Cisco has written that its appeal:
is about one thing only: securing standards-based interoperability in the video calling space. Our goal is to make video calling as easy and seamless as email is today. Making a video-to-video call should be as easy as dialing a phone number. Today, however, you can’t make seamless video calls from one platform to another, much to the frustration of consumers and business users alike.
Cisco believes that the right approach for the industry is to rally around open standards. We believe standards-based interoperability will accelerate innovation, create economic value, and increase choice for users of video communications, entertainment, and services.
This is of particular interest to me, as, currently, it does not seem clear that telecoms regulation in the EU relates to over the top services.
The definition of "electronic communications services" in directive 2002/21/EC is a service "which consists wholly or mainly in the conveyance of signals on electronic communications networks," and "electronic communications networks" is defined as "transmission systems and, where applicable, switching or routing
equipment and other resources which permit the conveyance of signals." Whilst the definition goes on to talk about circuit- and packet-switched networks, it seems to be that this relates more to GPRS/UMTS than to services which are carried over the top of such networks, such as Skype traffic. (c.f. s3.19 of Ofcom's statement on the regulation of VOIP services and access to emergency services, although even this may be encompassing more than the wording of the directive permits, in my opinion.)
It is likely that my first theme report is going to focus on the extent to which regulatory principles should apply to over the top services, but, irrespective of telecommunications law, it seems that Cisco has a reasonable complaint here, based on competition law. However, it would be highly desirable for interconnection obligations and the like to apply to over the top services, irrespective of PSTN breakout, from a consumer point of view. It is likely, however, to be far less attractive to providers of such services, where access to the service is a "stickiness" factor for the product — the ability to use FaceTime, for example, is dependent (currently) on the purchase of Apple hardware.
What do you think? Is Cisco right to make this challenge? Should regulatory principles apply to over the top services?
Hello Neil,
ReplyDeleteThis issue also drew my attention in the news.
It is true, having open standards allows fare competition in this case and also benefits the end users by giving them more choice.
As I am still in early stages in learning about the law, I am not sure if regulation can enforce standardisation of features, services and others, where standards are mainly business driven.
The directive you mentioned 2002/21/EC, does recommend using open APIs, in the context of Television and radio service (radio service is not defined in the directive?!).
"application program interface (API). means the software interfaces between applications, made available by broadcasters or service providers, and the resources in the enhanced digital television equipment for digital television
and radio services. "
The directive also talks about the internet as: electronic communications network [fixed (circuit- and packet-switched, including Internet)]… and Skype is an application which runs over the internet.
The common standards for internet video telephony, if the market pushes for it, would be optionally achieved by having a standardised API for example (other technical approaches and solutions are also possible). But it seems this is not covered in this directive (if it ever needs to be a subject for law enforcement).
OMA do cover international standardisation domain for standardised APIs working closely with other standardisation bodies as 3GPP, ETSI, IETF,..etc.
OMA: http://www.openmobilealliance.org/
I think there are two sorts of standards - or at least people tend to use the word standard in 2 contexts. You might say that Microsoft Windows is a standard but it remains very much the property of Microsoft - although competition law may constrain their use of it in the market place.
ReplyDeleteWe also have 'official' standards promulgated by bodies such as the ISO and ETSI. It is their practice when considering incorporation proprietary material in a standard to seek an undertaking that the IPR owner will licence its use to any other party.
ReplyDeleteSkype is an application which runs over the internet
Absolutely — but the relationship between over-the-top services and the regulatory framework is (at least to me) not as clear as it might be!
In terms of "official" standards — far more your expertise than mine — I don't believe that, in general, a party is obliged to comply with these standards by law? I could, if I wanted to do so, build a product which does not adhere to the standards and release it to the market place?
If I am a sufficiently powerful regulated operator, I could be required to provide for interconnection and the like, but I don't think there's a general obligation to build in accordance with current standards, although I may well be mistaken!
You are quite correct Neil in saying that standards are generally advisory. The legal status of bodies such as the British Standards Institute and the International Standards Organisation is limited. Things tend to be a bit more formal within the EU where it is quite common for Directives to make reference to specific standards and require compliance.
ReplyDeleteAgree that there is no obligation to comply with standards in general with the exception of regulatory requirements that are implemented in the standards. For example compliance to emergency standards solutions in the 3GPP Mobile telecommunication systems is required allowing different terminals from different vendors to use the networks they are roaming in.
ReplyDeleteFor the interconnect, there are also regulation requirements to provide for example the right quality of service, charging information and others... not sure if it was EU wide... however I noticed that the German operators were working hard on it and they mentioned that it is required by their local regulator.
Regulation requirements are submitted either through the operators or by receiving a liaison for example from GSMA (in the case of 3GPP).
Having proprietary solution, also called vertical solution, restrict the market and may lead also, in case of immense success, to monopoly... and returning to the Cisco challenge to Microsoft is due to, in my opinion, fearing the monopoly of Microsoft in video telephony (and Microsoft is well known for this!).