Do the reseller/partners of telecom resellers comply with the law and regulations?

Do the reseller/partners of telecom resellers comply with the law and regulations?

No, far from all. Out of the limited overview of 25 requests to provide an expression of will, 9 were submitted. A check of the 9 statements of will submitted shows that the acquiring party (reseller/partner) is actually ACM registered in only 2 cases. And that in 4 cases this cannot be established because the expression of will and/or SP code does not state which service provider the customer has gone to. Of the 25 requested expressions of will, it can therefore be verified in less than 25% of the cases with which party Qupra CS is used. verify whether this party is also a “provider of public telecom services”.

This overview of registered telecom providers can easily be consulted on, but Qupra CS. I don’t think it’s her job to check whether the self-proclaimed resellers of Routit/KPN have registered there. This legal obligation follows from the Telecommunications Act, article 2.1 TW.

However, if the Telecom reseller does not indicate which “third party” it does business with, Qupra can verify the request for the expression of will directly there. The fact that the statements of will supplied by resellers/third parties of Routit/KPN “rattle” justifies the necessity for the Telecom reseller to check the expressions of will prior to the request for porting.

Or that Routit/KPN selects another service provider (SP code) and merely presents itself as a network operator in the COIN process. In this way Qupra CS. Request the expression of will directly (if necessary) from the resellers/third parties of Routit/KPN. Routit/KPN facilitates its resellers to be able to evade supervision, because in this way ACM also has no insight into the porting behavior of Routit/KPN resellers.

 For example, the ACM website reports: “Companies that are registered with ACM as a ‘provider of public electronic communication activities’ must comply with the rules of the Telecommunications Act. This folder contains the most important rules.”

Registration obligation ACM

This is part of a “level playing field” for Qupra CS. the same rules and laws apply as for resellers/partners of Routit/KPN. Among other things, this means that resellers/partners of Routit/KPN register with ACM as a telecom provider.

Article 2.1.1. of the laws of telecom says about this:

Any person who offers a public electronic communications network or a publicly available electronic communications service or who constructs or offers associated facilities, with the exception of those who offer an electronic program guide, shall notify the Authority for Consumers and Markets of this.

The ACM site says in no uncertain terms: “All telecom providers in the Netherlands must register with ACM. We impose obligations on dominant providers in market analysis decisions, we oversee net neutrality rules and we mediate in disputes.”

Various telecom resellers are made aware of the registration obligation of its resellers

Qupra CS. reports, for example, on 13-10-2017 that the relevant reseller is porting on behalf of an unregistered party “Laag Acht BV”. The answer from the Telecom reseller is “.. We submit the porting requests we comply with the rules..” Ultimately, MTTM has to submit an enforcement request to ACM to force this “reseller” of the relevant telecom reseller to register. After ACM’s intervention, Routit also concludes and acknowledges on 17-10-2017 “We have asked the partner to register” In the decision published online by ACM (Rejection of enforcement request from MTTM/ about the registration of LaagAcht BV | regarding the registration of Layer Eight, ACM also comes to the conclusion that Layer Eight should register.

In its request, MTTM states that LaagAcht is a telecom provider and that it violates Article 2.1 of the VA by not being registered with the ACM. As a desired decision, Plaintiff states in the request that ACM should maintain Article 2.1 of the TW and that every provider of a telecommunications network or service must register.

ACM subsequently contacted Laagacht. As a result, on 6 November 2017, ACM received the form from LaagAcht in which it announces the provision of public electronic communication activities. Based on the information provided, ACM LaagAcht B.V. Kerkstraat 173, 5261 CW VUGHT registered as a provider of public electronic communications services and as a provider of public electronic communications networks. ACM has processed the registration in its public register as referred to in Article 2.3(1) of the TW.

Why is it important that all telecom and ICT resellers register?

Obligations for providers of public telecom services also apply in this way to non-registered parties, and/or make their supervision by COIN and/or ACM and the Telecom Agency simpler and transparent; supposedly a “Level Playing Field”

Level playing field “the same rules apply to everyone, costs go down”

  • Platforms like Qupra CS. incur costs for, among other things, ACM supervision that “anonymous” service providers at RoutIT, for example, do not incur in this way.
  • Platforms like Qupra CS. incurs costs to COIN for participation and compliance with COIN rules
  • Platforms like Qupra CS. in particular work for:
  1. Qupra CS. incurs (labour) costs for checking porting requests
  2. Qupra CS. incurs labor costs for checking (correct) expressions of will of unregistered RoutIT resellers.
  3. Qupra CS. must cooperate with porting requests while it is not clear whether the End Customer has consented to this.
  4. Qupra CS. incurs damage due to incorrect communications as a result of incorrect statements by unregistered RouteIT resellers about the porting process, including, but not limited to, not getting the “closing bill” paid as a result of direct contract termination.

Qupra CS. is obliged as a legal provider to cooperate with number portability, the unregistered reseller of other telecom resellers are not. Article 4.10 TW only refers to “providers” of public telecom services.


Conclusion: several telecom resellers are unable to deliver the expression of will or not completely

From research by Qupra CS. by requesting the expression of will from its competitors, it appeared that no party could deliver the expression of will within the set time. The resulting expressions of will also rattled on all sides. Not a single expression of will met all the conditions set for it. In particular, the ACM registration and the COINSP code were never properly filled in. Also, the authorization often did not serve its purpose, and much was not clear:

Most common permission errors:

  1. Not clear if the authorization extended to all numbers or just some.
  2. The possibility of a closing invoice and/or the surrender thereof was not pointed out.
  3. It was not clear by when the contract and/or number had to be transferred.
  4. It was not clear on behalf of which customer and/or which service provider porting was requested.

Scope of application: These agreements apply to provider-driven1 switching and/or porting, where providers use COIN processes. Where relevant, the application of these agreements will be laid down in more detail in the relevant COIN standards. In provider-driven switching, the receiving provider directs the switching process and offers the subscriber to cancel its contract(s) with the transferring provider on its behalf with effect from the date the subscriber has agreed with the receiving provider. If the subscriber makes use of this offer and provides a power of attorney for a provider-driven switch, the receiving provider will terminate the agreement(s). COIN members apply these agreements at least to all their subscribers who port and/or switch provider with regard to subscribers who are consumers or micro-enterprises, insofar as they purchase an electronic communications service that is equal to or comparable to an electronic communication service offered to subscribers who are consumers2, and where relevant in addition to legal and regulatory requirements. These agreements in no way constitute a limitation of rights or obligations under legislation and regulations. After formal adoption and in accordance with the COIN Change Request Procedure regulations, the conditions and obligations arising from these agreements will become part of the relevant service agreements and associated COIN standards.

Always a valid expression of will

As a reseller partner of Qupra you always have a complete and valid expression of will. We are happy to help you with it. Leave your details at and we’ll take care of the rest.