AGENDA
- Introductions
- Background
to the Setting up of the Working Group
- Objectives
of Group
- Scope of
Work
- Relationship
with other Working Groups
- Identifying
the Issues
- Customers’
Legitimate Expectations for Numbers
- Necessary
Restrictions on the Use of Numbers
- Number
Trading Issues
- Any other
issues
- Conclusions
- Action Points
- Future Meetings
- Use of
web pages
- Membership
of Group
- Dates
WORKING PAPER
- RULES GOVERNING NUMBER USE
Purpose
This Working
Paper offers a framework and some thoughts on the above subject
to assist the Working Group and external participants to this consultation.
Framework
Conditions
for use of number blocks are already covered in the Numbering Conventions.
The Trade and Industry Select Committee recommended in January 1999
that the rules for all holders of number allocations should be clarified.
Furthermore , Oftel’s proposal to introduce a second allocation
mechanism - whereby a central body would allocate single numbers
from Ranges 08 and 09 direct to end-users or their agents, may lead
to a degree of differentiation between the expectations and conditions
of use which exist under the two systems. For example, number trading
may be permissible under Individual Number Allocation (INA) but
not via the current block allocation arrangements.
In order to identify
and record what expectations and conditions of use should apply
to those who have telephone numbers, consideration will need to
be given to the different parties who hold numbers. This includes
end-users (business and residential customers), service providers
and resellers (who currently acquire numbering capacity by way of
sub-allocations) as well as recipients of block allocations under
the current rules (eg telephone companies).
Oftel has looked
at the way in which other countries have sought to define expectations
and obligations or conditions of use and examined the characteristics
of existing rules in the Numbering Conventions. The outcome of this
exercise is the following sub-headings. These categorise common
characteristics (except number trading) which Oftel suggests would
form a suitable framework in which expectations and conditions could
be structured.
Individuals and organisations to which a number has been properly
allocated (i.e. in accordance with application procedures, whether
block allocation or INA) should enjoy indefinite use of that number,
freely and without hindrance, subject to the following:-
- Limitations
or Conditions of Use
- Change of
Numbers
- Withdrawal
of Numbers
- Return and
Re-allocation of Numbers
-
Portability
of Numbers
These
sections are expanded further, highlighting the kinds of rights
and obligations that exemplify the framework.
Oftel anticipates that the adoption of this framework (or something
similar) is likely to generate proposed modifications to the Numbering
Conventions. It may also be the case that in the interest of introducing
greater transparency of expectations and conditions of use, presentational
changes may also be proposed in respect of the Numbering Conventions
or perhaps a more user friendly document derived from it. Nevertheless
this document will continue to set out the conditions on which blocks
of numbers are allocated.
Limitations
or Conditions of Use
These will set
out the conditions in which Oftel allocates numbers to the applicant
and permits their continued use. Under current block allocation
arrangements the conditions of use applying to the use of blocks
are set out in the Numbering Conventions. These include, for example,
conditions relating to the use made of numbering capacity –
such as the requirement that any allocation must be used for the
purpose specified in the application. Compliance by those who receive
sub-allocations (eg those who obtain numbers from licensed telephone
companies) with the applicable conditions of use will be a condition
of any permitted sub-allocation. The form in which such compliance
is ensured will be a matter for the licensed telephone company to
decide, but normally takes the form of a contract.
In
INA, new conditions of use will be created. They may include, for
example, a requirement that the applicant enters into a service
contract with a supplier within a specified period and/or that they
pay an annual fee to retain their rights of use. [The latter issue
of fees remains subject to further legal consideration.]
In
its consultation Oftel asked whether or not INA allocations should
be time-limited. The majority of responses favoured indefinite allocations.
Businesses were particularly anxious to establish security and certainty
in order to invest in their number for marketing purposes. Telephone
companies highlighted the potential legal problems that might be
encountered if an allocation were to be time-limited and subject
to an open contest for re-allocation. This would lead to the prospect
of business competitors seeking to take advantage of one another
by trying to take-over someone else’s number.
Oftel
suggests that it would be unnecessary to incorporate both time-limited
allocation (at which point some form of renewal mechanism would
need to be established) as well as the adoption of an annual rental
type arrangement. Both mechanisms would act as a "renewal"
process but the latter would restrict re-allocation to those circumstances
where a customer chose not to re-engage their number for a further
period. A rental payment system is also favoured by Oftel as an
efficiency incentive in ensuring that customers reassess the value
they have in a number over time and not just at the time of purchase
in addition to its value in the prevention of "hoarding"
(see Number Trading).
Some
provisions may need to be included to ensure that the INA recipient’s
use of their number is consistent with the overall numbering system
– The National Numbering Scheme. For example, it would be undesirable
if INA undermined customer protection measures, which require sex
content Premium Rate Services to be flagged by the code 0909.
Change of Numbers
All defined
expectations and conditions, whether block allocation or INA, between
any respective parties will need to reflect the fact that numbers
are a public resource and may therefore be changed as a result of
a change to the National Numbering Scheme. Such changes would only
arise following public consultation.
With
regard to changes to the Scheme itself, recipients of allocations
(block or INA) may reasonably expect the inclusion of Oftel’s
commitment to minimise the inconvenience and disruption through
stated migration principles.
1.
At least 3 years’ notice of any change.
2.
Parallel running of old and new numbers for at least a year.
3.
Changed number announcements for at least a year after the change
has been completed.
Under
block allocation, a network operator may need to be able to make
local numbering changes to allow new plant or equipment to be installed.
A customer should reasonably expect an appropriate period of notice.
Withdrawal of
Numbers
A provision would
be required to reflect licensed operators’ conditions, under
block allocation, to withdraw numbers from end-customers or service
providers only under specific circumstances, as well as defining
the circumstances in which Oftel might withdraw numbers from them.
Such circumstances might include operators’ conditions obliging
their customers to abide by the standard terms and conditions of
their service contract (or parts thereof) otherwise their number
may be withdrawn. This may need to take into account number portability
and the right to port (subject to availability) regardless of outstanding
debt provided the customer is still in receipt of service.
It may be the
case that in the event of an operator or service provider ceasing
to provide or deal in telecommunications services (or perhaps just
a particular area of service provision) the end-customer ought to
have some safeguard over number retention subject to technical feasibility.
INA customers may be obliged to abide by their conditions for use
otherwise their number may be withdrawn. For example, the INA customer
may be required to pay an ongoing rental contribution otherwise
their number will be withdrawn.
Return and Re-allocation
of Numbers
Under block
allocation, the return and re-allocation of numbers may describe
the return of numbers to Oftel where an operator ceases to provide
service, or the period of sterilisation an operator requires before
re-allocating a former business number. "Sterilisation"
describes the action of leaving a number out of service for a period
of time so when it is brought back into service, the new customer
doesn’t receive too many calls intended for the old customer.
Similarly, arrangements
would be required for INA particularly sterilisation periods before
re-allocation. The possibility of immediate re-allocation of a frequently
advertised freephone number to a competitor would clearly be an
issue of concern to businesses.
Portability of
Numbers
The existing
Numbering Conventions make reference to the regulatory requirements
concerning number portability and enables Oftel to take into account
an applicant’s ability to provide portability, in circumstances
where a request is made for an allocation of numbers in ranges which
are listed as portable.
At the moment,
the availability of portability to the end-customer is dependent
on the existence of an agreement and service between a customer’s
current and preferred suppliers. The portability regime does not
place any requirement upon operators to import a number or impose
any service obligation.
Oftel is currently working toward changes in the rules to ensure
UK compliance with the EU Numbering Directive (98/61/EC). The Directive
places an obligation on the National Regulatory Authority to ensure
that number portability (geographic and non-geographic, excluding
mobile and pager services) to enable numbers to be retained at the
request of the subscriber is available from 1.1.2000.
Customers will
effectively, from 1.1.2000, have a right to demand that their telephone
number is retained if they choose to move from one telephone company
to another.
Under INA, number recipients would need to ensure the timely notification
to Oftel or its agent (central database manager) of any change made
to the supplier of telecommunications associated with the customer’s
number.
Number Trading
The
responses to Oftel’s consultation indicated that some form
of regulated trading within INA should be allowable. It is recognised
that number trading would be difficult to introduce outside Number
Translation Services (NTS). Whilst Oftel can readily identify areas
where trading of, say, a geographic number might be desirable (e.g.
the selling of a taxi business with its advertised number) the limitations
of a number tied to a particular geographical exchange area is sure
to limit the market for trading. The relationship between a number
and a Network Termination Point (NTP), whether a socket in a building
(01 and 02 numbers) or, say, a mobile handset (07), introduces a
rigidity which is not present for NTS numbers and makes it less
conducive to trading. Moreover, unlike INA, there is no immediate
mechanism by which trading could take place for those number ranges
which will continue to be allocated in blocks.
Number
trading could however become a permissible condition of use under
INA. Specific conditions would be required to regulate such activities
to avoid detrimental effects of opening up a secondary market. Such
counter-measures may be required to combat "number hoarding"
(purchasing numbering capacity for speculative purposes with a view
to securing windfall gains through trading) and, possibly, fraud
and scams. Other issues may include registering numbers (or combinations
of letters, symbols and numerals which include telephone numbers
– either whole or in part) as trade marks and "passing
off" – where one party attempts to imitate another usually
in an effort to "steal" business.
Oftel
has given some preliminary thought on what conditions of use may
be applicable to the INA recipient. The concept of "use it
or lose it" was raised in Oftel’s consultation and instigated
helpful responses. This methodology has been introduced in Germany
although any problems associated with it are, at present, unknown.
The Germans have a two-stage approach. Firstly the INA customer
is allowed 90 calendar days to sign-up a service provider. This
should not present a policing problem. The second stage requires
the applicant to bring their number into service within 180 calendar
days; "in service" being defined as "if an access
in the public telephone network can be reached by dialling the number"
which may be understood as meaning that a successful call can be
made to the number over the public network.
In
summary, respondents highlighted difficulties in policing or tracking
a "use it or lose it" condition, which required customers
to have a service associated with their number, within a specified
time period. It has been suggested that customers might be able
to give the impression that service exists whereas, for all intents
and purposes, it does not. Traffic monitoring can be verified but
what level of traffic amounts to "in service"? Moreover,
"use it or lose it" rules might not meet customer demand
for INA. Some customers may want to secure a number to be used only
on an occasional basis. An example might be a memorable PRS number
used by a television company in combination with a quiz show. The
quiz show might be screened for a couple of weeks at a time with
no desired call activity during the intervening periods.
Oftel
takes the view that whilst there is merit in requiring the INA applicant
to register a service provider within a set period, a requirement
that the number/service is "used" is not a practical means,
by itself, to address hoarding.
A
number of respondents suggested the imposition of a prohibition
on trading for a specified period. For example, a condition of use
under INA might require the recipient to refrain from trading the
number for 1 year. This proposition might also raise concerns over
policing and tracking. Other suggestions included a registration/certification
approach to trading (possibly including Oftel or its agent’s
consent) and further fees for re-allocation.
Number
rental payments to Oftel or its agent might apply further economic
incentives to utilise the number efficiently and curb hoarding activities.
Oftel
has also considered that either itself or its agent could, in addition
to allocation management and the running of a transparent and accessible
database, include an attractive number trading service for its clients.
This envisages the central database also being used as a bulletin
board for those who wish to buy or sell numbers.
In
summary, Oftel considers that no single measure will prevent number
hoarding. It is perhaps the case that a combination of a rental
fee (possibly annual), a bringing into service rule and more transparent
trading arrangements, will discourage or minimise its occurrence.
Warwick
Izzard
Oftel, Regulatory Policy Adviser
Meeting
Note
Rules Governing Number Use Working Group
Time
& Place: 2:00
pm at Oftel
Meeting called
by: Oftel
Meeting chaired
by: Claire
Milne (Independent telecoms consultant)
Oftel representatives:
Alan Pridmore,
Mark Whitbread
Attendees:
Nina Barakzai
(ntl) Rob Borthwick (Vodafone), Isobel Brown, John Chaplin (FUG),
Richard Cox, Michael Dixon, Roger Gilbert (DMA) Peter Hamilton (BT),
Paul Rosbotham (CWC), Noel Scanlon
Apologies:
Lesley Bulman
(ntl), Andrea Dworak (Energis)
Scope
of Work
The mission for
the working group was set out: to seek all relevant views and identify
any consensus on the next steps towards agreed rules on the use
of numbers and the practicalities of implementing and enforcing
such rules. Oftel will take account of the Group’s work when
producing their consultation document/statement early next year.
It
was recognised that the scope of the working group could easily
overlap with those of the other working groups to be convened: those
on Charging for Individual Number Allocation, on Number Block Allocation
and on the proposed Number Allocation Organisation. The group agreed
to avoid those other working group areas unless they were linked
inextricably to number use. The Group welcomed the proposal to have
a co-ordination group consisting of the chairpeople of all the working
groups to pool the conclusions of all the working groups on overlap
issues.
Reservations
from some members about introducing INA were noted but need not
affect the work of this group.
Oftel
will publish on its website important papers to be discussed by
the group, any firm conclusions and notes of each meeting. Comments
by this route are welcomed from all.
Different
Group members thought they should include in the group’s considerations
of rules about number use the negative consumer attitude to paying
for personal (070) numbers and the likely pursuit of numbers purely
for resale or purely to aid competitive "passing
off".
Group
members also recognised the inevitability of number trading, especially
with the advent of full portability.
The
Group saw a need for: separate rules about the use of number blocks
and for individual numbers; and rules that cover pre-paid mobile
services.
Some
members were concerned that formal rules could signal greater regulation,
which would run counter to the general trend towards lighter regulation.
Oftel pointed out that neither the discussion about rules on number
use nor the possible introduction of them need mean tighter formal
regulation. The view may well for instance that market mechanisms
already provide these rights or that an industry Code of Practice
might be the best means of implementing them.
There
was some concern that policies the working group might trigger could
be premature if moved forward before enough rigorous customer research
was carried out.
The
Group then took part in a brainstorming session. Members were asked
to think principally about the effects on the call recipient, although
some observations could be valid for the caller too. It was also
noted that the Group should consider the issues from a strictly
numbering point of view and not digress onto the nature of services
accessed through numbers.
1.
Customers’ Legitimate Expectations for Numbers
Group
members’ views on the customer perspective were various:
Aspire to no change to personal numbers but seem to accept infrequent
changes reluctantly if good justification is given;
Many have no expectations beyond efficient call connection;
Clear costing for the caller;
Keep attractive numbers or get equivalent replacements when changes
needed;
Clear labelling of PRS;
Can publish or withhold number from directory or from CLI devices;
To retain numbers when switching between operators.
2. Possible Necessary
Restrictions on Number Use
Because
of changes in technology;
Because of other operational changes;
To prevent malicious calls;
To prevent misdial nuisance;
For number conservation;
For other as yet unforeseen regulatory reasons;
Because of market failure;
Because of change in telephone addressing culture, e.g. adopting
E-mail-type or alphanumeric addressing;
Breach of contract or conditions of use – esp. payment of
agreed fees
Where contracts provide for other arrangements;
For international operational or regulatory reasons;
As part of the management of the scheme by Oftel.
3.
Number trading
Personally
held views about number trading and opinions that group members
had observed in others included:
It
is a natural and not pernicious business inevitability;
Despite no individual ownership of numbers, stewardship rights
exist and have a value so trading will and probably already is
happening, because the market dictates a valuable commodity demands
a price;
There was some feeling from the group that number trading might
be perceived as exploitative, though it is no more so than many
other speculative commercial activities;
Revenue from initial sale by Govt was acceptable, because numbers
are a national resource, but not acceptable from secondary trade;
It would be inconsistent for Govt to charge for numbers and then
disallow subsequent trade;
Alphanumeric
attractive numbers should not be permitted until keypads harmonised;
Some support for essence of ‘use it or lose it’ principle
but only once an exact meaning of what it is to "use"
a number has been defined and an effective policing mechanism
is devised.
4
& 5. Action Points & Conclusions
The
Chair asked for the following papers to be drawn up for the second
meeting of the group:
Rob
Borthwick List of
which of the present Numbering Conventions seem to throw up constraints
that might be usefully
included in a Rules of Number Use manual.
John
Chaplin/
Industry view on how the group might approach rules on number use.
Roger Gilbert
Peter
Hamilton
Technical/operational restrictions on customers’ expectations.
Richard
Cox
Non-industry view on how the group might approach rules
on number use.
Noel
Scanlon
List of Customers’ Legitimate Expectations for Numbers.
Papers
will normally be posted on Oftel’s web site ahead of each meeting.
Members were asked to indicate if posting should be delayed until
approved by the Group.
6.
Group membership
The
Group was asked to consider whether the current membership adequately
represented all key interest groups.
Future
meeting dates
9:00
am 8 October 1999
2:00
pm 11 November 1999
2:00
pm 9 December 1999
[Return
to 'Numbering Working Group 1' page]
|
