| ITEM
1 |
Introduction |
|
| 1. |
The
Panel agreed the agenda. |
|
| ITEM
2 |
Matters
arising from December meeting |
|
| 2. |
The
Panel was informed that letters had been sent to operators ensuring
readiness for ‘The Big Number’. Operators’ attention
had been brought to the ‘Dirty Dozen’ technical areas
that required attention, which included the use of the new 00
code for international ISDN data calls from 22 April 2000. |
|
| 3. |
The
Panel understood the rules for using CLI presentation numbers
as contained in Oftel’s February Statement, but felt that
implementation needed clarification. Technical and cost restrictions
would prevent businesses from using a mixture of types of presentation
numbers for different extensions. As complex issues surrounded
presentation numbers, it was requested that a major operator
be invited to give a presentation on implementation. |
Oftel
to consider a workshop on the implementation of CLI presentation
numbers. |
| 4. |
Operators
had not provided additional information on a timetable for changes
to CLIs in respect of ‘The Big Number’. Any queries
should be addressed to operators, who have pooled CLI information.
Some concern was expressed that CLI information was not available
on an open and equal basis, which could lead to competitors
gaining an advantage. The Panel wished it to be noted that CLI
information was increasingly important and access to change
of CLIs was imperative at any future code change. |
|
| 5. |
The
Panel was advised that a questionnaire on Corporate Numbering
would be circulated to the Panel late Summer. |
Oftel
to circulate questionnaire on Corporate Numbering to Panel late
summer 2000. |
| 6. |
Oftel
informed the Panel that it had issued a Determination under
condition 50.a.7 of BT’s licence relating to the costs
of Interim Carrier Pre-selection (ICPS). The Determination required
BT to bear 50% of the costs of ICPS and set the levels of payment
that BT must make to ICPS operators in respect of autodialler
installations. |
|
| ITEM
3 |
Mobile
Issues |
|
| 3.1 |
Portability
Processes |
|
| 7. |
Alan
Boniface of One2One, a former Chair of the Mobile Portability
Working Group, gave a presentation
to the Panel. The presentation examined the effectiveness of
the process since its launch in January 1999 and looked at ways
of improving its performance. Current procedures took 15 –25
days for a port to be completed at a cost to the customer of
up to £30. The biggest indicator of performance was the low
take-up of the service. Only 225,000 ports had been completed,
which compared poorly with an estimated 900,000 ports. As a
result of the presentation and the following discussion, the
industry working group hoped to improve its appreciation of
the reasons behind the low take-up and of how demand could be
stimulated. |
|
| 8. |
The
new process, due to be launched end August/early September 2000,
would be customer driven and would rely on the customer obtaining
a Porting Authority Certificate (PAC) from a third party. There
would be separate processes for individual and corporate porting
(26+ numbers). The Panel welcomed the new process, but did not
believe it would deliver the level of improvement required to
stimulate porting requests. It was criticised for increasing
the complexity of the process. |
|
| 9. |
A
number of issues were identified as contributing to corporate
customers’ lack of confidence in the mobile porting process.
There was a general nervousness of porting failure. Telecoms
managers were not prepared to jeopardise their reputations without
knowledge of porting failure statistics. It was considered difficult
to co-ordinate the porting requirements of a large business
and would be more manageable if responsibility for the process
could be devolved to the end user. Extension of web technology
to allow electronic ordering by the customer could stimulate
interest. The issue of outstanding debts also bothered the Panel.
Customers had been lead to believe that porting could not take
place until a nil balance was achieved, and as this required
a bar on outgoing calls in advance of porting, was seen to be
a barrier to take-up. Ingrained culture (the huge take-up in
Hong Kong compared to the UK), ambivalence over number ownership
(Oftel Statement due in Summer 2000), the length of time to
complete the porting process (between 15-25 working days) and
past experience of failed or difficult ports were also cited
as having a negative impact on the service. It was agreed that
to make the mobile porting process more attractive, ordering
would need to be electronic based, a porting date would need
to be quoted at the start of a faster process, corporate porting
would be devolved to the end user and failure statistics would
need to be available. |
|
| 10. |
Alan
Boniface thanked the Panel for its views which he would feedback
to the industry working group. Interest was shown by the Panel
in a further presentation by the Chair of the industry working
group once the new process had been launched, hopefully with
some illustrations of successful ports. |
Oftel
to arrange further presentation on mobile number porting processes. |
| ITEM
3.2 |
Independent
Service Providers |
|
| 11. |
Michael
Richardson, Project Manager of the Regulatory Framework for
Service Providers Project, sought the Panels experience and
perceptions of independent service providers (ISPs) of mobile
phone services. The Panel was also asked to consider the reduction
in ISPs active in the mobile market and whether Oftel should
intervene. |
|
| 12. |
The
Panel agreed that flexibility and support were major factors
in choosing a mobile service provider, and some members felt
that ISPs best supplied these qualities. One Panel member reported
that an ISP had made an impressive tender, but the ability of
its infrastructure to support a company of its size had been
questioned. It had been hoped that the ISP would improve its
infrastructure and possibly take on the business in the future,
but it had since been bought out. The ISP had impressed with
its ‘hunger for business’, understanding of the service
requested, pricing structure and choice of networks. Some Panel
members were using ISPs and offered positive feedback on their
ability to manage and understand corporate accounts, as well
as the offer of tailored packages and flexible choice of networks.
However, not all Panel members shared this view. Some had been
disappointed by their experience with ISPs who, it was felt,
were not organised enough to take care of the needs of large
corporations. Main criticisms were the lack of a single point
of contact and the need to invest large amounts of management
time in handling their own accounts. |
|
| 13. |
The
Panel agreed that Oftel should not intervene in the market to
restrict the acquisition of ISPs by larger service providers.
It was felt there might be some benefit in examining the relationship
between operators and in-house service providers to guard against
undue preference. |
|
| 3.2 |
Mobile
Internet services |
|
| 14. |
Michael
Richardson asked the Panel whether it had any experience of
negotiating access arrangements for mobile Internet services.
A few Panel members had commenced dialogue with mobile operators
on portal and access to advanced mobile communications issues,
primarily to ensure they were abreast of innovation. It was
felt too soon to address any concerns, but members expressed
interest in a presentation on mobile Internet services by the
industry. The possibility of an industry-sponsored trial of
new services in exchange for feedback was raised. |
Oftel
to consider inviting an appropriate member of the industry to
talk to the Panel at a future meeting about mobile Internet
services. |
| ITEM
4 |
National
Leased Lines in the UK |
|
| 15. |
Tim
Cross, Oftel Compliance Directorate, discussed the November
Statement which launched a review of the regulatory framework
for Leased Lines. The review examined the extent of competition
and the scope for de-regulation, and investigated issues relating
to the pricing of national leased lines. A detailed investigation
of BT’s costs and prices for private circuits was underway,
and would be analysed using a suitable cost price model for
comparison. The review would also examine the role of price
publication and price notification in the market and the appropriateness
of geographic deaveraging. |
|
| 16. |
Oftel
expected to publish a Consultative Document on the national
leased lines review in summer 2000, followed by a Statement
towards the end of the year. The Panel was informed that its
knowledge of the leased line market would be valuable in the
consultation period. It was planned that representatives of
the leased line review would present the Consultation Document
to the Panel at the next meeting after publication. |
Oftel
to arrange leased line agenda item at future LBUP meeting. |
| ITEM
5 |
Meter
approval scheme for PTOs |
|
| 17. |
Malcolm
Davies, Oftel’s Metering and Billing Project Manager, gave
a presentation on the Oftel Meter Approval Scheme Statement.
The Panel welcomed the Statement and the progress made towards
ensuring accurate billing. The Panel was informed that Oftel
planned a Workshop in April 2000 to discuss the Meter Approval
Statement and that invitations would be issued to the Panel
members. |
Oftel
to invite Panel members to Meter Approval Workshop. |
| 18. |
The
Panel members particularly welcomed the Statement as it was
felt the number of billing complaints had risen. It was uncertain
whether this was due to a decline in service or that knowledge
of complaint procedures had grown. Panel members were of the
view that it was imprudent of large businesses to rely on the
accuracy of operators’ bills. The compilation of a ‘top
ten’ of billing inaccuracies was suggested, which could
alert businesses to the common danger areas in bills. It was
generally felt that many of the billing errors were due to human,
rather than metering, mistakes. The proliferation and complexity
of discounts was identified as the cause of many errors, as
was operators’ apparent inability to understand the needs
of businesses in the modern marketplace and construct billing
systems to meet requirements. The need for operators to work
together to develop a billing system that could meet customers’
needs was stressed, but it was understood that this would take
time. The Panel also urged Oftel to be aware of the extent and
nature of the billing problems, and provide a benchmark by examining
its own bill for errors. |
|
| ITEM
6 |
Oftel
Strategy/ Management Plan/ Stakeholders Workshop |
|
| 19. |
Geoff
Delamere, Head of Oftel’s Customers and Market Unit, addressed
the Panel on Oftel’s strategy and promotion of effective
competition. The Panel’s increasingly important role in
providing information and realistic cost-benefit analysis was
stressed, particularly with the growing trend towards self-
and co-regulation of the telecoms market. |
|
| 20. |
In
March 2000 Oftel held a workshop seeking the views of external
stakeholders. John Pook and Vivienne Peters represented the
LBUP and John Pook provided feedback at the meeting. The Workshop
centred on the move to lighter touch regulation as competition
developed, with reviews of market segments every two years.
John expressed reservation over a reduction in regulation, even
in market segments shown to be competitive. He felt competition
law could not keep abreast of the telecoms market and would
not address its particular characteristics, such as regional
access to services. There appeared to be an emphasis on the
residential rather than business sector in Oftel’s strategy,
particularly when measuring the effects of competition. |
|
| 21. |
Geoff
Delamere stressed the importance of Oftel appreciating the behaviour
and concerns of various telecoms sectors. The Panel was asked
to consider whether Oftel was sufficiently aware of commercial
drivers, particularly in the area of ecommerce. Some Panel members
expressed concern over the relevance of some policies to the
corporate market and it was felt that Oftel might not always
address the correct audience. The Panel was sceptical of Oftel’s
strategy being fluid enough to meet rapid changes in the telecoms
market, and of Oftel having the resource to manage the rolling
programme of reviews. It was felt external advice and research
was necessary. The Panel was invited to suggest pieces of research
that might be helpful in assessing the competitiveness of market
segments. |
Panel
members to suggest research that may be helpful to Oftel’s
reviews of the telecom market sectors. |
| ITEM
7 |
Price
Control Review |
|
| 22. |
Chris
Taylor, policy adviser to the Price Control Review, gave a presentation
to the Panel on the second Review consultation document issued
in March 2000. The Panel was invited to submit comments by 5
May 2000. As part of the Review, there would be a further consultation
document setting out firm proposals in July and a final Statement
with licence modifications issued in December 2000. |
|
| 23. |
Oftel
informed the Panel of its belief that price control could be
justified to protect consumers in markets where competition
was ineffective and was likely to continue to be ineffective.
This was Oftel’s favoured approach in both the retail and
interconnection services markets. Having considered all the
responses to its July 1999 consultation document on competitiveness
in the UK telecommunications market, Oftel was setting out its
initial proposals for future retail price and network charge
controls. Existing price control arrangements covered the bottom
80% of residential customers by expenditure. Although prices
for customers had fallen, the reduction had not met Oftel’s
expectations. This suggested the need for some price control,
although the generation of competition by Carrier Pre-selection,
growth in mobile services/networks and broadband services needed
to be considered. In addition, BT’s financial results for
the third quarter and nine months to 31 December 1999 were considered
disappointing by the stock market. |
|
| 24. |
The
Panel was asked to consider three possible approaches to future
price controls – broadly described as (1) continuation
of existing price control arrangements; (2) extension of price
controls to all customers including businesses: and (3) broadening
of interconnection rights, with five variations to protect low
users. Oftel believed that the broadening of interconnection
rights might encourage providers of services in other industries
to enter the UK telecoms market. |
|
| 25. |
The
Panel felt that underlying the Review was the belief that BT’s
market share was falling; it was cautious of the BT figures
used in the document and in giving too much emphasis to one
set of BT financial results. It was recognised that the telecoms
market was becoming increasingly complex, and in order to assess
levels of fixed line competition, Oftel was urged to consider
all possible uses of the line and not concentrate on voice traffic.
There was encouragement for Oftel to protect the needs of various
categories of users, rather than concentrate on traditional
categories such as low users. Attention should be given to the
low user threshold, to establish the point where the customer
would be indifferent to a line rental increase offset by call
charges. The Panel agreed that for corporate customers the effectiveness
of competition was not only measured by price, but also by quality
of service. |
|
| ITEM
8 |
Other
issues |
|
| 26. |
Oftel
wished to make the Panel aware that its Consumer Representation
Section had received a growing number of complaints regarding
the increased use of national rate numbers by the customer service
departments of large businesses. Complainants argued against
the cost of the call and the revenue share element, believing
this would encourage call queuing. The Panel agreed it was an
unwelcome trend. |
|
| 27. |
The
Panel’s attention was brought to the publication in December
1999 of Oftel’s Statement on freephone numbering. The Statement
confirmed that existing 6-digit 0500 and 0800 freephone numbers
could remain in service. |
|
| 28. |
An
update of ‘The Big Number’ communications campaign
was given to the Panel. Particular emphasis was given to the
market research figures, which demonstrated the gap between
businesses that were aware of the number change and those that
had actually prepared for the change. Panel members were urged
to ensure their businesses were fully prepared. |
|
| 29. |
A
new web-site for the LBUP would be launched, including a restricted
access section for Panel members. The Billing Studies Questionnaire
would be posted on the restricted site. Panel members would
be notified of the web address and individual passwords once
the web site was active. |
Oftel
to inform members of the web site details and post Billing Studies
questionnaire on restricted site. |
|
Future
meetings |
|
| 30. |
Dates
of next meetings: |
|
|
- September
2000, 11am at Oftel, 50 Ludgate Hill, London EC4M 7JJ
- December
2000
|
|
| 31. |
Suggested
topics for next/future meetings: |
|
|
- Regulatory
effects of BT re-organisation
- Oftel
viewpoint on how to regulate the converged industries
of telecoms/IT/broadcasting
- Mobile
Number Portability Process
- Mobile
Internet services
- Leased
Lines Statement
- Implementation
of CLI presentation numbers
- Update
on E-Commerce/Internet/Bandwidth presentation concentrating
on ADSL
- Possibility
of inviting DTI to speak about SPAM and the E-Commerce
Directive
|
Oftel
to speak to Project Managers with a view to including on future
agenda |
