10.00 – 12.30, 4 October 2002

1) Apologies

1.1 Apologies were received from or on behalf of Chris Bell (BBC), John Bussey (BT) and Ian Spiers (Marconi). The list of those attending is at Annex A.

2) Adoption of agenda

2.1 The draft agenda was adopted, with a revised running order (items 6, 7, 4, 5, 8).

3) Minutes of eighth meeting

minutes

3.1 The minutes of the eighth meeting were adopted without amendment.

4) The new Communications Data Protection Directive 2002/58/EC

Directive 2002/58/EC

(originally item 6)

4.1 FP introduced the new Communications Data Protection Directive (CDPD) and explained its relationship to the other directives forming part of the revised EU regulatory framework. Although the other directives are required to be implemented by 25 July 2003, the CDPD’s adoption had been delayed and its implementation date is later, 31 October 2003.

4.2 The new regulatory framework will bring about the most far-sweeping changes in UK regulation since the enactment of the Telecommunications Act, nearly twenty years ago. The two most significant changes are the extension of scope from telecommunications to electronic communications (covering internet-based services and broadcasting) and the dissolution of the distinction between operators and service providers - in future there will only be providers of electronic communications networks and providers of electronic communications services, although clearly there will be some providers which will be providing both.

4.3 Article 8 of the CDPD (Presentation and restriction of calling and connected line identification) is very similar to the similarly titled article 8 of the Telecommunications Data Protection Directive (97/66/EC) which it will replace. The one significant change is that paragraphs 8.1 to 8.4 explicitly require service providers to offer the various mandatory features identified by the article. The intention is to foreclose the debate as to whether certain features, such as the ability to reject calls where the caller has withheld their number, have to be provided by the network or may be provided by means of a terminal equipment solution.

4.4 Because the context of article 8 is a "call" and because a "call" is defined by the directive (article 2e) as "a connection established by means of a publicly available telephone service allowing two-way communication in real time" it was concluded that the CLI provisions cannot apply to either SMS or email. Interestingly enough, SMS falls within the directive’s definition of "electronic mail" and is subject to those provisions that apply to electronic mail such as article 13 on unsolicited communications.

4.5 There was some debate as to the responsibilities that fall on ISPs under the directive in the context of calls that connect to other communication formats and who is the subscriber in such cases.

4.6 In passing, PW indicated that the Communications Bill was likely to include a new measure enabling Ofcom to take action against the persistent misuse of electronic communications networks or services in a way that causes annoyance, inconvenience or anxiety to another person. The misuse of CLI services could be targeted under this provision.

5) General introduction to new Regulatory Framework and General

Conditions Of Entitlement (Condition 19: Provision of additional facilities)

Draft General Conditions of Entitlement

(originally item 7)

5.1 FP highlighted condition 19 of the draft General Conditions of Entitlement on the provision of additional facilities. The condition implements the requirement of the new Universal Services and Users’ Rights Directive (2002/22/EC) that providers who provide a public telephone network (ie a network over which publicly available telephone services are provided) must provide CLI services, subject to technical feasibility and economic viability. The normal expectation will be that providers offer CLI services - the burden of proof will be reversed as providers will be required to explain and justify any failure to provide such services.

6) Introduction to the Guidelines for Customer line Identification Display Services and Other Related Services over Electronic Communications Networks

(originally item 4)

6.1 FP introduced the draft CLI guidelines explaining the shift to a generic document to take account of the double convergence of the new regulatory framework: between telephony and other electronic communications services; and between operators and service providers. Another factor was that there had been no CLI-specific data protection legislation when the original Code of Practice was developed. Now that fundamental rules have been established by European legislation, the need is for a document that offers guidance on how to meet those legal requirements.

6.2 FP also explained that the change of name from Code of Practice to Guidelines was predicated on CoPs becoming a distinct regulatory instrument linked with dispute resolution within the new framework. The CLI CoP was not one of those foreseen by condition 15 of the draft General Conditions.

6.3 PW added that the guidelines were not intended to cover all C7 rules but offered a bigger picture. The question was whether the Guidelines would be useful or was the industry happy to stick with the core data protection principles of the directives. However there was nothing to prevent the development of detailed rules for C7 through NICC if that was what the industry wanted

6.4 As the scope of the Guidelines is limited to publicly available telephone services (PATS) there was some discussion as to exactly what PATS is. PW explained that PATS is defined from the standpoint of the customer: the tests are (i) that a service is marketed as a substitute for conventional telephony, (ii) that it appears to customers as telephony, and (iii) that it provides the sole means of access to the emergency services. PATS is not technology-specific - a network over which PATS is provided may include VoIP links but would still be expected to respect data protection principles. On the other hand, in response to a question from RP, a world-wide closed user group is not PATS.

6.5 Comments were invited from the Group by 1 November. An amended draft would the be submitted for formal consultation.

7) Proposed new arrangements for Presentation Numbers

(originally item 5)

7.1 FP briefly introduced the draft proposal arising from AP 8/3 of the previous meeting. The document had already been circulated within the reconstituted PN Working Group. The intention with PN4 was to legitimise the use of the originating caller’s CLI as a PN in a break in/break out scenario. Over-elaborate safeguards were not necessary as any PN presented would have already satisfied the tests to be accepted as a valid CLI by the public network.

7.2 PN5s address the situation where a range of PNs would be used by different groups of end users on outbound calls from the same switch. Multiple PNs require intelligence in the private network and their verification would be off-switch as it is not apparently possible for a PSTN switch to provide such functionality.

7.3 MN said that it was mistaken to think of PN3 as having been still-born - it had been slow to get off the ground because of "the continuing availability of unavailable", the limited take-up of ACR and the lack of awareness about PNs on the part of some local providers. He thought that PN3 and PN5 had fundamental similarities as they were both private network generated numbers. Although this is true the background is that PN3 is limited to extensive corporate networks in a far-end break out scenario and was not expected to use non-geographic numbers.

7.3 AP expressed some concerns about the integrity of the new arrangements. PW suggested that the ‘persistent misuse’ clauses of the Communications Bill offered legal redress and that PNs needed to be supported by robust NNs. FP thought that the Group could afford to be more relaxed about PNs now that we had accumulated more experience about them; MD noted that no major scams had been based on a misuse of CLI or PNs. It was explained, in response to a question from PG, that the end user would be the guilty party where there was abuse of PNs 3, 4, 5.

8) AoB

8.1 CP made the point that inconsistencies had been encountered in how terminating networks respond to CBI parameter set at "0". Under an earlier interpretation, CBI "0" apparently indicated that the caller has not had the possibility of withholding CLI and that in consequence CLI was ‘unavailable’; currently CBI "0" may apparently be interpreted as indicating that where the terminating network does not support PN display, the caller does not wish NN to be displayed. There have been reported instances of terminating customers receiving ‘unavailable’ even though a PN was available for display. It was agreed that this was an issue best pursued outside the meeting.

Annex A (Attendees)

BT Alan Presland
BT Dave Lane
BT John O’Dwyer
CMA/FoskettPowell Michael Dixon
Colt Telecom Brian Whyte
Colt Telecom Chris Phylaktis
ISC Peter Clarke
Linx Roland Perry
Nortel Networks Mark Ashworth
ntl Phil Hutchison
O2 Peter Gorringe
OGC Alan Bennett
Questa Alan N Smith
Siemens Mike Norman
Telewest Stephen Lowe
Telia Alan Penney
Telspec plc Robert Hewitt
T-Mobile UK Gulistan Moledina
T-Mobile UK Vladimir Stoyanov
Vodafone Simon Sporton
Oftel Phil Cobb phil.cobb@oftel.gov.uk
Oftel Neil Nasralla neil.nasralla@oftel.gov.uk
Oftel Frank Phillips frank.phillips@oftel.gov.uk
Oftel Peter Walker peter.walker@oftel.gov.uk