10.30am 22 November 2002 

Attendees

Company Participant

BT Wholesale Paul Hanson
BT Directories Gareth Morgan
Cable & Wireless John Bailey
E-Guide Murray McPherson
Eircom Nick Winton
Energis Zinta Ozolins
ICSTIS Paul Whiteing
Neustar Marco Benardi
Ntl Sara-Jane Amey
Ntl Tracy Fenton
Oftel Caroline Wallace
Oftel Alex Campbell
Telegate Dirk Amtsberg
Telegate Andy Holliday
Telewest Andrew Wileman
The Number Nik Hole
Thomson Directories Patrick Bradshaw
Vodafone Nigel Asbitt
Yell Malcolm Green
118UK Tom Hicke

Apologies

BT Wholesale Beatrice Osborn
BT Retail Sarah Jefferson
Centrica Bill Byrne
Centrica Nick Turley
Kingston Lesa Green
Kingston Nancy Cox
O2(UK) Steve Evans
Thomson Directories Jane Byrne
Scoot Simon Hickmott
Vodafone Andrew Gorton 

Documents distributed prior to the meeting

Agenda, Minutes of the previous meeting, Project plan version 2.21, BT paper on CPS, DQ 118 and call barring, BT paper on co-ordination of implementation of DQ 118 codes, Oftel letter on DQ dialling statistics.

1. Introductions and apologies

Caroline Wallace opened the meeting and all present introduced themselves. An attendance sheet was circulated and is reproduced above. Zinta Ozolins of Energis agreed to take the minutes of the meeting.

2. Minutes of previous meeting (24 October 2002)

Minor amendments were requested:

Amendment to amendment of Minutes of Previous Meeting (26 September 2002) re Embargo Date: NH (The Number) had requested clarification in the minutes that although in general there should be no promotion of 118 codes, in exceptional circumstances a specific number can be mentioned, though it should be made clear that it cannot be dialled until 10^th December.

Text under section 4. ICSTIS: Tracy Fenton’s (NTL) point regarding the QOS information required by NTL from DQSPs relates to complaints and refunds only.

Otherwise minutes were agreed.

3. Review of action points not covered elsewhere

CW (Oftel) reported that she had received 10 responses to the request for billing information from network operators, and the information received was useful. The information was broadly consistent across operators (time, date, price, descriptive text, number dialled). Operators are still welcome to send through examples if they wish. Oftel would circulate this information in an anonymised form to consumer reps.

CW (Oftel) reported that the request for dialling statistics had been included in Oftel’s usual quarterly request for information from network operators, as she believed the easiest approach was to use existing procedures to collect the information. TF (NTL) expressed some surprise at the formal request for information, so CW asked that if the inclusion of dialling statistics in the quarterly report presents any problems to those involved, please speak to Oftel. She also noted that towards the end of parallel running, more frequent collection of DQ dialling statistics (eg monthly) might be necessary.

4. Number transfer process

Tracy Fenton (NTL) presented the proposed Number Transfer Process that has been discussed at the Operator Group Numbering Group (OGNG).

The OGNG propose to adopt the existing process for migration of a code from one party to another. The initial allocation of numbers will be by Oftel, so this process is looking at sub-allocatee numbers. TF gave two scenarios.

Firstly where the DQSP has acquired its own number from Oftel. The DQSP changes Network Operators, say from C&W to NTL. The Rest of the World (RoW) can continue to route via C&W (then C&W to NTL), but will incur additional transit costs, so it would be cheaper for RoW to route directly to NTL. NTL would issue a notification using the standard contact list that it was now hosting the DQSP’s number, and eventually the RoW would migrate to routing calls to that number directly to NTL (not via C&W).

Secondly the DQSP is a Sub-allocated Party (SP). Both the Gaining Operator and the Losing Operator need to make a request to Oftel to change the allocation of the 118 number from the Losing Operator to the Gaining Operator, but still sub-allocated to the DQSP. Oftel would (subject to relevant requirements being met) update its records accordingly. The Gaining Operator would send out a numbering notification and traffic would migrate across in the same way as the first example, and again the incentive is to route calls directly to the terminating operator, to avoid additional transit costs. The standard lead time for this process is 40 days.

TF pointed out that the Losing Operator would have costs that would need to be recovered for the data changes and project management. The charges that BT would make for such activities can be found in the BT Carrier Price List, and these charges are indicative of what other operators might charge.

TF undertook to illustrate the process on PowerPoint, and distribute to the group. The OGNG was to meet the following week to authorise the final document.

TF noted that if the 118 number had not been data built in any network, then the transfer process would just be an administrative matter.

AH (Telegate) asked for confirmation that the choice of routing is decided between the Operators, and is nothing to do with the DQSP. This was confirmed by TF.

The following action points were discharged following TF’s presentation:

5. Call barring

Beatrice Osborn’s (BT) paper on call barring was distributed to the group by Oftel, and in BO’s absence, PH (BT) summarised the paper for the group.

Per PH, call barring has been impacted by the decision to include 118 in CPS All Calls. This has resulted in 118 calls have the same call barring attributes as PRS. When BO’s paper was written, only one Destination Charge Group (DCG) was available for 118, but it now appears that more DCGs could be set up in future. Thus, 118 will be treated as PRS to start with, but there is potential to treat some 118 calls differently, though it will take work. Customer protection must be considered when taking the final decision on how to do this.

AH (Telegate) asked if Telegate’s call centre staff would be able to see whether a user has call barring when answering a call from that user. CW(Oftel) responded that here understanding was that this would not be possible. AC (Oftel) stated that the 2 million or so customers [post meeting note: BT has since confirmed that only 800K customers are affected] that have call barring for PRS might not wish to have 118 numbers available anyway, e.g. a small company preventing their employees from dialling expensive numbers. There was further clarification that BT offers 2 types of call barring: Admin Controlled Call Barring (ACCB), which is free, and PIN Controlled Call Barring, which costs users a monthly fee. Users with the PIN option can over-ride call barring using a PIN, so can dial any 118 numbers.

NH (InfoNXX) noted that ACCB customers would be able to reach 192, but not any 118 number, and that this could be viewed as unfair.

CW (Oftel) suggested that an industry discussion is needed to set appropriate tariffs for 118 numbers to be available to customers with ACCB. CW stated there is a significant consumer protection issue with call barring bypass via operator assistance numbers, and that she didn’t want to see the same problem with 118 numbers. CW suggested that, for example, that no services with call completion should be made available to PRS barred customers.

TH (Conduit) asked if the call barring treatment affected only calls originating on System X switches. PH (BT) replied that he believed the same treatment was given to calls originating on AXEs. TH (Conduit) queried whether some 118 numbers could be made available on certain switches. CW (Oftel) stated that she thought that line of questioning was unproductive as there would be major customer confusion if 118 numbers were available in different geographic locations, and again there were consumer protection issues. CW also stated that Oftel was unlikely to support variations in call barring configurations by geographic location.

TF (NTL) advised that it is NTL policy that if NTL put a 118 number into call barring on a switch, that number will be unavailable to all NTL customers with PRS call barring on that switch. TF added that she had wanted a new call class for high tariff DQ, e.g. over 70p, but this was not possible on NTL switches, so 118 had to be put in with PRS numbers.

CW (Oftel) suggested that operators should consider their policy as to whether high tariff 118 numbers should be put into the PRS call barring category from launch of 118 to protect consumers, but that it was left to the operators’ discretion.

PH (BT) reinforced that there is some potential for some 118s to be made available to PRS-barred customers. There are 30 off-switch charge bands, and for codes launching on 10 December, the Retail Price List shows which off-switch charge band a 118 code has been put against. PH advised that the URL to view this is:

www.serviceview.bt.com/list/notifs/11-11-2002

CW (Oftel) suggested an industry call to discuss an appropriate tariff or tariff(s) for 118 numbers which could be made available to PRS-barred customers. CW asked BT to take an action to set this call up. DA (Telegate) asked how PRS-barred customers would be informed of the situation (given that only BT had access to the database of these customers). CW suggested this was also discussed on the conference call. CW also suggested that the starting point for acceptable tariffs could (for example) be BT’s retail price for 192, as PRS-barred customers currently have access to this service. It was possible that traffic to IDQ from these customers was too small to be concerned about. AH (Telegate) commented that they may have to market a separate number to compete with BT. It was agreed that Oftel should obtain consumer opinions as to appropriate tariffs prior to the conference call, and AC (Oftel) asked the group to let him know of any related points members of the group would like Oftel to mention to consumer reps as soon as possible.

NA (Vodafone) said he believed Vodafone did not intend to have 118 within PRS number barring, but that he would need to confirm this.

CW (Oftel) asked the group to refer to the paper on call barring which was distributed six months ago, on the technical abilities of different networks. CW advised that Oftel would leave it to the Mobile Operators to decide how 118 calls are categorised (whether PRS or not). It was felt it would be useful for Mobile Operators to confirm to the group whether they would be including 118 in Premium Rate call barring.

6. Phone book leaflet proposal

Nik Hole (The Number) and Paul Whiteing (ICSTIS) were able to report back on the progress of the small team that had been assembled to work on the phone book leaflet.

There had been several face-to-face meetings and conference calls. The deadline for final sign-off was 29^th November, so DQ service providers could still get their 118 numbers into the first leaflet (or future versions of the leaflet) if they wanted to.

NH mentioned that the price per 118 number was approximately £4500, although this would vary depending on how many SPs opted to participate. CW(Oftel) emphasised that this was very good value, given the coverage of the leaflet and the high production values.

It was emphasised that the leaflet was for inclusion with BT phone books only – other access operators would need to make their own arrangements.

AH(Telegate) proposed a vote of thanks to the phone book leaflet team and BT for this initiative, which was felt to have been a success story.

7. Payphones and DQ 118

CW(Oftel) noted that Oftel had sent an email to the DQ-IWG setting out a proposal regarding arrangements for accessing DQ 118 codes from BT’s public and managed payphones. Oftel had not received any objections to these proposals within the deadlines stated on the email, and therefore Oftel considered that these arrangements would be implemented.

In summary, the arrangements are:

• Due to the technical and commercial limitations on charging arrangements from BT’s public and managed payphones, only DQ 118 numbers chargeable on a pence-per-minute basis can be made available from these payphones. The PPM charge will be higher from payphones than from ordinary lines, to reflect the increased cost of access from payphones. Any DQ SP wishing to enable their 118 numbers in payphones needs to contact BT urgently to request this, if they have not already done so.
• 192/153 calls are currently available at ‘public interest’ tariffs from payphones (ie below cost). BT had proposed that 192/153 would continue to be available at the same tariffs from payphones until 192/153 were phased out, to avoid consumer confusion.

8. Co-ordination of implementation of DQ 118 codes

Prior to the meeting, Oftel had circulated a BT paper setting out proposals for how the implementation of DQ 118 codes would be managed in the days surrounding launch on December 10^th.

The paper suggested that a separate email list be set up, and that a list of key telephone contacts be set up in each DQSP making a service available at day 1, and in each network operator originating significant call volumes.

The paper also put forward a schedule of Industry conference calls covering the week before launch and the week of the launch itself.

Some concerns were expressed about network operators not represented on the DQ-IWG. Oftel was not aware of any significant omissions, but asked that if anyone was aware of gaps, they should contact Oftel immediately.

The paper also set out possible problems that may arise during the launch. CW drew particular attention to the risk that there might be a ‘normal’ network problem or outage that just happened to coincide with the launch of these new services. The press or others in the Industry might wrongly ascribe the problem to the launch of DQ 118 services – the DQ-IWG should be ready to counter any mis-information as a result.

CW (Oftel) noted that Oftel would be pulling together the email and telephone contact list, but that this depended very much on Oftel receiving the necessary information. Oftel had already made one request for this information, but had only received one response. Oftel asked the group to note that Oftel would make reasonable efforts (via the DQ-IWG email distribution list) to obtain this information, but that Oftel could not be held responsible if Industry did not provide the necessary information. The group approved of and agreed with this position.

CW also asked that the group’s thanks to Beatrice Osborn of BT for preparing this paper be recorded.

9. Report back from Billing & Interconnection sub-group (including Phase 2 billing)

DA (Telegate) reported that there had been a B&I meeting immediately after the last DQ-IWG meeting. BT’s DQ POLO rates had been discussed, and feedback from BT on DQ SP’s questions had been provided.

There had been a lengthy discussion about Phase 2 billing. As a result, the Phase 2 billing sub-sub-group had been reformed. The output from this group will be a consolidated list of DQ SPs’ requirements with some ‘straw man’ examples. Part of the work will include discussions with originating network operators on the basis on the DQ SPs’ requirements.

TF (NTL) noted that the other Industry initiatives thought to be relevant to Phase 2 billing (such as tagging of incoming international calls to PRS numbers and NTS call tagging) no longer appeared to be being progressed.

CW (Oftel) reported that the PNO-ISC group of the NICC was waiting to hear the requirements from DQ SPs, so the PNO-ISC can help develop a solution for identifying the originating billing service provider.

A question was asked about the time scale for introduction of Phase 2. DA reported that there was currently no fixed time scale, but that after the next meeting on December 17^th, this might be clearer.

10. Report back from Consumer Issues sub-group

AC (Oftel) reported back from the Consumer Issues sub-group meeting held on 4^th November. In future, AC would chair this group due to the other commitments of the current Chair (Gareth Owen of Babel).

AC reported that the issue of DQ services for BT’s admin-controlled premium rate barred customers had been discussed at the meeting. Consumer reps were generally content with the idea that such customers would only be able to access a limited range of DQ services.

The latest version of the DQ Consumer Guide was also discussed at the meeting.

11. Review of project plan / key milestones

TH asked when the 118 numbers would begin working on BT’s network?

PH replied that DQ SPs may be able to test their numbers prior to 10^th December, depending on the order in which the numbers have been built. DQ SPs should be offering ‘answer no charge’ test messages prior to 10^th December. It is for the DQ SP and the terminating operator to make the service ‘go live’ in accordance with the Industry-agreed embargo.

The project plan (version 2.21) was reviewed and the following changes agreed:

1. Task 53 - complete

2. Tasks 75 and 76 - complete

3. Task 80 - complete (in so far as the deadline for contract signing has now passed)

4. Task 84 (publication of Oftel consumer guide) - confirmed for 29/11/02

5. Task 85 - this task is incorrect as there will be no 118XXX network messages during parallel running (the Industry is relying on advertising to raise consumer awareness) - this whole task needs to be deleted. Tasks 93 and 94 cover network messaging.

6. Task 98 - date should be 30/11/02 - this date is also confirmed.

7. Tasks 101-104 - all now complete

AC noted that Oftel wishes to make a list of active DQ 118 numbers available on the Oftel website. If DQ SPs wish to participate, they will need to provide a complaints-handling number and a link to pricing information for their services on their own web site. CW stated that Oftel would send a reminder email about this offer.

12. Any other business

1. Interconnect billing issues at launch

PH (BT) reported that due to the load on BT’s interconnect billing system, BT may not be able to provide distance-related interconnect billing information when 118 services are initially launched. BT will instead have to assume that every 118 call originated on BT’s network is single tandem (this works to the financial advantage of DQ SPs). BT expected to be able to rectify this problem with software upgrades in due course.

PH(BT) also reported that there are some BT platforms (eg the Chargecard platform) for which distance-related interconnect information for a small number of 118 calls originated on BT’s network will never be available. These would always be assumed to be single tandem. This would mean that there could be some small discrepancy between a DQ SP’s own interconnect billing records and the data provided by BT.

2. Network messaging

TH (Conduit) reported that the network messaging MoU Group had received and was considering responses to its RFP. TH noted that a viable proposal looked realistic to the Group by the end of the year. The Group is preparing a document for Oftel.

AC(Oftel) noted that the network messaging solution should consider the situation of customers calling from payphones.

TH reported that there had been some consultation (led by Dave Campbell of Conduit) with originating network operators.

3. Timescales for use of 118XXX numbers

AC(Oftel) noted that Oftel’s DQ Statement had set out Oftel’s intention to withdraw any DQ 118 codes allocated in the DQ lottery that had not been used 6 months after the launch of the services. One DQ SP had said that it planned to launch its code in August 2003 (9 months after service launch). AC noted that this was likely to be acceptable to Oftel, provided this timetable was adhered to.

4. Progress on opening up 118XXX numbers on the various UK networks

CW(Oftel) gave a brief summary. Oftel was aware that there were no significant issues at the moment with the opening of 118XXX numbers on the UK mobile networks. With the fixed networks, progress on the BT network, and several other fixed networks was very promising. However, there were issues for one or two non-dominant fixed operators. CW encouraged DQ SPs (once again) to talk to these operators about their concerns and requirements, in order to ensure that the 118XXX numbers could be made available on those networks as rapidly as possible.

13. Action point review

AP 6.5 – discharged

AP 11.1 – ongoing

AP 12.3 – discharged

AP 13.1 – discharged

AP 13.2 – ongoing

AP 13.3 – discharged

AP 13.4 – discharged

AP 13.5 – discharged

AP 13.6 – discharged

AP 13.7 - discharged

14. Arrangements for Next Meeting

Tuesday 17^th December 10.30am – Oftel (with B&I meeting to follow)

Tuesday 21^st January, 10.30am – Venue TBC, volunteers requested

Tuesday 25^th February 10.30am – Venue TBC, volunteers requested

15. Action Points (new and outstanding)