Calling the Emergency Call Service Review of Arrangements

Transcription

1 Calling the Emergency Call Service Review of Arrangements Telstra s Submission to the Australian Communications and Media Authority June 2008

2 Telstra is the Emergency Call Person (ECP) who delivers the Emergency Call Service (ECS) for the Government against strict performance criteria. Telstra delivers a world class service that meets stringent performance criteria. Telstra s expertise and experience in delivering the ECS puts it in a prime position to speak out on the clear and present risks associated with VoIP operator noncompliance. Simply put, ACMA can no longer be satisfied with concentrating its energies on established operators who pose less of a compliance challenge. ACMA must begin to expend its energies on the hard work of dealing with VoIP operators who are potentially putting lives at risk as a result of omissions in their product advertising and failing to comply with their IPND obligations. Detailed responses to the specific questions raised in the Calling the Emergency Call Service Review of Arrangements paper, the discussion paper are set out in Attachment A. In addition to these detailed responses Telstra would also like to raise the following broader issues. 1. ACMA's approach to managing VoIP services Telstra is disappointed by the apparent emphasis in the discussion paper on changing the existing regulatory environment to suit VoIP operators. It sends a clear message to the VoIP industry that regulators will continue to take a light touch approach to their activities, in effect, letting them get away with it. A greater focus on compliance activities is required. The clearest example of this is the suggestion of setting the Alternative Address Field (AAF) to True as default. The AAF is working well. Simply changing the default AAF to True would lead to an increase in call response times which would in turn require an increase in Emergency Service Answer Point (ESAP) staff to maintain service levels. The cost of the extra staff would be borne by the existing PSTN operators who are compliant with the IPND rules and not the VoIP operators. This is hardly an equitable result. ACMA should instead focus on ensuring that VoIP operators comply with the IPND rules in the first place. Telstra s concerns extend to the lack of action to ensure that VoIP operators are properly informing customers of the limitations of their services. This view is supported by ACMA s own research that has found many consumers misunderstand what the service entails and the hardware required. It raises the question as to what VoIP related compliance activities ACMA have undertaken since its April 2008 Regulatory approach to VoIP press release. Despite this low awareness many VoIP operators are touting their products as substitutes for the home phone service without prominently advertising the limitations. In other instances Telstra has observed the limitations buried in FAQs in linked web pages rather than displayed prominently at point of sale. After its April 2008 press release ACMA should have hit the ground running and immediately commenced a review of VoIP operators advertising and point of sale material to ensure the limitations of their services are prominent to consumers.

3 The US brought in very specific obligations on VoIP operators to properly inform their customers on their services three years ago 1. It raises the question why three years later such requirements on VoIP providers are non-existent in Australia. The time for consultation is over. Direct action is needed by ACMA to identify those VoIP operators who are not complying with the Determination, the IPND rules or not informing customers of their service s limitations. To achieve this ACMA has a range of options available to it including: a. referral of issues to the ACCC for misleading and deceptive conduct; b. action under S.148 of the Telecommunications Consumer Protection and Service Standards Act (TCPSSA) for non-compliance with the Determination; c. action under S.101 of the Telecommunications Act (TA) for non-compliance with the service provider rules; and d. naming and shaming. After over three years of Government consultation with VoIP service providers, a less carrot and more stick would raise the stakes for VoIP operators and underscore the importance of this issue, that is, possible loss of life. 2. Technical solutions for caller location information The discussion paper asks if technical solutions exist to address the challenges faced with the identification of mobile services and nomadic customers. The answer is yes, but at a cost. It is not sufficient for ACMA or the Government to simply hope that industry will work out a commercial solution to these issues. Some commercial solutions exist but they are not optimised for emergency call scenarios. The simple fact is that these solutions cost money and as consumers are not charged for the service, either the Government or industry must cover the cost. As this service is a public good expecting industry to cover the charge raises serious questions about the transparent funding of community social obligations. Before further obligations or technology solutions are imposed, a proper review of the funding and operation of the end-to-end emergency call service is required. Such a review should consider the appropriateness of the telecommunications industry having to bear the cost of a service that delivers significant social benefits to all Australians. Given the broad social benefit offered by the ECS, general taxation revenue is the best source of funding for both its existing and future capability. With that caveat, given the limitations of the PSTN voice network in passing data, the most simple location information solution is an industry black box. This would be a database similar to the IPND that receives real time service location updates from operators. During an emergency the ESO or ECP would interrogate this database to determine the location of the caller. 3. Future call volumes and Denial of Service (DoS) attacks Telstra faces challenges in managing call volumes from spoofed IP calls, accidental dialling, and growth in calls triggering AAF true returns. To address these 1 Default.aspx

4 challenges there are a number of important initiatives that require ACMA s involvement. Telstra would like to trial the re-introduction of front end recorded voice announcements (RVA). Prior to their removal in 2004, front end RVAs were effective in reducing the number of non-genuine calls to the ECP. The RVA s led to a reduction in call volumes by approximately 10%. Telstra believes that front end RVAs could be reintroduced on a fixed period trial basis to allow ACMA to monitor their efficacy and efficiency in screening non-genuine calls. This trial could be ended if at any time ACMA believed it was having a material impact on call response times. Telstra would also like ACMA to empower Telstra and other operators to levy a non-genuine call charge. People who risk lives with non-genuine calls should be penalised and dissuaded from continuing such behaviour. The system proposed would mirror the New Zealand model where customers are charged $6.00 for the second and each subsequent non-genuine call made from that number. 4. Structure of the Determination Although it is outside the scope of ACMA s jurisdiction, a broader review of the Standard Telephone Service (STS) definition in the Telecommunications (Consumer Protection and Service Standards) (TCPSS) Act is required to take into account the rise of new IP based services. This would remove the need for a standard emergency telephone service (SETS) definition. In the absence of a revised STS, the definition of the SETS should mirror the STS concept of a technological neutral definition but be broadened to cover any service that can call an any i.e. initiate a call to any person, including the ECP. Providing examples of SETS services are useful but should be captured in an industry guideline rather than drafted into the Determination. An industry guideline would allow the industry where the technical expertise exists to adapt the guideline to cover new services in a timely manner. The Determination would benefit from being drafted as a set of broad objectives rather a set of legislative directions. This flexible approach is taken in the UK where the emergency call service operates without the need detailed regulation. 5. Emergency Service Organisations (ESO) There should be greater transparency around ESO performance. As the ECP, Telstra is required to meet strict performance standards when handling emergency calls. ESOs should be held to similar standards or at the very least be required to report on their performance. 6. Force Majure The Determination contains absolute obligations on Carriers and CSPs to provide end users with access to the emergency call service and on the ECP to ensure specified percentages of calls are answered within a set time. There are no exceptions for force majeure events (i.e. Acts of God). Force majeure provisions are not a new concept in the context of telecommunications services

5 provision, as they are included in the Customer Service Guarantee. A force majeure protection should be included in the Determination given that Telstra carries significant obligations and exposures without reward. 7. Cap on tort liability Clause 46 in Schedule 3 of the Telecommunications Act 1997 states that ACMA may limit tort liability in relation to the supply of certain carriage services. Since the ECP carries significant obligations and is exposed to significant tort liability, without reward, ACMA should exercise its power to limit the tort liability of ECPs.