RCC asks ITU to keep alternative calling Resolution 21 unchanged

The App Makes the Call. RCC Wants the ITU Page Left Alone.

Why it matters

An OTT warning accompanies a proposal to keep Resolution 21 word for word. The current text already carries an argument about networks, national choice and consumers.

Daniel Kade25 October 2026 at 12:39 UTCReading Time 2 minLast update: 25 October 2026

A no-change proposal sits between old call routes and app-based voice services.

Summary

RCC Member States’ addendum 34 asks the November ITU conference to retain Resolution 21 on alternative international calling procedures without changing its wording.
The sponsors warn about OTT calls, domestic operator revenue and fraud. The existing 2022 resolution also recognizes lower prices, consumer choice and a state’s power to allow or prohibit particular procedures.

There is a surprisingly sharp editorial instruction in the latest ITU file: leave the page alone. RCC Member States’ addendum 34 to contribution 94, posted on 23 October, marks Resolution 21 “NOC” — no change. The cover note, however, is anything but quiet.

The sponsors say the resolution was designed to protect developing countries’ domestic telephone operators from alternative call routes that drain revenue. They argue that allowing OTT services as alternative calling procedures could squeeze those operators and weaken service security, while the dividing line between a legitimate alternative call and fraud remains unclear. These are the sponsors’ concerns; the addendum offers no measured loss or named case.

What would their no-change instruction preserve? The Bucharest 2022 Resolution 21 expressly recognizes each state’s authority to allow or prohibit certain alternative procedures. It asks for work on call bypass, caller number and origin information, service quality and misuse of numbering resources. States that permit alternative procedures are invited to take account of decisions made by states that prohibit them.

The same resolution names the benefit of competition in lowering prices and expanding consumer choice. It distinguishes practices that can damage networks from procedures that may serve consumers without causing that harm. Its study mandate reaches the interworking of traditional networks with emerging ICT services. Retaining the text keeps that negotiated balance while the OTT question grows louder.

At PP-26, the delegates can accept the RCC’s no-change position or reopen the wording. Either way, the key question survives: which route is harmful, who identifies its origin, and which national rule applies to the call?