UKCTA Response to

The Regulation of VOiP

Services: Access to the
Emergency Services

Version: Final

Date: 24th September 2007

Introduction
UKCTA welcomes the opportunity to respond to the consultation concerning
regulation of VoIP services: Access to the Emergency Services.
UKCTA is a trade association promoting the interests of competitive fixed-line
telecommunications companies competing against BT, as well as each other, in the
UKs residential and business markets.
Summary
UKCTA is generally supportive of Ofcoms proposal to require all VoIP services that
allow calls to traditional fixed and mobile phones to permit calls to 999. It is a
concern that it is only 18 months since Ofcoms decision to permit communications
providers to choose whether or not to provide 999 access. UKCTA looks forward to
the implementation of a more stable policy regime following this consultation.
UKCTA believes that the compliance time-table is too short and that a number of
considerations need to be taken into account prior to implementation:

ensure that the regulations apply to all providers of VoIP services which are
available to UK customers.
Consultation with parties managing the Emergency database.
Time it takes for SLAs to be negotiated with underlying access provider.
Time taken for communications providers to conduct formal risk assessments
The planned revision of the General Conditions
Time to updated management information systems and network call routing

UKCTA has some concerns regarding Ofcoms interpretation of the current

obligations relating to the provision of access to emergency services and also the
extent and effect of the proposed changes to General Condition 4.
At paragraph 4.2 Ofcom states that VoIP is currently the only public voice service
that is not required to ensure 999 access in the UK. However, that misinterprets the
current obligations. Providing access to emergency services is not an obligation but
rather a choice which, coupled with other service features, can result in the
application of additional obligations under the General Conditions. Those who
provide public voice call services are only required to ensure access to emergency
services under General Condition 4 if they have chosen to provide emergency
services and also meet the rest of the PATS gating criteria.
Regulation of VoIP Services: Access to the
Emergency Services: Response
UKCTA

As a result, Ofcoms proposed amendment to General Condition 4 goes beyond that

described in paragraph 1.17 as extending the obligation to allow 999 calls to all type
2 and type 4 VoIP services. We believe that Ofcom more accurately describes the
intention of the proposed amendment to General Condition 4, where reference is
made to extending the application of General Condition 4 to PECS that allow calls to
be made to ordinary numbers, instead of PATS only. 1
Consequently, Ofcoms proposed amendment potentially extends obligations rather
further than the consultation would at first glance suggest. UKCTA would urge
Ofcom to clarify the extent of the obligation being imposed. In particular it is not
clear whether the intention is to extend the obligation to a particular class of
communications providers or to extend it to services of a particular description the
options for the application of General Conditions as specified in section 46(2) of the
Communications Act.
This is particularly important in understanding which
obligations will apply to individual communications providers as a result of the
proposed amendment.
UKCTA has based the remainder of this response on the questions posed by Ofcom
in the consultation document.
Q.1 Do you consider Ofcom should consider any other policy options? Please
describe your proposed option(s) and explain what you consider would be the
advantages and any disadvantages.
UKCTA members agree with Ofcom's analysis that Voice over IP (VoIP) services are
growing rapidly and are generally of interest to consumers. In the light of this
continuing growth of VoIP services it is important that customers understand clearly
what telephone services associated with traditional telephony are available on the
new services.
We agree that the two main options are as laid out by Ofcom i.e. either to allow
service providers to offer 999 services if they wish or to mandate that all service
providers of VoIP services offer 999 services where customers can call PSTN
numbers (Type 2 and Type 4 in Ofcom's terminology). However, we do query
whether Ofcom has fully considered the different range of services that seem to fall
under Type 2 (and therefore Option 2). This is particularly so when considering
Type 2 services that are limited in scope to VOIP outbound particularly when applied
in a business setting. The setting of regulatory obligations must be balanced against
the many business type applications and benefits VoIP out can bring to the market.
Some Type 2 services are a limited VoIP outbound service which does not seek to
replicate the wider range of voice service that customers generally know and
understand. At this stage we urge Ofcom to consider the treatment of certain Type
2 services (as outlined under Option 2) at this stage of VoIP development. UKCTA is
keen to seek Ofcoms views.
1

Consultation paragraphs 4.15 and 5.2

Regulation of VoIP Services: Access to the
Emergency Services: Response
UKCTA

VoIP outbound, and specifically some Type 2, is often a limited voice service used in
a business setting. It does not offer the fuller range of voice services as Type 4,
which has potential to have the look and feel of existing voice PSTN services that
consumers are familiar with. These Type 2 calls are increasingly used in the
business environment, improving business efficiency and reducing costs. For
example VoIP outbound may be efficiently utilised in the scale environment of a call
centre 2 , or for all internal communications. These are just a few examples where
increased regulation (by the application of emergency calls access), if applied will
limit the innovation and usability of new voice services in the business environment.
Limited VoIP outbound is utilised and applied in a range of services that do require
additional regulation to. We request that Ofcom considers the full impact from the
inclusion of limited VoIP outbound/Type 2 under Option 2 at this time.

Whichever option is chosen, (see UKCTAs views on the options below), it will be
important to ensure that the regulations apply to all providers of VoIP services
available to UK customers. In the UK this will apply through General Conditions, but
we are concerned about the regulations that will apply to those service providers
who are providing services either elsewhere in the European Union or anywhere else
in the world. Customers can not be expected to know exactly where the service
provider is based and the services which will or will not be available as a result.
Ofcom should provide non-binding guidance on how it will ensure the regulations are
met by all providers.
Q.2 Do you have any comments on Ofcoms evaluation of policy Option 1,
which is to not require VoIP services to allow 999 calls?
Ofcom appear to have conducted a thorough consumer focused policy evaluation
with respect to Option 1.
UKCTA deem it important that Ofcom consider the roll of European harmonised
numbering 112 services in addition to the nationally recognised 999 Emergency
access number. The EU Commission has also recently mandated a 116XXX range
which may also create difficulty for communications providers entering the market.
Regulatory policy should be precise in respect of must carry obligations particularly
with regard to Lifeline telephony or safety of life (as previously described in the
old Network Integrity Guidelines) and any overheads that may follow from such
obligations. The outcome of this consultation should consider any known future
services.

Within a call centre, VOIP out is utilised by an employer for employees to e.g. make its outbound calls for a
particular campaign. The CPE equipment or more often a PC has a list of pre-configured numbers for the
campaign that are the target numbers. The employee uses this PC and pre-configured list of numbers to make the
outbound calls for the campaign. The employee is not able to call any other numbers than those pre-configured.
The CPE/PC limits the employee to only performing the role they are employed to do. The technology used is
Type 2.
Regulation of VoIP Services: Access to the
Emergency Services: Response
UKCTA

Q.3 Do you consider Ofcom should adopt policy Option 1? Please give your
reasons.
UKCTA considers that the adoption of Option 1 would mark a failure by Ofcom to
address consumer confusion and the low take up of the existing voluntary 999
access services. In addition Option 1 would not be in line with national regulations in
other EU Member States.
Q.4 Do you have any comments on Ofcoms evaluation of policy Option 2,
which is to require VoIP services that allow calls out to ordinary numbers to
allow 999 calls?
Ofcom appear to have conducted a thorough consumer focused policy evaluation
with respect to Option 2.
Q.5 Do you consider Ofcom should adopt policy Option 2? Please give your
reasons.
UKCTA consider adoption of policy Option 2 as being in-line with national regulations
in other EU member states e.g., Austria, France and Germany. Ofcom should
consider the role of 112 and 116XXX codes in deliberations and allow
communications providers both PSTN, IP and Wireless ample time and opportunity
to either adapt existing PECS/Non-PATS services or remove such service offerings
entirely from product portfolios. The ERG working group on Emergency access and
VoIP harmonisation is likely to arrive at a similar conclusion to RTR, BNetzA, and
ARCEP etc.
The UKCTA answer to Question 6 deals in detail with technology limitations as
discussed and studied through the UK NICC. A level of logical compliance
forbearance may be required to establish fully enabled and integrated Option 2
services. Ofcom will also need to consider the many and varied legal contracts and
contractual terms which communications providers are operating under. A 3 months
compliance period is hardly a reasonable, proportionate or an adequate timeframe in
which to amend, vary or suspend consumer offerings with respect to the terms and
conditions of service and to conduct formal risk assessments. A period of 18 months
would be more appropriate in properly handling aspects of contractual compliance
terms (See BNetzA approach).

Q.6 Ofcom invites information on (a) the current means, future possibilities
and limitations for providing caller location information; (b) how long it is
likely to take a VoIP provider to meet current requirements on caller location
information, in the event that Option 2 is adopted.
As Ofcom is aware, there is an NICC working group looking at the issues of caller
location information. At present, there appears to be no robust technical approach to
Regulation of VoIP Services: Access to the
Emergency Services: Response
UKCTA

providing location information in real time. NICC is currently looking at "90%"

solutions - ones that will return the correct location in many circumstances but will
return no result or a wrong result in other situations.
UKCTA members do not believe these 90% solutions will be available within the
next two years. They require NICC standards (albeit based on IETF standards) to be
completed and ratified, and then an infrastructure to be put in place. In turn, this
infrastructure requires the involvement of dozens or even hundreds of ISPs, many of
who will have no financial or regulatory incentive to co-operate. Even when these
solutions are complete and put in place, they will not address the remaining 10% of
situations for which we are not aware of any practical solutions to these. UKCTA
does not believe that the approaches mentioned in paragraphs A5.84 to A5.88 of the
Guidelines (quoted in paragraph 5.8 of the consultation document) are practical.
This leaves the option of user-provided information, where customers provide
address details, perhaps using a web form, that are then forwarded to the
emergency services (see A5.83 of the Guidelines). Where this arrangement is in
place, it is of course vitally important that the emergency services operator is aware
of the provenance of this data so that they can confirm the address with the caller.
For this solution, an operator will need to set up a method for their customers to
provide up-to-date details and make arrangements for this data to be transferred to
the emergency services' databases. We believe that they could reasonably be
expected to do this within 6 months. However we do raise one caveat to this: the
effects of the proposed change will be to place this obligation simultaneously on a
large number of relatively small communications providers. Setting up arrangements
with the emergency services' database could easily be a bottleneck, and Ofcom
should consult with parties managing this database before setting any deadline for
compliance.

Q.7 Ofcom invites information on (a) the current means, future possibilities
and limitations for providing network integrity and service reliability; (b) how
long it is likely to take a VoIP provider to meet current requirements on network
integrity and service reliability, in the event that Option 2 is adopted.
Current concerns regarding network integrity and service reliability are intrinsically
linked to the adoption of IP networks in place of and in complement to TDM
networks. This is not just relevant to access networks but to backhaul and core
networks as well. IP is a disruptive technology effectively making long-established
ways of working less relevant in next generation networks - as evidenced by the
need to remove the "Network Integrity Guidelines".
During this period of uncertainty Communications Providers will find it difficult to
know exactly what is required to meet their compliance obligations. Providers are no
longer able to benchmark terms like "reasonable practical steps to the greatest
extent possible" to accepted common practice, at least in the short term. Whilst it is
important that obligations are not overly prescriptive and remain technically-neutral, it
Regulation of VoIP Services: Access to the
Emergency Services: Response
UKCTA

is equally important that there is a continued public discourse on potential solutions

to meeting compliance requirements.
UKCTA notes Ofcom's intention "to discuss the implications of possible difference in
999 service quality between VoIP services and PSTN services" (Para 5.17) but with
the growth of NGNs it is not even clear what is meant by "PSTN" anymore. For
example, it is entirely possible that BTs 21CN topology will have different resilience
and quality levels than a traditional TDM network. Furthermore, unbundlers seeking
to offer type 4 services would like to see better reliability, resilience and fault
resolution in backhaul products such as BES and 21CN successor products.
The length of time it takes a VoIP provider to meet current requirements on network
integrity and service reliability is dependent on what, if any, steps that provider thinks
are necessary., Ofcom has indicated that it expects communications providers, in
meeting their GC3 compliance obligations, to conduct a formal risk assessment. 3
months is too short for those providers who, as a result of mandatory 999 access,
are required to conduct such an assessment. Additional tasks, such as establishing
SLAs with each underlying broadband access supplier to a VoIP service, could take
a considerable amount of time as well.

Q.8 Do you have any comments on complying with the other PATS General
Conditions, in the event that Option 2 is adopted?
UKCTA is aware of an Ofcom work programme reviewing the General Conditions of
Entitlement, in particular the consumer conditions. To minimise the risk of delayed
or confused implementation it would appear sensible that the new VoIP regulations
and possible additional changes to the General Conditions of Entitlement be
implemented in parallel. This could reduce the burden of regulation, simplify
implementation and reduce potential for consumer confusion.

Q.9 Referring to the full Impact Assessment in Annex 5, do you agree with
Ofcoms approach to assessing the potential costs and benefits of policy
Options 1 and 2?
The impact assessment is intended to inform two key aspects of this regulatory
proposal. These two key aspects are:
1.
Do the overall costs of Option 2 to the UK economically outweigh the overall
benefits to the UK from Option 2?
2
Does the implementation of Option 2 potentially distort the competitive
market in VoIP in a detrimental way?
Key Aspect 1:

Regulation of VoIP Services: Access to the

Emergency Services: Response
UKCTA

The impact assessment draws information from a survey of VoIP providers by

Intercai and seeks to make a series of judgements that average the findings and
estimate an overall cost impact to the UK industry. UKCTA members have not been
given access to the Intercai survey source data and so cannot comment on the
accuracy of the impact assessment.
The survey information is then used in a series of calculations which seeks to
average out the spread of cost information and then use those averages to draw
conclusions. We appreciate that there has clearly been an effort to ensure that the
outcome represents the range of possible outcomes however the use of an average
assumes that the technical and market conditions remain average. To properly
represent the cost to the UK industry a set of different scenarios should be
developed that show the range of outcomes and their probability e.g. NPV should be
shown across a range of possible inflation rates.
This is particularly true with the following key areas:
1.
Provision of location information where no clear technical solution has been
standardised
2.
GC 3 maintenance of network availability where a wide variation exists
between different suppliers for cost, risks and solutions
3.
GC5 emergency planning where for some types of communications
providers it results in very uncertain costs.
The range of cost results provided by the survey information is very large with other
areas with unusual results typically being discarded. Whilst this is good practice in
creating an average it is not good practice in assessing the range of possible
outcomes as these unusual results often represent the evidence of how great the
impact can be in a set of circumstances other than the average.
UKCTA would therefore ask that the analysis be carried out showing the range of
cost outcomes and include the analysis and identification of the key factors that
could influence which outcome results. This should then lead to a probability factor
being given to each outcome. This would not only allow a more accurate
understanding of the cost/benefit picture but would also allow industry and regulator
to define appropriate measures to deal with risk factors that lead to high cost
outcomes.
A similar approach should be considered for the benefit analysis but on the face of it
the statistical data here appears to have relatively low deviations and that the high
sample size suggests that the outcome may be fairly represented by averages.
However again this is in the absence of the source data and UKCTA would ask that
Ofcom review the data to verify that these assumptions are valid. Clearly there are
statistical risks of unusual emergency events with high levels of loss of life e.g. a
plane crash which should be considered in this assessment of validity.

Regulation of VoIP Services: Access to the

Emergency Services: Response
UKCTA

UKCTA does however accept the point in 5.12 that 999 access is highly socially
desirable and we are generally agreed that a wide provision should exist. However
UKCTA is pleased that Ofcom have understood that the social desirability aspects
should not override the need to properly assess the costs vs. benefits in the
particular approach to regulating this.
Key Aspect 2:
We do not believe that Ofcom has properly sought to address this in its analysis and
the current Annex 5 does not clearly draw out the variation of impact on different
market players. This is a serious omission as it is most likely to favour the most
established communications providers, who already act under the 999 obligations
and are therefore at some advantage in taking this on to the VoIP services. This
effect is extended even further with the intention to consider Type 4 VoIP services to
be in almost all cases a PATS service. The impact on various types of
communications provider should be considered, including cost scenario assumptions
based on technical and market risks. This would enable Ofcom to gain a more
informed understanding of the competitive distortion that may result. This
competitive distortion is particularly likely in respect of the areas of location
information, (GC3 and GC5), as pointed out earlier because these are already
showing high variation of cost data.
We do not necessarily believe that the distortion would in itself change the decision
to mandate Option 2 but we do believe that it would inform OFCOM and industry
allowing any regulation to be framed so as to address the distortion.
Q.10 Do you agree that 3 months would be a suitable compliance period,
taking into account the steps VoIP providers would have to take to comply
with the modification to General Condition 4 and any additional General
Conditions and the need to reduce the risk of harm to consumers and
citizens? Please give detailed calculations and reasoning to support your
response.
UKCTA do not agree with Ofcom on a 3 month compliance period. While mitigation
of risk is a proportionate and responsible concern, any modification to General
Condition 4 should also fully consider Ofcoms role as Regulator, Competition Policy
facilitator and Consumer protector. The consultation does not really go far enough in
exploring the real impacts to competition and regulation at the Wholesale and
Consumer level. A 3 month period is wholly out of line with any lead time to
implement management information systems MIS, or network routing capabilities
even in their most basic forms.
UKCTA would like to highlight BNetzA treatment of this matter which has allowed full
compliance forbearance until 2009. The German market estimate provides a more
realistic evaluation of the issues that may be encountered in modifying both Products
and systems. In the intervening period communications providers are treating Type 2
as PATS. UKCTA consider Section 6 of the consultation document extemporaneous
Regulation of VoIP Services: Access to the
Emergency Services: Response
UKCTA

10

and therefore stale in respect of the market since the study was carried out on the
back of the last New Voice Services Consultation.
Furthermore, in our answer to question 6 we highlighted that setting up
arrangements with the emergency services' database could easily be a bottleneck,
and Ofcom should consult with parties managing this database before setting any
deadline for compliance. We would therefore urge Ofcom to do so and before
setting a hard and fast deadline for compliance
Additionally, UKCTA questions the technical ability of all VoIP type 2 and 4 services
to comply with GC 15 special measures for end-users with disabilities in as much
as not all variants of the currently available text relay services will operate across the
various service delivery mechanisms. UKCTA believes that it would take
considerably longer than 3 months for inter-party technical standards to be agreed
and implemented across the VoIP community. UKCTA therefore urges Ofcom to
hold an urgent meeting with all relevant parties to ascertain the resolution of this
issue prior to setting any compliance deadline.

Q.11 Do you have any comments on Ofcoms proposed approach to

monitoring, review and enforcement?
UKCTA welcomes Ofcom's intention to continue to monitor and research
developments in VoIP services and technology. The key concern is that, because it
is not possible to be prescriptive on how VoIP providers meet their compliance
obligations, there remains a degree of subjectivity in assessing whether these have
been met. This task is made more difficult as the technology is relatively new (or
being used in a new way) and principles of best practice have not been established.
Practically, VoIP providers require continued, non-binding guidance in this area prior
and any enforcement regime needs to be cognisant of the nascent nature of VoIP in
this regard.

Regulation of VoIP Services: Access to the

Emergency Services: Response
UKCTA