Numbering policies and regulations were developed to address voice telephony services. As a result, numbering plans established different ranges for voice services and within fixed telephony, numbering was divided into geographic areas. This differentiation had a twofold function of informing end users of the charges of the calls and maintaining the interconnection cost structure based on services (i.e., mobile voice service vis-à-vis fixed voice service) and distance. Since this allowed subscribers to be reached by a unique combination of digits, numbering became an essential resource for telecommunications networks operators. However, with the advent of convergence, regulators are finding that modifications to such policies and regulations are necessary.
(a) Assignment of Numbering Resources to New Technologies Service Operators
One of the significant impacts on numbering regulation relates to the proliferation of VoIP services. This has raised questions among regulators as to whether numbering resources should be assigned for VoIP and whether traditional telephone service operator obligations should be imposed on VoIP providers. Regulators have adopted a variety of solutions. For example, in some jurisdictions, providers are allowed to use geographic numbers provided they offer service under the traditional voice service regime, which imposes various obligations (e.g., quality of service, access to emergency services, and lawful interception). In addition, countries such as Singapore, Japan, South Korea and some EU Member states (e.g., Ireland, France, Germany, and Austria), have created a specific numbering range for VoIP services, due to the special characteristics of the service, most notably its nomadic use.
Some countries, such as Japan, Spain, and the United Kingdom, have combined both measures, and grant geographic numbers to VoIP providers if they operate under the voice service regime (i.e., voice quality of service, lawful interception obligations, access to emergency services), and specific number ranges if VoIP providers operate under the “information service” regime. The implementation of this differentiation has the additional intention of highlighting to consumers that these services are not equal and that VoIP specific range service providers do not necessarily provide the same set of features commonly associated with public voice service.
(b) Inter-modal Portability
A second modification on numbering regulation has been the introduction of inter-modality portability. Number portability is the ability of a consumer to maintain the same telephone number when changing service providers. Number portability may be inter-modal (e.g., porting a number from a fixed to a mobile network or vice versa) or restricted to one type of network. The United States has included a geographically restricted inter-modal portability, meaning that a consumer may port among different types of networks within a limited geographical area. In Argentina, the telecommunications law allows inter-modal portability to be implemented by the regulator although it has not been adopted yet. Hong Kong (SAR) is currently discussing whether to introduce inter-modality portability to address fixed to mobile convergence.1 However, there are signs that number portability could potentially be expanded to other services, such as VoIP. In Denmark, the regulator has implemented a non-geographic numbering plan (i.e., a consumer may be reached at a telephone number that does not correspond to its geographical location) where numbers are not attached to a specific service, and consequently, there are no portability restrictions among services.2
However, the implementation of inter-modal portability is currently limited to few jurisdictions. Geographical restrictions on inter-modal portability often respond to the potential effects on traditional numbering plans that are based on distance, services, and interconnection cost structures and for this reason, inter-modality portability may require a numbering policy restructure to be implemented.
(c) ENUM
ENUM is an international initiative on electronic numbering, a protocol that converts a telephone number of the public telephone network (“PSTN”) into an IP address.3 The ENUM initiative has established the possibility of introducing a fully neutral approach to numbering, simplifying numbering regulations and addressing complexities resulting from convergence. Essentially, by translating a PSTN number to an IP address, ENUM would make it easier to contact people through electronic means (e.g., linking users’ email, telephone number, fax and instant messenger address allowing them to be reached by any of these means through a single number). ENUM developments may potentially define the future direction of numbering policies. In addition, ENUM may address some of the transparency concerns with VoIP, due to the mapping of PSTN numbers to “uniform resource locators” (URLs). ITU-T Study Group 2 and the Internet Architecture Board are working together in the implementation of ENUM. An interim procedure to administer the delegation of ENUM resources has been approved by the ITU-T Study Group 24 and several countries including Australia, China, France, Japan, Republic of Korea, and Sweden, have started ENUM trials.5
(d) Domain Names
As numbering policies continue to be influenced by the development of IP networks, the management of country-code top-level Internet domain names (“ccTLDs”) has become another regulatory issue. Several countries have given their telecommunications regulators the responsibility to manage ccTLDs,6 yet some regulators may not have the necessary resources to take on this task. Although regulators maintain the control and legal responsibilities, they may rely on others for the domain names management including other government agencies, private companies, academic institutions and non-profit organizations.7 Furthermore, some governments have even commercialized the ccTLDs that correspond to their jurisdictions in order to obtain an additional source of revenues.8
ENDNOTES
1 OFTA, Licensing Framework for Deployment of Broadband Wireless Access: Analysis of Comments Received, Preliminary Conclusions and Further Consultation, 31 August 2005, available at http://www.ofta.gov.hk/en/report-paper-guide/paper/consultation/20050831.pdf.
2 ITST, Guide to the Danish Numbering Plan, July 2003, at http://www.itst.dk/image.asp?page=image&objno=143612075.
3 ENUM resulted from the work of the ITU’s Internet Engineering Task Force’s (IETF’s) Telephone Number Mapping working group. The working group was assigned with the task of defining a Domain Name System (DNS)-based architecture and protocols to map a PSTN telephone number to a Uniform Resource Locator (URL) through which a recipient could be contacted. For further details, see ITU-T Resolution 49, available at http://www.internet.org.za/telecoms_act.html#Under-serviced_area_licence.
4 See http://itu.int/ITU-T/inr/enum/procedures.html and http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/inr/enum/procedures-02.html.
5 See http://www.itu.int/osg/spu/presentations/2004/enum-country-experiences-ftra-uganda-rs.pdf. For an example of an ENUM trial, see also http://www.enum.org/.
6 For instance, in Mauritius, The Information and Communications Technologies Act 2001 assigns the domain name administration to the regulator, ICTA.
7 Prof. Michael A. Geist, University of Ottawa Law School, ccTLD Governance Project, at http://www.itu.int/itudoc/itu-t/workshop/cctld/cctld006.html.
8 For instance, Tuvalu has leased its .tv ccTLD to a private company.