Voice calls and text messages alone do not need IP, but when other interactive applications are used, the case for using IP is clear. Even then, VoIP is likely to be the most popular broadband application for many beneficiaries of universal access and service (UAS). Surveys in The Economic Impact of Telecommunications on Rural Livelihoods and Poverty Reduction show how important voice calls and text messages are in poorer countries, compared with other uses of ICTs. However, providing VoIP in public access points (e.g., cyber cafés) might encourage people in these communities to try out other IP applications.
Voice over the Internet (VoIP) takes various forms. One widespread distinction is between VoIP that uses managed IP networks (such as corporate networks and NGNs) and VoIP that uses the Internet (which is sometimes termed “voice over the Internet”). VoIP that uses the Internet does not have quality of service guarantees: calls may fail to be set up, become unusable or be dropped. Service quality guarantees are particularly significant when traffic is growing more rapidly than network capacity.
VoIP is cheap, so it is popular despite limitations in the UAS obligations that it can satisfy. These limitations typically relate to emergencies: as outlined in Module 7 Section 4.4, many VoIP implementations do not work when the main electricity supply fails, do not connect emergency calls or do not automatically pass location information to emergency services.
From the perspective of general quality of service as well as UAS, these limitations are serious in areas where users have expectations formed by fixed wireline networks. They are less serious, however, where users have expectations formed by mobile networks which often have similar limitations, or where emergency services are unable to respond rapidly for other reasons. Regulators need to protect users by ensuring that any serious limitations have sound economic or technical justifications and are explained carefully to users.
VoIP for peer-to-peer calls between computers is likely to spread without any intervention by regulators beyond making it legal. Calls based on IP that access the public telephone network can be encouraged by making phone number allocations technology-neutral and service-neutral and by giving VoIP providers the right to negotiate interconnection agreements with other telephone network operators. There is a discussion of VoIP regulation in Module 2 Section 4.4.
Regulators can support the use of VoIP in UAS in other ways provided they are convinced that the promotion of VoIP actually contributes to the policy objectives. In particular, they could allocate UASF finance to enhanced network capabilities including VoIP exchange points, which move VoIP traffic between networks, and ENUM (Electronic Numbering Mapping) systems (which map phone numbers into information for use in VoIP routing). VoIP exchange points and ENUM systems are best supported by regulators in ways like those described for Internet eXchange Points (IXPs) in Module 2 Section 4.8. Regulators should encourage VoIP providers to co-operate in developing such network capabilities. However, they should not impose particular implementations and might not need to provide funds. For instance, they should not require the use of ENUM systems as these are not necessarily the best way of mapping phone numbers into routing information.