You are using an outdated browser and your browsing experience will not be optimal. Please update to the latest version of Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox. Install Microsoft Edge

January 6, 2025

New Decree Provides Guidance on Vietnam’s Telecom Law

Subscribe to Updates

On December 24, 2024, the government of Vietnam issued Decree No. 163/2024/ND-CP, providing guidelines for implementing the new Telecommunications Law that took effect on July 1, 2024 (“Decree 163”). This new decree replaces Decree No. 25/2011/ND-CP and its amendments (“Decree 25”) and took effect immediately upon issuance, with regulations on data center services, cloud computing services, and basic telecom services over the internet (“over-the-top” or OTT telecom services) having an official effective date of January 1, 2025.

Decree 163 introduces substantial changes across the telecom sector, covering various aspects including service provision, licensing, standards and technical regulations, quality, passive infrastructure planning, dispute resolution, and more. Hence, it is necessary for enterprises to conduct a compliance review to identify gaps between the new decree and their business models, and take necessary steps to ensure lawful business operations in Vietnam.

Below are some highlights of Decree 163.

Expanded Scope of Services

For basic telecom services, Decree 163 has introduced machine-to-machine (M2M) communication and classified it as a basic telecom service. This establishes a regulatory framework for IoT device communication, previously unregulated in Decree 25.

For value-added telecom services, in light of the new Telecommunications Law, Decree 163 provides more detailed regulations for new telecom services such as data center services, cloud computing services, and OTT telecom services, which were not addressed in Decree 25.

Regulation of Three New Telecom Services

Expanding on the Telecommunications Law’s definitions of data center services, cloud computing services, and OTT telecom services, Decree 163 applies a light-touch management approach to regulate these three new services, as follows:

  • Offshore providers: Cross-border service providers are exempt from signing commercial agreements with licensed local telecom companies. They only need to notify the Vietnam Telecommunications Authority (VNTA) using the prescribed procedures and forms before offering services.
  • Onshore providers: The foreign ownership cap is removed, allowing 100% foreign-owned enterprises in Vietnam. OTT telecom and cloud computing providers must notify the VNTA while data center providers must register with the VNTA before providing services.

Management of Subscriber Information

Decree 163 allows subscribers to register their information online via telecom providers’ applications and strengthens mobile subscriber information management to prevent fraud and ensure accuracy.

Telecom enterprises must comprehensively verify subscriber identities by:

  • Matching identity document details with the National Population Database.
  • Using a one-time authentication code (OTP) sent to a previously registered SIM for registering and activating additional SIMs.
  • Implementing video call verification to collect, verify, and confirm customer identification to ensure the same accuracy as in-person verification.

Outlook

Decree 163 tackles modern challenges, including emerging services, subscriber fraud, and cross-border service provision, offering clearer guidance compared to Decree 25. While the government aims to foster fair competition, efficient infrastructure, and consumer protection, Decree 163 also signals increased regulatory oversight in the telecom sector.

Related Professionals

Industries

Technology

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

December 4, 2024
On October 28, 2024, Indonesia officially amended its existing Patent Law when the president ratified Law Number 65 of 2024. This comprehensive update—the third such amendment in the history of Indonesia’s Patent Law—introduces several key changes that will significantly impact patent protection and application processes in Indonesia. Key highlights and changes are outlined below. Definition of Invention The new law broadens the definition of “invention” to explicitly include systems, methods, and uses. Additionally, the law introduces formal definitions for traditional knowledge and genetic resources. Patentability Criteria Notable changes include: Computer programs are now excluded, with an exception for computer-implemented inventions. Theories and methods in science and mathematics are added to the list of excluded inventions. Previous restrictions on new uses of existing products are removed. Grace Periods The grace periods for some patent-related actions have been adjusted: The grace period for disclosures has been extended to 12 months (from 6 months previously), providing inventors with more flexibility in filing patent applications after initial disclosure. A newly introduced item is the grace period for a conventional patent application claiming priority rights, which is 4 months after the 12-month filing deadline under the Paris Convention. The grace period for annuity payments is 6 months (from 12 months previously) with a fine for late payments of 100% of the annual fee payable. Patent Holder Rights and Obligations Patent holders can now grant permissions to enforce patents. There is a new requirement for patent holders to submit annual statements on patent implementation in Indonesia. Compulsory Licensing Significant changes to compulsory licensing include: Establishment of licenses based on the principle of expediency. Limitations on license scope and transferability. Prioritization of domestic market needs. New provisions for technical improvements and economic significance. Government Patent Exploitation The new law contains specific provisions for the government’s implementation
Read More
December 4, 2024
Thailand Legal Basics, a valuable primer for foreign investors, explores all aspects of living and doing business in Thailand. Written by specialists at Tilleke & Gibbins in Bangkok, it is the only comprehensive English-language guide to the Thai legal system with a focus on the concerns of foreign business and investment.
Read More
November 25, 2024
Thailand has released the set of principles that will form the official draft Platform Economy Act (PEA) for a public hearing period that runs until December 15, 2024. The PEA is likely to be positioned as a general or overarching law for digital intermediary services and digital platform service businesses. In January 2024, an early, unofficial version of the proposed law had been circulated among a limited group of operators in certain industries to get comments for the working group charged with the PEA’s development. Now, however, the proposed principles that will underpin the official draft PEA have been released publicly to gather comments, feedback, and suggestions from any interested stakeholders. The principles of the draft PEA cover two main areas: user protection and fair competition. The key details in these two areas are outlined below. User Protection The main regulator supervising the law’s user protection elements will be the Electronic Transactions Development Agency (ETDA). The draft PEA is expected to impose user protection obligations on service providers based on their nature, size, and risk level. The principles set out a three-tiered classification system for service providers that will be covered under the draft PEA, as detailed below, ordered from fewest obligations to most: Intermediary Service Provider: This describes a service provider acting as an intermediary between a sender and recipient of information on a computer network, the internet, or a telecommunications network. Service providers likely to fall under this category include cloud service providers and web hosting providers. Intermediary service providers may be further categorized into the following subtypes: Mere conduit service providers; Caching service providers; Hosting service providers; and Other service providers as prescribed in ministerial regulations. Online Platform: This refers to an intermediary service provider offering data storage services that connect various types of users to
Read More
November 15, 2024
Vietnam’s new Decree No. 147/2024/ND-CP on the management, provision, and use of internet services and online information (“Decree 147”), which will come into effect on December 25, 2024, replacing Decree No. 72/2013/ND-CP (“Decree 72”), introduces several changes to the regime for domain name dispute resolution. The new decree aims to clarify the legal framework and address some longstanding inconsistencies between Vietnam’s laws on intellectual property and information technology. The main changes related to domain name dispute resolution under Decree 147 are summarized below. Removal of Prescriptive Actions Decree 147 no longer lists specific actions for resolving domain name disputes. Decree 72 had outlined three methods: negotiation/mediation, arbitration, and court. However, IP practitioners had long criticized this approach, arguing it conflicted with the IP Law, which additionally allows administrative action. By omitting these methods, the new decree implies an acceptance of administrative action as provided in the IP Law. However, Decree 147 remains silent on establishing a dispute resolution forum aligned with the CPTPP’s requirement for a UDRP-like model. Currently, Vietnam’s available forums do not fully conform to the UDRP framework. An anticipated circular may provide further guidance on this aspect. Deactivation of Domain Names Decree 72 does not have any provision on the deactivation of a domain name. However, Decree 147 has stipulated some situations where domain names will be deactivated, such as when there is a request from an authority, or when it is discovered that incorrect information was used for registration. Clearer Criteria for Dispute Resolution Article 16 of Decree 147 sets out three clear criteria that must be met for domain name dispute resolution to proceed: (i) confusing similarity with the plaintiff’s trademark, trade name, or personal name; (ii) the defendant’s lack of legitimate rights or interests in the domain name; and (iii) bad faith. Previously,
Read More