Agenda
1 Introduction
2 Minutes of last meeting
3 Stakeholders' Interest (Michael Richardson, Oftel)
4 Retail Market Review (Tony Wickes, Mike Galvin, Alan Pridmore,
Oftel)
5 ENUM and European Numbering (Justin Moore, Oftel)
6 Leased Line Update (Maeve Gallagher, Oftel)
7 Mobile Market Review (Nic Green, Oftel)
9 Local Loop Unbundling (Trevor Wood, Oftel)
10 AOB
11 Future meetings: Dates and Items
Note of meeting
Present:
Panel Members
Mr Martin Rayment BAA
Mr Glenn Morgan British Airways
Mr John Pook Six Continents
Mr Brian Mulholland DSS
Mr Stuart Lyall Barclays
Mr Stuart Richardson BBC
Mr John Hanlon Royal Bank of Scotland
George Tsgarides Inland Revenue
Oftel
Alan Pridmore (Chair)
Elizabeth Greenberg (Panel Adviser) (EG)
Maura Crawford
Caroline Wallace
Trevor Wood
Michael Richardson
Maeve Gallagher
Tony Wickes
Mike Galvin
Nic Green
Trevor Wood
Item 1 Introduction
1. The Panel agreed the agenda
Item 2 Matters arising from April 2001 meeting
2. The panel agreed the minutes
3. Re: Mobile Number Portability
No update was available from the Mobile Number Portability (MNP)
team on the implementation of phase II. An update was requested
for the next meeting. Stuart Richardson (SR) and George Tsgarides
(GT) met the MNP chairman (at the time) to discuss their issues.
4. Re: Telecommunications Ombudsman
A written
update on Telecommunications Ombudsman was distributed to
Panel Members. It was noted that a Chairperson had been appointed
and that a consultant would be working on the size and costing
of the scheme.
5. Re: Carrier Pre-Selection (CPS)
Panel members requested a list of Operators who offered CPS.
Post note of meeting:
List available on the Oftel website at the following address:
http://www.oftel.gov.uk/ind_groups/op_policy/cpscgm/cpslistoprts.htm
It was confirmed that CPS was available nationally.
6. Re: Item 8 - Calls to Mobiles Update
A written update on Call to Mobiles was distributed to panel members.
Members felt that the cost of making a fixed to mobile call had
a significant impact on large businesses but they had little control
over the cost of the call. With reference to market reviews, Members
felt that Oftel needed to act quicker on the information gathered
in order to deliver benefits to consumers.
Item 3 Stakeholders' Interest
7. Michael Richardson gave an update on the consultation on Stakeholders'
interest. He stated that Oftel was still very committed to consultation
and that the process needed to be more frank and directed according
to the nature of the specific topic. Interested parties would
need to vary from topic to topic. It was noted that Oftel had
good relations with the CMA and LBUP members but found it difficult
to engage other business organisations. However better and wider
relations were a long-term investment and were being addressed.
It was agreed that the period of time Oftel took to conclude a
consultation was too lengthy. Panel members felt that time invested
in consultations needed to be adequately rewarded with prompt
results otherwise better deals for large businesses could be struck
through direct negotiation with operators. .
8. Members mentioned a few organisations or associations that
could be of interest to the Stakeholders forum eg CMA, Tiff (www.tiff.co.uk).
Some members felt that organisations would need to be convinced
that any changes that arose from consultation would be introduced
quickly
9 It was agreed that a representative of the LBUP would attend
the Oftel Forum meetings and report back to the Panel at following
meetings. Panel members were asked if there was anything of interest
to large companies they wished to be raised at the Forum. The
next Oftel Forum meeting was due to take place 22/1/02 and the
minutes of the previous meeting can be found on the following
Oftel page http://www.oftel.gov.uk/ind_groups/oftel_forum/index.htm
Item 4 Retail Market Review
10 Alan Pridmore gave a
presentation on Retail Market Review consultation document.
He emphasised that this was an opportunity for LBUP members to
give their views on the Retail Market Review. He stated that Retail
Price Controls are in place until 31 July 2002. Oftel needed to
determine what would happen to prices if Oftel removed Price Controls?
Is the market effectively competitive to ensure that BT could
not use their market power to maintain prices above the competitive
level?
11. Some members felt that competition would only be if the retail
and network businesses were separated. They felt competitors are
pitching prices just below the incumbent's regulated prices and
so not stimulating significant price competition. Members thought
that current competition was happy to remain the status quo and
by relaxing controls on the incumbent might result in a shake-up
across the the industry.
12. Some members felt that the 'no discrimination' requirement
placed on BT restricted competition. Members felt that this type
of shake-up might benefit large businesses but may not benefit
small business.
13 Some member believed they get better international deals for
the three main market areas - Europe, USA and rest of world from
international carriers than from BT.
14. Members felt it was not worth the cost and risk of requesting
fixed number portability. Easier to change the number. Employees
are moving anyway so change of number was not normally a issue
within a company.
15 Resellers who use the BT network should be encouraged to offer
more services. If Service providers can package service correctly
including billing this would be attractive but price controls
would need to be removed in order to stimulate market.
16 Members stated that for large businesses, issue arises with
timeframe as businesses sign contracts with operators for 5 years
normally and so would not be of benefit until the contract was
being renegotiated.
Item 5 ENUM
17. Justin Moore gave a presentation
on ENUM. He confirmed that a number of decisions needed to be
made on how ENUM would operate and how the infrastructure would
be set up. Panel members were informed that ENUM would use E164
numbers and there was likely to be a tier 1 registry for the UK
Some panel members were enthusiastic about the prospect of ENUM
and felt its introduction would pass immediate benefits and large
savings to consumers. It was seen as both a massive opportunity
and a threat to the future of the PSTN, as Telcos would probably
loose revenue previously made from carrying voice traffic but
would gain profits from other (ENUM related) functions.
18. The next step was to continue discussions on technical standards
and domains at UK and International level.
19. EG added that Sweden and Norway had planned national trials
of ENUM.
20. Members said that feedback would be appreciated when it became
available.
21. Post Note Meeting:
A link has been set up on the Oftel website for ENUM, any new
information on ENUM will be added here. The link is www.oftel.gov.uk/ind_info/numbering/enum.htm
Item 6 Leased Line Update
22. Maeve Gallagher gave an update on the Leased Line proposals.
She confirmed that negotiations between Operators continued until
July 2001. Products were launched in August 2001, so Private Partial
Circuits (PPC) were available to Annex II operators. A large quantity
of circuits had already been sold.
23. Two determinations were planned. The first determination
had been issued and could be found on the Oftel website http://www.oftel.gov.uk/publications/broadband/leased_lines/ppcs1201.htm
The second determination would resolve more complex issues such
as
pricing and service level agreements.
24 Post Note Meeting:
An explanation of Annex II operators was requested by some members.
Annex II operators are those who have rights and obligations to
interconnect with
each other under Article 4(1) of the Interconnection Directive
for the purpose of providing publicly available telecommunication
services. Also known as a
Schedule 2 Public Operator in BT's licence.
Further information on Annex II can be found on the following
website link: http://www.oftel.gov.uk/publications/1999/licensing/an20499.htm
Item 7 Mobile Market Review
25. Nicholas Green gave an update
on Mobile Market Review (MMR). The Statement on MMR was issued
on 26 September 2001 and announced that mobile operators' market
shares had converged and Market Influence status had been removed.
There would be a price drop from March 2002 on any call that terminated
on a mobile network. The cost reduction would be extended to all
four mobile Operators. The removal of Market Influence obligations
would enable operators to offer additional services.
26. Members asked what prices had been looked at eg mobile to
mobile or mobile to fixed. NG said that ten different baskets
of services had been used in the study.
27. NG also stated that Oftel would be investigating SIM - locking.
The Director General had sent letters to the four main mobile
operators asking for justification of SIM-locking activity. It
was confirmed that all four mobile operators had introduced
SIM-locking with different packages.
28 NG also stated that Oftel was monitoring the new code of conduct
that GSM operators had written to see what effect it would have
on the market.
Item 8 Local Loop Unbundling
29 Trevor Wood gave an update
on Local Loop Unbundling (LLU). As the number of telcos involved
in LLU had reduced the approach was now working on a 'Business
as Usual' basis. Different solutions were being looked at for
co-location. An alternative proposal to 'hostels', which would
host 1000 users, was 'in curtilage' which was basically a portakbin
in BT exchange grounds.
30 A few investigations were currently taking place. One such
investigation was the pricing for distant location. Prices had
been checked by independent consultants to assess reasonableness
and those deemed expensive had been reduced. Another investigation
was into the specifications of the 'hostel' itself and the use
of co-mingling. A full determination of the costs for shared access
was expected in October 2001.
31 Panel Members asked if sub-loop unbundling, which was an EU
requirement, was available in the UK and if prices have been set.
TW stated that nobody had requested sub-loop unbundling yet and
that prices were not yet determined. Only operators with registered
Annex II status and with an agreement for LLU could request sub-loop
unbundling.
32. It was confirmed that Shared Price Access would provide the
line and not provide telephony services. It was thought that Internet
Providers would be interested in Shared Price Access.
33. Members asked about operator enthusiasm for LLU and learnt
that Interest existed with Operators who had well focused business
plans from the start and most LLU operators were concentrating
their interest in business areas. Interest was not as high as
originally thought.
34 Post note meeting
All determinations on LLU can be found on the following link:
http://www.oftel.gov.uk/publications/broadband/llu/index.htm
Item 9: AOB
35. AP informed members that TextDirect
was introduced by BT in July 2001. Attention was brought to
the need for businesses to open access to the Text Direct service
on a switch by switch basis, otherwise only the first 3 digits
appeared to be recognised.
