Final Shape of ETNO’s Proposed Revisions to ITRs Unclear, Experts Say
The final shape of the European Telecommunications Network Operators’ Association’s (ETNO) proposed revisions to the International Telecommunication Regulations (ITRs) remains unclear as the deadline to submit proposed revisions to the ITRs looms. ETNO is reportedly considering withdrawing its controversial “sender-party-pays” proposal, which the European Conference of Postal and Telecommunications Administrations (CEPT) rejected Monday in a draft report (CD Oct 23 p13). CEPT rejected the proposal because it fell outside of the scope of the ITRs and dealt with specific commerce and technology issues (CD Oct 22 p7).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
The “sender-party-pays” proposal could require the sender of any Internet content to pay for its transmission. Terry Kramer, head of the U.S. delegation to the upcoming World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT), said in a speech earlier this month that ETNO Chairman Luigi Gambardella had indicated the group was likely to withdraw the proposal, which the U.S. has repeatedly opposed (CD Oct 15 p3). ETNO has yet to formally withdraw “sender-party-pays” from consideration, said Nick Ashton-Hart, Geneva representative for the Computer & Communications Industry Association, though several sources he’s talked to have confirmed ETNO will withdraw it.
The picture of what might replace “sender-party-pays” is “clear as mud,” Ashton-Hart said. Some sources have told him ETNO will prepare a replacement proposal, while others have indicated it’s unclear whether the group will introduce something new. Kramer said earlier this month that ETNO was considering replacing “sender-party-pays” with a “quality-of-service” proposal, which would give a network operator the right to negotiate a quality-of-service set of terms. The U.S. would oppose such a proposal because in many cases it “creates worse service for the same price,” he said. Some sources Ashton-Hart has spoken to have said ETNO is considering a “quality-of-service” proposal, though he noted that there is already sizable quality-of-service language in ETNO’s proposals.
A “quality-of-service” proposal would be just as bad -- and possibly worse -- than “sender-party-pays,” a European telecom expert said. “It will only make the Internet inaccessible, and will bring more profits for the telecoms, without in reality bringing benefits for the users,” the expert said in an email. The absence of quality-of-service requirements has kept the Internet inexpensive in many places, the expert said. “If the operator has to provide [quality of service], the access price will have to be much higher,” the expert said. “If someone wants 100 [percent] uptime, the price will be drastically higher."
"Sender-party-pays” proposals may also come from nations in Africa and the Middle East, though none have made a formal proposal based on it yet, Ashton-Hart said. ETNO had generated interest in its proposals in the region, particularly among French-speaking African nations, Kramer previously said. Any presence of ETNO-like proposals will become clearer once the deadline to submit proposals passes, Ashton-Hart said. Proposed revisions to the ITRs must be submitted to the ITU by Nov. 2. WCIT delegates will begin meeting in Dubai Dec. 3.