Workshop & Meeting 14 September 1999

Industry Groups

	The Oftel forum
	DQ implementation working group
	Service providers forum
	Operator policy forum
	Oftel Internet forum
	EU directives stakeholders group
	NICC
	Metering & billing
	Numbering groups
	Calling line identification group
	Large business user panel
	Emergency planning forum
	Mobile services for disabled customers
	The Broadband Migrations Group
	NTS focus group
	Wholesale line rental group

Workshop & Meeting 14 September 1999

Agenda

Price Control Workshop

Note of Meeting

Agenda

Price Control Workshop

1. Introductions
2. Presentations from Oftel, BT and OLO
3. Discussion

Meeting

1 Introductions
2 Energis: Presentation from Stephen Haighton (Head of Existing Business)
3 Minutes of Last Meeting
4 Mobile Portability Processes: Update from Industry Working Group (Alan Penney, Oftel)
5 Billing Case Studies (Liz Greenberg, Oftel)
6 Update on CLI (Frank Phillips, Oftel)
7 New Guidance on the recording of telephone conversations (Frank Phillips, Oftel)
8 Telecommodities and Traffic Standards (Andrew Gorton, Oftel)
9 Big Number Code Changes: Presentation from Industry Communications Group on publicity campaign
10 Panel web-page
11 MLL(Mark Whitbread, Oftel)
12 Future meetings: Dates; Items
13 AOB

WORKSHOP: PRICE CONTROL

Tony Wickes (Oftel) explained that Oftel was reviewing competition in telecommunications markets with a view to finding out whether it would be necessary to place price controls on BT’s services from 2001.

He advised the Panel that Oftel was seeking the views of consumers about their experiences in purchasing telecommunications services. Oftel wished to know whether businesses believed that the provision of telecommunications services was effectively competitive. Businesses’ perceptions of market competitiveness would contribute to the proposals Oftel would put forward for price control, if such controls were deemed necessary. Tony went on to explain that at the start of the current controls, Oftel found that business markets were competitive and retail controls did not need to cover the provision of business services. However, Oftel would not be assuming that its view was necessarily correct.

BT and Vodafone made presentations, and expressed their views, on the effectiveness of competition. BT showed that, despite price reductions, its share of the business call market had decreased. It also stated that should Oftel withdraw from, what it saw as, intrusive regulation, BT would be able to meet the demands of its customers on a bespoke basis.

BAA stated that it agreed that call markets are competitive. However, in its view, there remained a lack of competition in the provision of infrastructure outside of major urban areas. BAA still found that it had to purchase private circuits from BT, and that BT had no incentive to reduce prices due to the lack of competition in the provision of private circuits.

BT responded by stating that other operators could offer service on a nation-wide basis by purchasing services from BT. It also stated that the provision of infrastructure by other operators was increasing. The Panel was not convinced that the price of private circuits in the UK was comparable to the rest of Europe. Oftel stated that it was still considering the pricing and provision of private circuits in the UK.

Oftel then asked whether the Panel believed that price control should be reinstated in those areas where it was withdrawn in 1997. The consensus seemed to be that this would be a regressive step. Large businesses obtain benefits due to their expenditure on telecommunications services. They would not wish to see regulation stopping them from discussing alternative tariff and package arrangements with their supplier(s).

Although specific price controls were not warranted P&O and American Express agreed that sector specific regulation should not be withdrawn until BT’s competitors have matured.

A discussion then evolved about the complexities associated with purchasing telecommunications services. The general consensus was that large businesses have to spend time and money understanding telecommunications tariffs and services to ensure that they are obtaining the best possible deal from their supplier(s). In general, businesses would wish one operator to meet all their telecommunications requirements.

Please note: Copies of slides used in the following presentations can be obtained on request from Maura Crawford: mcrawford@oftel.gov.uk

MEETING LARGE BUSINESS USER PANEL

Panel Members Present

Linda Parker
Keith Jordan
George Tskarides
Ian Forshaw
Vivienne Peters
Mike Corlett
David Murphy
Sean Sargent
John Pook
Jacqui Beamon
Stuart Richardson
Martin Rayment
Gordon Thomson
Vina Patel
Graham Marriner

PriceWaterhouseCoopers
J Sainsbury plc
Inland Revenue
Barclays Bank
American Express
TNT UK Limited
Johnson Matthey plc
P&O & CDO
Bass plc
Bass plc
BBC
BAA
Royal Bank of Scotland
Exxon
Post Office Research Group

Oftel
Alan Pridmore (Chair)
Elizabeth Greenberg (Panel Adviser)
Alan Penney
Andrew Gorton
Mark Whitbread
Tony Wickes
Chris Taylor
Tim Cross
Mike Galvin

Guest Speakers

Mike James
Nick Price
Ed Townsend
Rob Borthwick
John Skelton
Francis Hallawell

BT
BT
BT
Vodafone
Energis
Quentin Bell Organisation

ITEM 1	Introduction

ITEM 2	Energis: Presentation from John Skelton (Head of Channel Support/acting Sales Director)
1.	John Skelton gave a presentation on Energis’ company strategy, market developments and opportunities for large business. The presentation was followed by a discussion with the Panel members.
2.	Energis believed that good corporate relations and Independent Service Provider connections would keep it at the forefront of telecommunications innovation. Several Panel members reported that Energis had given them excellent service and found them forward looking.
ITEM 3	Matters arising from May meeting
3.	Information on the take-up of mobile number portability was published in the minutes of the last meeting and in Oftel News. A further update was given during the meeting as ITEM 4. Oftel confirmed that the calls to mobiles price reductions had been implemented and further detail was attached to the minutes of the May meeting.
4.	Oftel has considered the issue of billing errors and has two possible courses of action to pursue. Billing Case Studies could be produced and acted upon on behalf of the Panel, or the Compliance Directorate of Oftel could pursue the matter as a competition issue. In order to proceed with the competition issue approach, a complaint would need to be submitted and registered with Oftel. Some Panel members felt this approach could be detrimental to their customer/operator relationships. It was also felt inappropriate to single out operators when extensive industry-wide improvements were required. Panel members were invited to approach Oftel if they wished to take part in the Billing Studies or had any experiences with billing that they wished to bring to Oftel’s attention.	Panel members to approach Oftel (EG) if willing to take part in the Billing Case Studies. Oftel to circulate draft Case Studies to the Panel in advance of next meeting.
5.	International benchmarking proposals were being drafted as part of the Oftel long term strategy work package. Draft proposals would be circulated to Panel members for comment in the autumn. Oftel renewed its invitation to Panel members to review the Management Plan, with a view to identifying topics for discussion at future meetings.	Oftel to circulate international benchmarking proposals once drafted. Panel members to send comments and suggestions for future comparisons to Oftel. Panel members to review the Management Plan and identify topics for discussion at future meetings.
6.	Panel members were informed that the consultation on presentation numbers had now closed and a workshop with the Consumer Council for England had been held. Conclusions had not yet been drawn.
ITEM 4	Mobile Portability Processes: Update from industry working group
7.	Alan Penney of Oftel gave a presentation on the development of the Mobile Number Portability (MNP) processes by the industry working group. The presentation explained that the current scheme was primitive, relying on fax exchange to place porting orders. The administration procedures were expensive, time consuming and the cause of many customer complaints. For Oftel, it had been a choice of either waiting for comprehensive procedures to be in place before the launch of MNP or starting with basic portability and introducing new procedures over the following 12/15 months. The industry also recognised the shortcomings of the initial procedures and the Mobile Number Portability Process Sub-group had been given the task of meeting customer expectations and making improvements in the time taken to port a number. The Sub-group suggested a consumer pre-authorisation process, whereby the customer obtained a certificate to port from the donor operator before dealers were approached and a recipient operator selected. Once a decision on the new procedures was reached, the Process Manual would be revised and the new procedure trialed. It was forecast that the new procedures would be introduced in early 2000.
8.	Panel members had personal and corporate experience of difficulties with MNP. It was felt that the customer was well aware of procedure and delays were due to operator/SP inefficiency. Panel members felt they had to constantly hassle the industry to get numbers ported. It was reported that neither the donor nor the recipient operator appeared to be interested in retaining or gaining their custom. One Panel member brought Case Studies of porting difficulties, which were passed to Oftel for information. The Panel members suggested that Oftel monitored the quality of the porting service.	Oftel to invite a representative of the MNP Focus Group to speak at the next meeting.
ITEM 6	Update on CLI
9.	Oftel was currently considering responses to the consultation. Details of the conclusions and next steps would be given at the next Panel meeting.	Oftel (FP) to present findings at next meeting.
ITEM 7	New guidance on the recording of telephone conversations
10.	Oftel drew the Panel’s attention to a Press Notice on the recording of telephone conversations issued on 19 August. The guidance stated that organisations routinely recording telephone calls should ensure that their employees were able to make unrecorded personal calls. The Notice stated that organisations not providing this guarantee of confidentiality could be in breach of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Oftel explained to the meeting that the current legal view was that this potential breach only applied to public sector organisations. [However since the meeting advice had been revised and it is now considered to be an obligation on public and private sector organisations].
ITEM 8	Telecommodities and Traffic Standards
11.	Andrew Gorton (Oftel) gave a presentation on telecommodities and traffic standards. Andrew explained that the growth in new networks had resulted in spare capacity, which could be treated as a telecommodity and offered via exchanges. Band X, a UK exchange, allowed members to bid for the use of spare capacity. Businesses may find using exchanges to fulfil additional capacity requirements offered the benefits of improved cost margins and flexibility. Band X had recently began offering its services to corporate companies.
12.	The presentation also explained that companies such as Monnet examined call connectivity and call clarity and assessed whether the standard of the call met the customer’s needs. The use of traffic standards could reassure customers of the quality of calls using exchanges, as trading in exchanges was anonymous.
13.	Panel members agreed that exchanges were an interesting concept but one that needed development. It was felt that brand and reputation must be established before their companies would consider using exchanges. Panel members were concerned about the need for software to support the product and the connections.	Oftel (AG) would welcome feedback from any members who used telecommodities or traffic standards in the future.
ITEM 9	Big Number Code Changes: Presentation from Industry Communications Group on publicity campaign
14.	A presentation was given to the Panel members by Ed Townsend [BT & chairman of Communications Working Group] and Francis Hallawell [Quentin Bell Organisation – PR consultants for the National Code and Number Change (NCNC)]. The presentation expanded on communication and customer care issues such as problems with misdialling and customer perceptions of local call charging.
15.	Some Panel members requested more information on the CLI changes after the flash change and were advised to speak to their account manager at their telecoms operator to understand that operator’s schedule. Operators would not be publishing the schedule. Operators were advised to approach their account manager for all NCNC queries, turning to the NCNC helpline if further information was needed.
16.	Informing international carriers of parallel running was difficult as there was no single organisation that could provide a list of all international carriers. Businesses were requested to take advantage of their overseas contacts to disseminate code change information.
17.	Businesses were advised to appoint one person to manage the code change. The importance of seeking early advice from a maintainer was stressed. Businesses were advised not to use the new codes until the flash change date where possible. The bulk of the advertising campaign was aimed for Q1 2000 and the Panel members hoped that more of the campaign would be aimed at the consumer.
ITEM 10	Panel web page
18.	It was announced that the Large Business Telecom User Panel had a dedicated page on the web site as part of the consumer advice section. The web page could be found at the following address: http://www.oftel.gov.uk/cmu/initiatives/largebus.htm It is planned to add links to useful sites.	Panel members to forward comments and suggestions on the web site and minutes of meetings to Oftel (AP/EG)
ITEM 11	MLL
19.	Mark Whitbread (Oftel) gave a presentation on MLL, a radio based company offering services in rural areas. Mark visited Hereford County Council (HCC), a customer of MLL. Being based in a rural area with disparate sites, HCC found the services offered to be an appropriate alternative to BT. MLL offered HCC highly competitive rates and good customer care. Being a radio-based operator, MLL had environmental advantages and boasted a fast fault repair service. The disadvantages were that the radio was highly directional and that the initial set-up costs could be more expensive than landlines.
20.	The Panel members were asked to consider whether a presentation from MLL would be of interest. The members felt it would be interesting if MLL explained how it believed its services would succeed where Ionica’s failed.	Oftel to invite a representative of MLL to give a presentation to the Panel.
ITEM 12	Future meetings
21.	Dates of next meetings:
	7 December 1999, 1pm at Oftel, 50 Ludgate Hill, London EC4M 7JJ 28 March 2000, 1pm
22.	Suggested topics for next/future meetings:
	Oftel presentation on e-commerce/internet/bandwidth issues Representative of Orange to be invited to next meeting Representative of MNP Focus Group to be invited to next meeting Representative of MLL to be invited to a future meeting	Oftel project team representative(s) to attend Oftel to arrange with Orange, MNP Focus Group and MLL
ITEM 13	Any other business
23.	Problems involving customer purchase of GSM base stations were brought to the Panel’s attention. It seems that consumers could buy GSM base stations that operate in their own domain, but only through a licence holder. As a licence holder stood to lose business, problems existed with purchase and cost.	Oftel to investigate issue and update the Panel on the situation.