Lines, Barak, BEZEQ | Telecom Italia | Telekomunikacja Polska | Rostelecom | Telefónica de España, Telefónica Móviles España | Turk Telekom | British Telecom (BT) |
| Is There an Existing VoIP Law? | No | No | No | No | No, but VoIP is view by RegTP as a telecommunications service from the technical point of view. | No | Yes | Yes | No | No | No | No | No | No | No |
| General Characteristics of VoIP Law | N/A | Internet voice communication is, similarly to data communications via the Internet, subject to the GP-22 general license. | N/A | N/A | Tele-services are subject to the Teleservices Act, which does not require notification or licensing. Also, on August 19, 2004 RegTP announced the locality-based allocation of local network call numbers by providers of Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP). RegTP ruled that local network call numbers for Internet telephony offers may only be allocated to customers within their relevant local networks. RegTP is also examining the provision of a separate subrange for national subscriber numbers for VoIP services. | N/A | On July 28, 1999 the modification of the Telecommunications Law was enacted allowing the use of the Internet for telephony. According to the law, IP service providers are required to inform customers that IP based phone services provide less quality (e.g., longer than usual voice delays, interruptions of over one percent of call time) than traditional fixed line services. | In accordance with ComReg ruling 04/103 “VoIP services in Ireland: Numbering and related issues;" certain VoIP operators that qualify as Electronic Communication Services (ECS) but not as PATS may now also be eligible to receive numbers for their customers. | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Links to Regulations | N/A | N/A | http://europa.eu.int/information_society/topics/ecomm/doc/useful_information/library/commiss_serv_doc/406_14_voip_consult_paper_v2_1.pdf | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | http://www.comreg.ie/_fileupload/publications/ComReg0472.pdf http://www.comreg.ie/_fileupload/publications/ComReg04103.pdf | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/new_voice/anew_voice/?a=87101 |
| Is VOIP Allowed? | Yes | Yes; subject to the GP-22 general license. | Yes | Yes | Yes, subject to numbering restrictions. | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes, but only by the incument operator, Turk Telecom. | Yes |
| Who Can Provide VOIP? | Any provider without restriction | Service providers who obtain a GP-22 general license. | Any provider subject to member state regulations | Any operator without restriction. | Any operator subject to numbering restrictions. | Local ISPs may offer IP telephony services legally to closed user groups, a service otherwise known as “corporate voice.” | In the Hungarian Telecommunications Act VOIP services fall under the category of “other public utility telecommunications activities” and as such, providers do not require an operation permit in order to offer such services. | Any operator without restriction. | Any service provider with a license to provide telephony services. | Any service provider without restriction, but some providers are obtaining telecommunications operator licenses in anticipation of possible regulations. | Any service provider without restriction. The Polish government does not currently take any action against companies providing voice over the Internet services, but the government does consider VoIP to be a public service and potentially subject to regulation. | Any operator that can obtain a license from the government to offer VoIP services. | Any provider without restriction. | Only Turk Telecom can legally provide VoIP services. | Any operator without restrictions. |
| Active VOIP Proceeding? | No | No | June 14, 2004 the European Commission's Information Society Directorate-General released a Commission Staff Working Document on "The Treatment of Voice Over Internet Protocol (IP) Under the EU Regulatory Framework." The document explains the conditions that apply to different types of VoIP services and the degree to which a provider of these services will face obligations under the EU Regulatory Framework depending on the type of service offered. The consultation document discusses issues in relation to the provision of emergency services and calls on market players to work together to find solutions. The document further discusses the rights and obligations of Publicly Available Telephone Service (PATS) and the extent to which these rights and obligations may apply to certain types of VoIP services. The Consultation Document proposes, but does not mandate, that National Regulatory Authorities (NRAs) should provide a standardized declaration to PATS providers concerning the applicable conditions of the general authorization of the EU Regulatory Framework. | No | Yes | No | No | Yes; On June 17, 2004, the Commission for Communications Regulation (ComReg) issued a Consultation Paper on Numbering for VoIP Services. Responses were due July 30, 2004. The purpose was to address numbering for VoIP services, since "numbering is a key requirement to facilitate the launch of new services and to ensure interoperability with existing networks." However, ComReg also is using the Consultation Paper as a medium to open debate on VoIP in Ireland. | No | No | No | Yes; a Special Working Group created by the Russian Association for Networks and Services is drafting new regulations. | No | Yes; the Telecommunications Authority has drafted VOIP regulations, which must be approved by the Council of Ministers before they can take effect. | September 6, 2004 OFCOM released interim rules: "New Voice Services—A Consultation and Interim Guidance". The Consultation closed November 16, 2004. The interim rules do not require VoIP providers to offer access to emergency services, nor do they require the same level of emergency access available from providers of traditional telephone services, so long as users are adequately notified. Also. VoIP providers are allowed to assign telephone numbers from the same numbering ranges as providers of traditional telephone services. The rules do not create regulatory distinctions based on whether a particular VoIP service appears similar to traditional telephony, or whether the service is used as primary or secondary line and VoIP providers do not have to offer the same features as those available to users of traditional telephone services. |
| Categories | Australia | China | Hong Kong | India | Japan | Malaysia | Singapore | Taiwan |
| Key Government Oversight Agencies | Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC): Graeme Samuel, Chairman; Louise Sylvan, Deputy Chair; John Martin, Commissioner; Jennifer McNeill, Commissioner; Edward Willett, Commissioner; David Smith, Commissioner; Stephen King, Commissioner Department of Communication, Information Technology and the Arts: Senator the Hon Helen Coonan, Minister | Ministry of Information Industry: Wang Xudong, Minister | Office of the Telecommunications Authority (OFTA): Mr. M. H. Au, Director-General | Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI): Pradip Baijal, Chairperson; Dr. D.P.S. Seth, Member; P.K. Sarma, Member; Dr. Arvind Virmani, Part-Time Member, Prof. Sanjay Govind Dhande, Part-Time Member Ministry of Communications and Information Technology, Department of Telecommunications: Shri Dayanidhi Maran, Minister | Ministry of Public Management, Home Affairs, Posts and Telecommunications (MPHPT): Rep. Aso Taro, Minister; Rep. YamamotoY Koichi, Senior Vice-Minister for Internal Affairs and Communications | Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC): Dato' V. Danapalan, Chairman; Commissioners: Dato' Dr Gan Khuan Poh, Raja Datuk Arshad Raja Tun Uda, Datuk C. Rajandram, Tan Sri Kamarul Ariffin Yassin, Mr Baru Bian | Infocomm Development Authority of Singapore (IDA): Mr. Chan Yeng Kit, Chief Executive Officer | Directorate General of Telecommunications (DGT), Ministry of Transportation and Communications: Jen-Ter Chien, Director-General |
| Agency Links | http://www.accc.gov.au http://www.dcita.gov.au | http://www.mii.gov.cn | http://www.ofta.gov.hk/en/ | http://www.trai.gov.in http://www.dotindia.com | http://www.soumu.go.jp/joho_tsusin/eng/ | http://www.cmc.gov.my | http://www.ida.gov.sg/idaweb/marketing/index.jsp | http://www.dgt.gov.tw |
| Incumbent Operator(s) (PTT) | Telstra | China Mobile, China Netcom, China Railway, China Telecom, UNICOM, Ji Tong | Hongkong CSL, Hutchison Telephone Company | Department of Telecommunications, Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd (VSNL) | Nippon Telegraph and Telephone Corporation (NTT) | Telekom Malaysia Berhad (TM) | Singapore Telecommunications Ltd. (SingTel) | Chunghwa Telecom |
| Is There an Existing VoIP Law? | No; regulations are being developed. | No. | No | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| General Characteristics of VoIP Law | N/A | N/A | N/A | Since 2002 VOIP has been considered an application service and the technology may be employed by end users and service providers. PC-to-PC calls are allowed to both domestic and international destinations, but PC to telephone calls are only for domestic to international calls. Quality of Service (QoS) requirements also apply. | N/A | The Communications and Multimedia Act of 1998 requires VOIP service providers to obtain an Application Service Provider (ASP) Individual license for the provision of VOIP services. | Under the Communications and Multimedia Act of 1998, VOIP service providers need an Application Service Provider (ASP) Individual license for the provision of VOIP service. Existing telecommunications operators are allowed to provide VOIP services under the license they were issued under the repealed Telecommunications Act of 1950. | Taiwan’s 1997 Type II Services Administrative Rules were amended to include VOIP service in mid-2001. Type II Serves are categorized as either General or Special services. A Special Type II license requires a network inspection process that is not required for General Type II license. VOIP is a Special Type II service. |
| Links to Regulations | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Is VOIP Allowed? | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Who Can Provide VOIP? | There are currently no restrictions. There are several ISPs offering IP telephony services through calling card and pc-to-phone services and most major telecoms carriers are developing and providing VoIP, including Telstra. | There are currently no restrictions. All major operators and many other companies offer phone-to-phone VoIP service in the form of subscription and calling cards, where users dial an access code before the called number. | There currently are no restrictions on providers, but this will change when the new regulations take effect. | Licensed service providers. | There are no policies or regulations that apply specifically to the application of IP telephony or VOIP; there are several companies currently providing services. | Existing telecommunications operators are allowed to provide VOIP services under the license they were issued under the repealed Telecommunications Act of 1950. | There are currently no restrictions on VoIP providers. | Providers must obtain a Special Type II service license by submitting an application and business plan to DGT. |
| Active VOIP Proceeding? | The Australian Communications Authority (ACA) is reviewing telecommunications regulations pertaining to VoIP. The ACA has called for industry and public comment on the issues raised in its discussion paper, Regulatory Issues Associated with Provision of Voice Services Using Internet Protocol in Australia, released in October 2004. Comments were due December 31, 2004. | No; the Ministry of Information Industry (MII) has not come out with an official definition for the service. | Yes; On October 4, 2004 the Office of the Telecommunications Authority (OFTA) released a Consultation Paper on "Regulation on Internet Protocol (IP) Telephony. Comments were due by December 4, 2004. In its consultation, OFTA is of the preliminary view that "the minimum and proportionate level of regulation should be applied to IP Telephony subject to preserving the achievement of certain social objectives." The consultation also suggests that it may be necessary for VoIP services that provide substitute services for the public telephone services to meet certain minimum conditions for connectivity, emergency services, and number portability. | No | No | No | Singapore has an open public consultation concerning the policy framework for IP telephony and electronic numbering. Positive aspects of the consultation include: a general approach by IDA to impose regulations only to the extent necessary to address economic, social/public and regulatory concerns. | No |