Let them pay an entry fee and acquire a UAS licence first

Font Size

Print

Feedback

Email

Discuss

Related Articles

Web addresses to get more leewayYahoo board to discuss Microsoft offerFoundation behind Wikipedia hires a felon as COOMicrosoft, Google, Yahoo to settle gambling claims

: Internet service providers (ISPs) should not be permitted to provide internet telephony services to PSTN/PLMN within India. In case they are allowed to do so, they must pay the entry fee, licence fee and other taxes and levies. They must also acquire a unified access service licence (UASL).

Due to the lack of clarity on various ambiguities—numbering, routing, security, carriage charges, etc—internet telephony could not take off. Now, these aspects must be taken care for internet telephony to succeed through the UAS licensees.

Allowing the ISPs to provide internet telephony to PSTN/PLMN in India will require foremost to create a level playing field with UASLs, besides ensuring lawful interception and monitoring to meet the country’s strategic and security requirement.

We need to apply the same entry fee and regulatory norms as for UASL, to the ISPs or any other licensee, if they are permitted to provide voice telephony within the country. ISP licensees may be permitted to provide internet telephony (restricted/unrestricted) on the payment of requisite entry fee, matching those paid by the UASLs for different circles and complying with other terms and conditions of UASLs licences. This is to ensure a level playing field among UAS licensees. The need of the hour is to have a regulatory framework that fosters innovation, investment and affordable access with a level playing field.

The telecom regulator’s recommendations to remove the restrictions on the use of end device would bring ISPs on the same footing as UASL licensees, especially regarding voice services without paying the required fees. Therefore, we are of the view that unrestricted internet telephony be made only through a unified access licence. Internet, whether provided by UASL/CMTS/ISPs, should not attract revenue share.

I feel the existing ISPs, who intend to offer internet telephony, should be allowed to migrate to UASL. Other class of ISPs, who do not want to offer internet telephony and other value added services like IP/MPLS/VPN, may continue as per existing arrangements.

Also, interconnection should be considered only after the ISPs are brought under the UASL licensing regime. This would ensure a level paying field. Interconnection and carriage charges are likely to play an important role in the success of internet telephony access to PSTN/PLMN within the country. One of the options is to grant a UAS licence to ISPs by charging an additional entry fee and migrate them to UAS licence.

The use of advanced encoding and encryption techniques by internet telephony providers should not be a reason for not installing surveillance capabilities into their networks. All access providers and other internet telephony service providers should be subject to equal obligation for implementation of lawful interception and monitoring arrangements.

ISPs should only be allowed to provide unrestricted internet telephony services if they pay the entry fee, licence fee and other regulatory levies, along with the taxes and levies and also acquire a UAS licence. They must follow clear regulatory and licensing policies to address critical issues like security and monitoring of contents. Also, quality of service (QoS) parameters must be adhered to.