No,no,no, not the two-faced definition, one of a traitor, pertaining to a person who does not have any loyalty at all. Words are interesting, are they not? They could mean two or more different things all at the same time. It is true, definitions and choice of words, both provide for a richness of understanding. They can also be subject to disputes. Such is true in this case.
The regulation/deregulation of VOIPS stems from the main issue as to whether or not they may be considered as PTEs (Public Telecommunications Entities) or VAS (Value-Added Service) providers. If they fall into the former category, as per RA 7925, the Internet Service Providers who provide VOIPs would have to “ first obtain a legislative franchise, and to apply for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) from the NTC to engage in a particular telecommunications service. In the latter case, it must show that it has the legal, financial and technical fitness to operate the service.”[1] If classified under the latter, as a VAS provider, which is described as “ (entities) which, relying on the transmission, switching, and local distribution of facilities of the local exchange and inter-exchange operators, and overseas carriers, offer enhanced services beyond those ordinarily provided by such carriers,”[2] the above requirements need not be met. As a VAS provider, ISPs only have to file an application with the NTC- definitely a trip to the part, so to speak, as compared to when it is considered as a PTE. Right now, it is classified as a VAS provider. [3]
I believe that VOIPs may be both considered as PTEs or VAS providers. I know, I know, it is totally against the tenets of being a lawyer of having to always take a stand, but how can I take one if I know that this ‘ambivalent’ position, one may call it, is the correct one?- that which yields more insights and possible ideas on addressing the colloquy on it. Besides, what I am discussing is policy, not arguing for a specific case.
Why I believe in VOIPs’, in a say, DUAL character
There is some merit in the Telecom companies’ contention that VOIPs are PTEs for VOIPs may provide the exact same service to consumers- talk to each other in any place, at any time. But then, VOIPs may also be considered as a VAS provider, for the reason that such is only a value-added service, only one among the many services provided due to its multi-faceted nature.
I think the fundamental distinction as to whether or not it may be considered as a PTE or a VAS is dependent on how VOIPs are marketed and used. Some VOIPS are marketed and used solely as a ‘telephone service’. However, there are some end users, who use VOIPS- a product of internet technology which has a myriad of features and functions, only as an ‘enhanced service’. Therefore, in different circumstances, VOIPS may be considered as either a PTEs or VAS providers.
Ideas on Providing Resolution
As mentioned in Reyes’s article in The Philippine IT journal, VOIP: to regulate or not to regulate, the Philippines is not alone in confronting the said issue. Other countries have faced and tackled the said issue differently. Most noteworthy among those mentioned was the move done in the Canada. To quote, “Canada, meanwhile, makes a distinction between Internet data applications, which are free from regulation, and Internet applications that provide an alternative to public switched voice services, that are regulated. IP telephony between telephones, therefore, is subject to regulation. IP telephony service providers are treated like any other telephony service providers and must contribute to universal service funds, but only if the service they provide is between telephones.”[4]
I believe that such a move must be adopted in the Philippines as well, in addressing the issue. This is hinged on what has been established earlier that VOIPs can be either be PTEs or VAS providers, depending on the circumstances. As such, there must be distinction on the kind of VOIPs that can or cannot be a subject to regulation- the former, if a specific ISP offering VOIP fell in the PTE category; the latter if another ISP providing VOIP does so in such a way that VOIP would fall into the definition of a VAS provider. To this end, a clear classification between different ISPs , to know which must be regulated or not, is in order.
The Word: Two-Faced
VOIPs are two-faced, meaning, they exhibit two different, even contrasting attributes depending on the circumstances. Using such an adjective brought a bit of confusion, eh?
Maybe this is all just word play you know. To be considered as PTE or VAS providers, so what right, one may think? But hey, these words do matter. They make all the difference.
No comments:
Post a Comment