• Attendees
• Agenda
• Minutes

Agenda

1. Welcome by David Edmonds, Director General of Oftel

2. Preparing for Ofcom

• Implementation and structure of Ofcom
• A key role for co-regulation
• Progress of the Communications Bill
• Open discussion

3. Oftel’s work programme to March 2003

• Stakeholder priorities (David Harrington, Director General, CMA)
• Updating Oftel strategy for 2002/2003
• Preparation for 2002/2003 management plan
• Open discussion

4. Buffet lunch and further informal discussion

Minutes

Agenda Item 1 – Welcome by David Edmonds

1. David Edmonds opened the meeting by welcoming the delegates. He said:

• It was pleasing to see such a wide mix of providers and users of communications services.
• Co-regulation is a major part of Oftel’s strategy as shown by the importance which had been attached to the industry Ombudsman scheme, while stressing that there will still need to be some direct intervention in areas where competition was not yet strong enough to deliver.
• It is important for Oftel/Ofcom to maintain a close relationship with stakeholders to fully understand the needs of users and the constraints both technical and commercial, under which suppliers operate. Th forum will play a major part in forging links with stakeholders that Ofcom will be required to have.
• More formal consultation is resource-hungry for both Oftel and its stakeholders while Informal discussion/working groups are sometimes more efficient and therefore it is important to develop the role of Fora such as this.
• A fast moving telecoms sector requires that Oftel, and its successor Ofcom, to be capable of moving nimbly when swift intervention, or deregulation is required. This together with the need to find the most efficient way to consult those stakeholders who are likely to be affected by our decisions means working closely with key stakeholders so that we can recognise changes in markets, technology and demand at an early stage.
• There is a commitment by Oftel to maintaining business as usual while building Ofcom. The needs of communications users and the pressures felt by suppliers would not melt away during this period.
• It has been Oftel’s practice for many years to consult on the scope of the forthcoming Management Plans but never at such an early stage. Although no prome could be made to include all views expressed, stakeholders should make the most of th opportunity to influence Oftel’s work programme for next year.
• The Oftel Forum needs to be participative and influential and therefore needed commitment by delegates. Success depends on the extent that participants are willing to engage with Oftel and with each other openly and honestly, and with the full authority of the organisation which they represent. For Oftel’s part, the forum will be a key sounding board for new initiatives, engaging with stakeholders as early as possible in the decision-making process.

Agenda Item 2 – Preparing for Ofcom

2. Ian Forsyth (Ofcom Project Manager, Oftel) explained the development towards the creation of the Office of Communications (Ofcom) following the publication of the Communications white Paper.

3. Chris Rowsell (Senior Policy Adviser, Oftel) explained the issues relating to co-regulation, in particular the emerging Telecommunications Ombudsman scheme.

4. Neil Buckley (Policy Project Director - Consumer & Licensing, Oftel) explained the progress with the Communications Bill

Discussion

5. Four discussion groups were asked to consider the following questions:

• Will Ofcom need a panel like this one?
• How will industry players interact with Ofcom?
• What form should the consumer panel take?
• Should the consumer panel include businesses - all of them or just some of them?
• How should the devolved nations and regions be represented?
• What about elderly and disabled people?
• How can stakeholders contribute to the development of Ofcom?

Report back by discussion groups:

Will Ofcom need a panel like this one?

6. There was no actual consensus as to whether or not Ofcom would need a Panel such as the Oftel Forum. However, any such Forum meetings should be focussed and questions for discussion circulated in advance to give the opportunity for stakeholders to ensure that the appropriate people were sent to meetings. A general concern was that Oftel meetings tended to be too ‘London based’ and there needed to be the facility to take part in debate online.

How will industry players interact with Ofcom?

7. It was considered that there needed to be a clear conduit into Ofcom for industry players and the process should be transparent and Ofcom should be receptive to diverse views. There was also a view that it needed be made clear when the input of consumers would be most useful, for example, on matters such as interconnection and CPS, where there were important consumer concerns but other issues were more for industry.

What form should the Ofcom Consumer Panel take?

8. It was considered that scoping work was required on the different groups of consumers in relation to Ofcom e.g. whether SMEs as well as residential/vulnerable users should be included, possibly by the commissioning of a Towers Perrin type report. There was a view that the objectives of the panel (which are not yet clear) should be determined by whom it represents but that membership of the Panel should also be by ability rather than just representation. There was some agreement that the Consumer Panel should be a separate body to Ofcom and should look at new services, have its own objectives, have powers to establish sub groups to look at specific issues, and have a requirement to consult amongst its stakeholders.

9. On funding for the Consumer Panel, there was a view that research carried out by the Consumer Panel should not be centrally funded by Ofcom, the view being supported by citing funding problems between Ofwat and ONCC. Although it was acknowledged that Ofcom and the Panel should not duplicate each others research. The argument for central funding was that it promotes better evidence-based regulation by avoiding the possibility of having competing research centres. There was also a view that central funding would lessen the cost burden.

10. It was questioned how much influence the Panel will actually have with Ofcom and would Ofcom act on input from the Panel.

Should the consumer panel include businesses – all of them or just some of them?

11. There were arguments for and against whether the Consumer Panel should represent residential users, vulnerable users, and SMEs only or whether it should be extended to include large business. Arguments against were that the issues of large business might dominate the Panel and that resources should be for the consumers who need to be represented the most. The case for was that it would be more transparent to have all users represented by the Panel hence avoiding the need for large business to deal with Ofcom separately.

Representation of regions and devolved nations

12. It was considered that the regions needed to have a voice through the Consumer Panel. A view was also expressed that Ofcom should have a closer relationship with the Regional Development Agencies in light of regional devolution.

Elderly and disabled people

13. It was generally agreed that the Consumer Panel should certainly represent vulnerable users i.e. elderly and disabled etc.

Stakeholders contributing to the development of Ofcom

14. There was a view that stakeholders needed to be involved in the development process from the start. There was also a concern that perspectives different to Oftel’s were coming from the other existing regulators who will form Ofcom. For improved transparency, it was viewed that stakeholders needed to be able to put views directly to government rather than just to Oftel in order to shape government’s thinking on the development of Ofcom.

Oftel:

• Said that the five existing regulators, which form the Ofcom Regulators Steering Group (RSG), have regular high level meetings as the preparations for Ofcom move forward and there was a welcome degree of consensus on key issues. The RSG does welcome comments and Oftel will be conveying comments raised at the Oftel Forum to the RSG.
• Made the point that Towers Perrin report provides transparency on the five bodies working together on Ofcom.
• Advised that, in relation to the advice from the Consumer Panel, the emerging policy in the Communications Bill suggests that if Ofcom did not agree with advice from the Consumer Panel then Ofcom would be required to explain its reasons.
• Agreed that Ofcom and the Consumer Panel will need to be both transparent and open to a range of stakeholders.
• Agreed that the Consumer Panel will need to have focussed remit i.e. on vulnerable groups. However, whether there needed to be a Towers Perrin scoping report on the Consumer Panel requires further thought.
• Recognised that Ofcom and the Consumer Panel will need to act in a collaborative way on planning and funding research.
• Considered that Ofcom needed to have a mechanism for picking up medium SMEs and large business if they are not already covered by the Consumer Panel.
• Considered that Ofcom and the Consumer Panel will need to be supplemented by other industry and consumer fora.
• Will give further thought on the need for on line debate.

Agenda Item 3 – Oftel’s work programme to March 2003

• David Harrington (Director General, CMA) explained what the key priorities were for stakeholders in relation to Universal Service Obligation, broadband, quality of service, Ofcom and the Communications White Paper.
• Alan Bell (Director of Strategy and Forecasting, Oftel) provided proposals for updating Oftel’s strategy for 2003/2003
• Geoff Delamere (Head of Customers and Market Units, Oftel) explained the preparations for Oftel’s Management Plan (2002/2003)

Discussion

15, Four discussion groups were asked to consider the following questions:

• What are the key stakeholder priorities for 2003/3?
• How best ensure stakeholder involvement in 2002/3 market reviews?
• Other issues?

Report back by discussion groups:

16. It was considered that Oftel should aim to reduce the timeframe for all market reviews. Oftel should also monitor time scales of industry to industry complaints and time scales should be kept to.

17. On consultations, it was considered that Oftel should publish consumer impact statements with all proposals. To improve transparency in the consultation process, Oftel should exclude all non-public discussions that could affect outcomes of proposals, and when the proposals are published they should include who said what in terms of consultation responses. Also, future Fora should be web cast.

18. It was considered that there was a need for Oftel’s work to address social exclusion and promote national neighbourhood renewal with broadband roll out speed being central to the agenda. There was a view expressed that government should provide subsidies to SMEs to enable them to use broadband. There was also a view that government should also address the cost of fixed and mobile cross border tariffs as high costs of cross border tariffs have an adverse affect on inward investment.

19. There was a view that Oftel needed to provide more clarity on self and co-regulation and that also there should be a contingency plan established in the event of self and co-regulation being deemed not to have worked. Number portability was cited as an area where Oftel does not intervene and competition and consumers suffer. Another view was that quick regulatory intervention was favoured but not at the expense of due process and only where there has been a clear cost-benefit analysis.

20. On short term and long term benefits for consumers, a view expressed was that competition should be allowed to bring about more important long term benefits. A conflicting view suggested that the short term was more visible and as such should not be sacrificed in the pursuit of more nebulous longer term gains.

21. It was opined that Oftel should monitor non-SMP operators who currently have rights and obligations to negotiate interconnect with each other. There were concerns expressed that some such operators are currently not complying with obligations to negotiate interconnect.

22. There was a view that Oftel should have a work strand to push at tariff understanding for all consumers. It was recognised that sufficient tariff information available but it was thought that more work was required to make consumers more aware of the information. The need for Oftel to encourage Telcos to reduce the number of non-fraud related disconnections was also seen as a priority.

23. In the run up to Ofcom, it was considered that the focus for Oftel should still be very much on competition as well as other Ofcom issues. Spectrum trading was seen as a key input to enable greater competition in telecommunications services and as such needed to be an area for Oftel to move forward on. There was also a need for Oftel to review old licence conditions.

24. There was a view that Oftel should address Mobile health and planning as currently planning was considered to be inconsistent.

Oftel:

• Noted demand for more vible assessment of the proposals on customers and suppliers in the telecoms market.
• Added that Oftel cannot expand its reach of responsibilities without primary legislation but it is important and useful to know stakeholders’ comments on issues which were the responsibility of other arms of government that Oftel can be in a more appropriate position to facilitate debate between government departments.
• Confirmed that Oftel is already addressing the issue of time scales, for example, on interconnection disputes where the final determination is made within the six months of receiving the original request. In addition under the Draft Framework Directive Oftel must issue a binding decision to resolve the all disputes (not just interconnection) as quickly as possible and, except in exceptional circumstances, within no more than four months. Project time scales were similarly under review.
• Advised that Oftel is exploring the feasibility of a videoconferencing link for Oftel Forum meetings.

25. In closing Oftel said there were many points raised that will be taken away from the first Forum meeting. Oftel also would welcome any comments on the organisation of this meeting and would welcome comments on how future meetings might be improved. Also delegates were requested to give some thought to issues they would like to be included in the next meeting by the end of the year.