|
|
ACTIONS |
| ITEM
1 |
Introduction |
|
| ITEM
2 |
Matters
arising from December meeting |
|
|
Panel
members did not have experiences of Mobile Number Portability
(MNP) to report. Oftel had not been able to obtain information
from operators yet on the amount of ported numbers but expected
to receive data shortly. Oftel had the operators’ agreement
to publish the figures in aggregated form. |
Oftel
to seek to obtain and put into the public domain information
on the take-up of mobile portability. |
|
(Feedback
received following the meeting indicated that they had found
the MNP process complicated and bureaucratic) |
(Following
the meeting Oftel established that 39,446 mobile numbers had
ported during period 1.1.99 - 30.4.99. Details will be updated
when available and included in Oftel News) |
|
Panel
members asked for confirmation that the calls to mobiles price
reductions had been implemented as a result of the MMC ruling. |
Oftel
to confirm in the note of the meeting.
(Reductions
by BT in the costs of calls to mobiles of between 25%-30%
were introduced on 1 May.)
|
| ITEM
3 |
Telecom
Company Bills |
|
|
Oftel
gave a presentation on the meter approval scheme. This was followed
by a discussion of the Panel’s experiences of billing and
metering issues. |
|
|
Several
Panel members reported that they had full-time teams dedicated
to checking bills – justified by the savings made through
identifying overcharging by operators. There was a general concern
that operators appeared relaxed about errors and were relying
on customers to check bills rather than investing in improvements
to their systems. Errors occurred on private wire bills as well
as in relation to PSTN calls. |
|
|
One
member of the Panel reported that checking had revealed a £2M
overcharge over the last two years. The level of errors was
often used by customers as leverage in negotiations to obtain
further discounts. |
|
|
The
discussion suggested that the main area of billing errors was
in relation to discounts. Malcolm Davies said that the application
of discounts was part of the BABT approval system. He indicated
that BABT would check an approved operator’s systems after
receiving a certain level of complaints but did not seek out
business customers’ views on billing as a matter of course. |
|
|
The
Panel suggested that the BABT assessment could usefully be extended
beyond the central billing engine to include the presentation
of the bill. The particular problem areas identified were:
- Featurenet
billing;
- Failure
to indicate when tariff changes applied;
- Not
showing when a new service is introduced or discontinued;
- BABT
not obtaining business customers’ views.
|
|
|
Late
billing was another problem area which caused budget planning
difficulties. The introduction of new or the termination of
old circuits were slow to appear on bills. One Panel member
said his operator had billed for services worth £300k three
years’ after installation. Others reported duplicate billing
as a common occurrence. |
|
|
The
Panel suggested that comparisons between operators would be
useful. Oftel suggested that it might be difficult to bring
out CPI indicators for large business billing issues; the use
of case studies may be more appropriate to highlight concerns
to the telecoms operators. |
Oftel
to consider developing case studies for publicity with LBUP
members |
|
Bass
invited members of Oftel’s metering team to visit its bill
checking team. |
|
| ITEM
4 |
Market
information |
|
| 11. |
Nick
Collins of Oftel gave a presentation on Oftel’s Market
Information Publications. The Panel was invited to suggest improvements
to the information collected and published. Oftel was considering
issuing a consultative paper on an expansion of the information. |
Panel
members to send to Oftel suggestions for further data
|
|
It
was suggested that the publication of revenues from international
roaming could be a useful addition. Oftel indicated that, in
addition to BT and CWC, other companies (Worldcom, Energis,
RSL) would be included in future publications for specific markets,
ie international calls; further companies may be named in future. |
|
| ITEM
5 |
International
Benchmarking |
|
|
Oftel
explained that it publishes comparisons between markets in the
UK and those in similar markets: US, France, Australia and Sweden.
Oftel is seeking views on comparisons that would be useful for
businesses, eg comparative information on discounts. Panel members
were invited to send in comments |
Oftel
will circulate draft benchmarking proposal. Panel members to
send Oftel suggestions for future comparisons |
| ITEM
6 |
Oftel
Management Plan |
|
|
Oftel
explained that its management plan had just been published.
He invited the Panel members to look through it and identify
projects that they would find useful to discuss. Oftel would
then invite the Project Manager to attend a Panel meeting. |
Panel
members to review Plan and identify topics for discussion at
future Panel meetings |
| ITEM
7 |
Number
Changes |
|
|
The
Panel asked for clarification on whether changes to local- and
national- rate numbers (0345,0645, 0990 etc) were still required,
in the light of the freephone review. Oftel confirmed that the
changes were still going ahead as announced in the Oftel Statement
of January 1997. Freephone numbers had always been omitted from
the Big Number changes because of the complex issues involved.
|
|
|
The
Panel was concerned that there was a lack of clear information
on dates for the end of parallel running. |
Panel
members to check Oftel’s website for the updated Numbering
Framework Document |
|
The
Panel expressed concern about the publicity for the changes
which members felt was late and inadequate. There was a feeling
that the publicity was not reaching key personnel in companies:
the company secretaries and marketing departments. Oftel explained
the publicity measures taken to date by operators and indicated
it would aim to provide the Group with details of market research
on customer awareness. |
Oftel
to provide further information to Group on Big Number campaign;
Oftel to pass Panel’s concerns to Industry Communications
Group |
| ITEM
8 |
CLI
Issues |
|
|
Panel
members expressed concern that details on operators’ plans
for CLI presentation during parallel running for the Big Number
changes were not available to customers. Oftel agreed to see
what information could be made available. |
Oftel
to provide note on CLI/Big Number issues |
|
Oftel
outlined the contents of a consultative document issued in April
by Oftel Presentation numbers the development of Calling Line
Identification services in the UK. The document surveys the
regulatory framework within which CLI services have developed
in the UK and introduces Oftel’s three cardinal principles
of privacy, authenticity and integrity. |
|
| 19. |
The
document considers whether the rules ought to be changed to
permit presentation numbers that are applied by a customer’s
equipment and not subjected to network checking procedures –
type 3 presentation numbers. It seeks views on the range of
safeguards that could be set in place to prevent any abuse of
type 3 presentation numbers. |
|
| 20. |
Panel
members expressed concern that are sometimes legitimate reasons
for CLI to be suppressed. Oftel confirmed that the requirement
to allow anonymous call rejection was absolute and that there
could be not be an override by the caller in any circumstances.
However, Oftel was keen to develop rules with the industry for
the use of presentation numbers. |
Oftel
to contact Panel members directly to discuss issues |
| 21. |
Oftel
stressed the importance of Panel members responding to the consultative
document. |
Panel
members to consider responding to the consultation. |
| ITEM
9 |
Small
Business Task Force |
|
| 22. |
Copies
of the recently issued bulletin of Oftel’s Small Business
Task Force were distributed. |
|
|
|
NEXT
MEETINGS
Dates of next meetings;
- 14
September 1999; 7 December 1999
|
Panel
members/Oftel to note diaries |
