ISPs Asked to Detect and Block Voice over Their Networks

We do not any enemy of ours to Bomb us back to Stone Age. Our govt. and its agencies are doing this job very nicely.

I suppose this will block all the voice chats also through various messengers.

Aamir,

Is there any written communication from PTA on this? I don’t think its true.

Ali

All services that the Internet provide should be allowed including VoIP, Video etc. After all the users pays for the bandwidth to the telcos.

We should gather support to a petition or something to force PTA to remove this types of restrictions once and for all.

Here is the response to PTA from Mr. Wahaj convenor of ISPAK and CEO of Nayatel (Micronet Islamabad). In the light of this letter written by him I will appreciate if a formal press release issued by Ms. Shahida Saleem
Chairperson Standing Committee on IT & T FPCCI as per her discussion above.

-Kamran Mahmood
———————————————————–
Internet Service Providers Association of Pakistan

(ISPAK)

No. 2(3)/2007-ISPAK

15 June 2009

Mr. Kamran Ali

Director General

(Law & Regulations)

Pakistan Telecommunication Authority

Islamabad

Subject Voice over bandwidth of ISPs

Dear Sir,

With reference to your letter No. 14-1/L&R/PTA/771 dated 4 June 2009 to all ISPs, we’d like to submit as under:

ISPs have no mechanism to detect VoIP on customer’s circuits. PTA has invested a huge amount of operators contribution for installation of such a facility and this matter has therefore to be tackled by PTA itself.

ISPs can install the VoIP monitoring and mitigating facility if PTA provides funding for such a facility as the industry is already in debt due to selling below the costs and anti competitive practices of the incumbent, i.e., PTCL. These practices have so far gone unchecked by the regulator due to non-regulation of broadband Internet tariffs.

ISPs cannot take any action against any customer doing illegal VoIP as they don’t have statutory powers to do so. If PTA informs of illegal activity done by any customer to the concerned ISP, the ISPs’ action can only be limited to locking of that customer’s account and providing customer details PTA.

Due to PTA’s indiscriminatory blocking the IP addresses on Internet gateways without any notification and evidence, ISPs have been greatly suffering and that has been brought to the notice of PTA many times in recent past.

PTA needs to clarify that if a customer of an ISP is supposedly involved in illegal VoIP, how ISP can be held responsible for such matter?

2. In view of above, we’d request you to kindly withdraw the above mentioned letter.

With kind regards.

Yours truly,

Wahaj us Siraj

Convener

c.c. Mr. Naguib ullah Malik, Secretary, Ministry of IT, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad.

Chairman PTA, Islamabad

Mr. Mushtaq Ahmad Bhatti, Member Telecom, Ministry of IT, Islamabad

In response to my earlier comment here on this post the recent development is:
________________________________
From: Wahaj us
Siraj/MGMT [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: Monday, June 29, 2009 11:43
AM

Subject: RE: PTA’s letter to ISPs

Dear all,

We had a good meeting with Secretary MOIT last Thursday.
He seems a positive person and committed in the meeting to resolve our issues
except for local loop sharing charges. He said that he’d study this (Rs.
150 issue) before making a commitment. On other issues, he said he was
committed for their resolution. He asked for an official representation, which
we’ve sent today.

I suggest to highlight this in the media as well to keep a
pressure on PTA.

Kind regards…Wahaj

Internet
Service Providers Association of Pakistan
(ISPAK)

No. 2(3)/2007-ISPAK

27 June 2009

Mr. Naguib ullah Malik
Secretary
Ministry of IT
Government of Pakistan
Islamabad

Subject: Industry Representation to Resolve Serious Issues

Dear Sir,

With reference to our meeting held on 25 June 2009, we’d like to submit
this official representation seeking your kind intervention to resolve the
issues being faced by the Internet industry:
1.
Indiscriminate blocking of IP addresses by
PTA without any intimation and evidence and subsequent threats to ISPs:

PTA’s “facility for detecting and blocking illegal
VOIP” traffic is causing serious bottlenecks to ISPs. The IP addresses of
ISPs, similar to phone numbers in case of telephony network, randomly and
indiscriminatory get blocked by PTA without any notice. Many of the blocked IP
addresses were not being used for any kind of voice traffic. Such incidences
have been brought to PTA’s notice many times but no action has been
forthcoming. On the contrary, GSM or PSTN numbers which are the actual source
of grey traffic termination, never get blocked. Even if they do get blocked by
PTA in some cases, genuine GSM numbers don’t get blocked. But genuine IP
addresses do get blocked as happened many times throughout the country
resulting in total Internet blockade for the customers. To make the situation
worse, PTA has been issuing threats to ISPs for legal action in not curbing
VOIP grey traffic despite the fact that industry has been cooperating fully
with PTA in getting the actual culprits apprehended. ISPs have no mechanism to
detect VoIP on customer’s circuits. PTA has invested a huge amount of
operators contribution for installation of such a facility and the matter has
therefore to be tackled by PTA itself. PTA has also not clarified that if a
customer of an ISP is supposedly involved in illegal VoIP, under which
regulation or terms and condition of license, ISP can be held responsible for
such matter.

2.
IP Bandwidth provision to Call Centers by
ISPs/data operators and local loop operators – PTA’s wrong
interpretations

Call centers have been provided special dispensation by MOIT and not
regulated by PTA. MOIT has approved a policy for call centers to acquire a
registration from PSEB and use Internet bandwidth for voice traffic
(origination and termination) within their closed premises (without involving
interconnection with PSTN/GSM/WLL). PTA is now creating hurdles for call center
industry by not allowing them to procure bandwidth from ISPs, data network
operators and DSL operators. Even for local loop operators, PTA is not allowing
call centers to operate on bandwidth from TWA, the sole alternate IP backbone
provider. If call centers are allowed to use Internet bandwidth at the rates
prescribed for ISPs, DSL operators should also be allowed to provide bandwidth
to call centers regardless whether they’re using voice services in close
group or not. Similarly, there should not be any restriction on LLOs or TWA to
provide this bandwidth. PTA by doing so, is depriving the call centers to
benefit from competitive options other than PTCL besides promoting the sale of
IP bandwidth of PTCL by denying the same right to TWA.

4.
Non regulation of broadband retail tariffs by
PTA, thus giving free hand to PTCL for anti-competitive practices

PTA has not been regulating the retail tariff of broadband Internet
despite our repeated requests. Regulation of tariffs is function and power of
PTA under Section 5 (e) of Pakistan Telecommunication (Re-organisation) Act,
1996 which states “PTA shall establish or modify accounting procedure for
licenses and regulate tariffs for telecommunication service in accordance with
Sections 25 and 26”. Regulation of tariffs particularly becomes important
in a sector where there is one dominant operator and small operators are
dependent on the large operator for obtaining inputs. Private DSL operators
(5-6 in number) have less than 40% DSL market share and still dependent on PTCL
for collocation, inter-exchange bandwidth, local loop sharing charges and IP
bandwidth. There’re only two providers of IP bandwidth and PTCL because
of its size and network, is also dominant provider of bandwidth. PTCL in the
past has twice increased the tariffs of inter-exchange leased lines by many
folds. With PTA’s intervention, these rates were withdrawn by PTCL but
there’s a constant threat on ISPs from PTCL to do this again. Since PTCL
is competing with DSL in retail market and critical inputs of DSL operators are
also controlled by PTCL, regulation of PTCL’s retail DSL tariff is
essential than ever. Any future anti-competitive move of PTCL can drive the
private DSL operators out of business leaving customers at sole mercy of PTCL.

5.
Abolishing Rs. 150 local loop sharing charges
of PTCL for DSL operators

PTCL charges Rs. 150 local loop sharing charges per month per customer
to DSL operators. These charges were abolished by PTA vide its Determination of
16 March 2006 but then allowed again upon PTCL’s appeal for revision
(Determination of 06 March 2007). PTCL at that time was not providing its own
DSL services. Since the start of its own DSL services by PTCL, private ISPs
have gone in competitive disadvantage. The current retail DSL price for home
customer is Rs. 800 to 1,200 and Rs. 150 (PTCL’s share) comes to 18.75%
to 12.5% of these charges. ISPs fear that if PTCL drops its retail rate
further, to say Rs. 600, local loop sharing charges would become 25% of total
revenue. With this model, no business model of ISPs could be sustainable.

6.
Restrictive Regulations of PTA for ISM
Wireless Broadband

The frequency spectrum comprising of ISM bands, i.e., 2,473.5 –
2,483.5 MHz, 5,725 – 5,875 MHz and 24-24.25 GHz was unregulated band in
line with the ITU recommendations. Lincensed data network operators and ISPs
have been using this spectrum for their customers point to point data links.
The total number of such links working country wide is around 1,200. In 2008,
PTA issued Class Licensing and Registration (Amendment) Regulations, 2008
whereby Class Data licensees were allowed free use of this spectrum with restrictions
of 100 mW on transmit power and 100 meters per hop maximum admissible distance.
Practically, these restrictions mean shutting down all links. These Regulations
were published without any consultation process done with PTA with the
stakeholders.

7.
In view of foregoing, to promote broadband in the country and to provide a
level playing field between PTCL and private operators, we’d request MOIT
to kindly instruct PTA to:

a.
Not to block any IP addresses of ISPs without prior
notification and withdraw threatening letters.

b.
Issue notification for allowing call centers to
procure Internet bandwidth from ISPs, Data Network Operators, LLOs and
Infrastructure Providers.

c.
Regulate retail broadband Internet tariffs in order
to keep a constant check on anti-competitive practices of PTCL.

d.
Abolish PTCL’s local loop sharing charges of
Rs. 150 per customer per month in line with its previous decision of 16 March
2006.

e.
Withdraw Class Licensing and Registration (Amendment)
Regulations, 2008 and make new regulations, if at all required, in consultation
with the industry stakeholders.

With kind regards.
Yours truly,

Wahaj
us Siraj

Convener
c.c.
Mr. Mushtaq Ahmad Bhatti, Member Telecom, Ministry of IT, Islamabad

MD PSEB, Islamabad