
Competition Bulletin - Issue 13
July 1999
BT Calls and Access
BT's Interconnection Charges for new 0845 services
BTnetStart
BT obligation to publish Backhaul prices
Itemised billing under RVTD provisions
Internet directory enquiry services
Notice period for BT Cellnet promotional offers
BT Phonebase pricing
Aggregation of NTS traffic
Mobile wholesale terms
BT's adult PRS opt-in
Termination rates for mobile operators
NTS Lo-call retail prices
BT's Interconnection charges in Northern Ireland
CWC I SDN
Unsolicited faxes
Determination request from Kingston regarding BT's fixed channel service
Unsolicited calls from Kitchens Direct
BT's Interconnection charges for an operators 0800 service
CWC number portability procedures
Impact of mobile number portability on connection subsidy
Ocean Solutions and Cellnet-condition 8
BT late notification C.13 interconnect agreements
Indirect access for diverted calls
International incoming mobile termination rates
BT's Talking Pages - provisional order
BT failure to comply with request for information - provisional order
Submarine cables
This thirteenth issue of Oftels Competition Bulletin contains details of developments in the competition and other regulatory enforcement casework handled throughout Oftel from 1 April 1999 to 30 June 1999. Readers should note that previous issues of Competition Bulletin are also available.
As usual, comments are welcome on any of the cases or other issues, especially new cases, where extra industry input would be useful, as well as proposed remedies. Please contact the relevant casework officer on the extension number listed (0171 634 + extn number). Alternatively, comments can be e-mailed to the relevant case officer via their e-mail address, as follows:
(case officer first initial)(case officer surname)@oftel.gov.uk
Comments can also be sent to: Compliance Directorate; Oftel, 50 Ludgate Hill; London EC4M 7JJ; or faxed on 0171 634 8772 marked for the attention of the relevant case officer. Suggestions on the general layout or content of the Competition Bulletin can be sent to Peter Silverman at the above address. In supplying comments or submitting complaints, you should indicate whether you are prepared to let us disclose the full details of the information supplied, including whether you are willing to be identified, in any subsequent correspondence Oftel has with the licensee under investigation or with other interested parties. Confidential material should be marked as such and not sent via the Internet address. It should be noted that Oftels experience has shown that it can be difficult to pursue a case successfully if we are not able to provide all the necessary information to the subject of the complaint. For additional information please see Dealing with anti-competitive behaviour in telecoms on Oftels website or contact the Directorate for a paper copy.
This issue was despatched on 10 August 1999. The next issue of Competition Bulletin will be despatched at the beginning of September 1999.
Every last Wednesday in the month a member of the Compliance Directorate will be available in person or on the Competition Hotline (0171 634 8833) for consultation on competition related issues. The surgeries aim to concentrate on new or potential complaints, rather than provide updates for complainants on existing cases. The surgeries also aim to give potential complaints guidance on the approach to be taken by the Directorate and details of the type of information needed by Oftel to pursue a particular issue.
Details of staff available are as follows:
DATE |
AVAILABLE IN PERSON |
AVAILABLE ON TELEPHONE |
28 July 1999 |
Don Wilson |
Alistair Bridge |
25 August 1999 |
James Tickel |
Philip Taylor |
29 September 1999 |
Emanuela Lecchi |
Lawrence Wardle |
The Hotline is also available between 9:00am and 12:00am, and 2:00pm and 5:00pm Monday to Friday.
This section lists cases that Oftel has opened since April 1999.
The Director General has a duty under the Telecommunication Act 1984 to investigate complaints of anti-competitive behaviour in relation to telecommunications (unless they are frivolous). The Act also allows the Director General to investigate issues on his own initiative.
The cases shown in this section represent the majority of issues with which we deal formally. In addition, we conduct informal discussions or exchanges of correspondence where a potential complainant seeks clarification of our policy or application of licence conditions to a particular issue, but does not follow through with a formal complaint.
There are a variety of reasons why such exchanges may not lead to a formal complaint including:
Competition Bulletin records cases only where our initial view is that there is a case to consider. However, the opening of a case does not necessarily imply that Oftel has reached any more substance view of the merits of the case.
Comments and questions regarding all cases outlined are invited and should be addressed to the relevant case officer in the first instance. Case officers can be contacted direct on 0171 634 + extn number of by post, fax or e-mail.
Complaint against: BT
Issue: Possible anti-competitive or discriminatory behaviour
Relevant Instrument(s): Condition 1, 17 and 18a of BT's Licence
Cases Opened: March - June 1999
Following several complaints from Localtel and NextCall, both of whom are independent service providers, in relation to BT's Calls and Access product, Oftel has opened four investigations into the service. Localtel and Nextcall have alleged that BT is contravening the Fair Trading Condition in relation to Calls and Access, in various ways, including:
Oftel is examining the principles behind the pricing of BT's Calls and Access product, and has a long standing commitment to review the prices of single line Calls and Access in October 1999. Oftel expects to examine the proposed pricing for multi-line Calls and Access after notification. Oftel is currently gathering information regarding the availability and ease of transfer of select services. Following the lodging of a formal complaint about the availability of services, BT has agreed to make call sign available as part of the Calls & Access product.
Oftel required BT to address the issue of delays in transfer of customers from BT to service providers by clearing the backlog of transfer requests and adding additional resources to enable the transfer process to run more efficiently. Oftel received notification that BT had cleared the backlog of transfer requests on 28 June 1999, Localtel and NextCall were also informed.
Oftel is looking at the administrative procedures that BT has in place to provide its Calls and Access product. Oftel has asked both service providers and BT to provide detailed information to enable Oftel to undertake this task.
In addition, Oftel has published a Calls and Access 'Frequently Asked Questions' page on its web site to help inform customers of service providers who are having difficulties with their service.
Case Officer: Chris Handley (extn.8900)
Case reference: BX/663/175, BX/663/193, BX/663/202 & BX/663/207
BTs Interconnection Charges for new 0845 services
Complaints against: BT
Issue: Potential anti-competitive effects of BTs disputed NTS charges
Relevant Instrument: Condition 17 BT Licence
Cases Opened: June 1999
ABS Telecom has complained that BTs offer of payment for terminating calls to ABSs new 0845 service is discriminatory.
BTs policy of suspending changes to charges for operators who reject its proposals has resulted in two levels of charges for the same services, here 0845, until the matter is resolved. BT then applies any changes retrospectively.
The original charge continues to apply to operators who rejected BTs Operator Charge Change Notices (OCCNs) within the timescale laid down in its Standard Interconnect Agreement. BTs revised charge is offered to operators who either accept BTs OCCNs or who seek to open new services or change the terms of existing services after the date of BTs OCCNs.
ABS were thus offered significantly less for calls to its new 0845 service than operators with existing services but who are in dispute with BT. They were also offered less than other operators with new services because, for a new 0845 service with no prior traffic history, BT offers operators a payment based on an industry average conveyance charge until actual traffic measurements are taken. In ABSs case it already had an existing 0800 service, calls to which BT would appear to have taken as representative of calls to the new 0845 service, thereby giving ABS an even lower payment than if BT had applied its industry average charge.
ABS maintains that the two services are entirely unrelated and the customer calling patterns are likely to be totally different.
Oftel has informed ABS that it does not view BTs policy of suspending charge increases to operators with whom it is in dispute as unduly discriminatory, since it applies equally to all operators. In the meantime Oftel has asked BT to comment on the reasons for its lower payment offer to ABS than to other operators opening new services.
The central issue is that the application of a two tier charging system gives a cash flow advantage to established operators who happen to be in dispute with BT. Meanwhile it militates against operators seeking to open new services but who cannot compete for service provider business owing to the lower payments they receive from BT.
This particular complaint will be resolved when Oftel makes the forthcoming NTS determinations (target September 1999) when all operators will be able to seek payments on the same basis and from the determined dates. The issue of two-tier charging will, however, continue to emerge whenever similar disputes over BTs proposed charges arise. Oftel is investigating how this can be avoided and will make its recommendations to the industry as soon as possible.
Case Officer: Geoff Brighton (extn8925)
Case Reference: BX/663/215
Complaint against: BT
Issue: Pricing of BTnetStart
Relevant Instrument: Conditions 17, 18 and 20.15 of BTs licence
Case opened: June 1999
Oftel has received a number of complaints in relation to a new BT product, BTnetStart, which BT describes as a low cost entry-level product. This product offers fixed-link Internet access.
Complainants are concerned that it is being offered below cost. In particular, complainants have focused on the comparison between the price of BT Net Direct 64 kilobit access and BTnetStart. BT Net Direct 64 kilobit access is available for an annual rental (excluding VAT) of £6600 and a connection fee of £1,000 (again excluding VAT). By comparison, the charge for BTnetStart is less than half that price, at £2995 for rental and £500 for connection (both fees excluding VAT). The BTnetStart connection charge does not apply between 8 June and 8 September, 1999.
The complainants allege that BT may be:
Oftel has asked BT for information in relation to this complaint and is currently evaluating that information.
As with all investigations of this nature, key issues for Oftel include market definition and the impact on competition of the new product.
Oftel would welcome any comments which other operators and ISPs may have on this complaint.
Case officer: Jane Finlayson-Brown (extn.8825)
Reference: BX/663/209
BT Obligation to publish Backhaul prices
Complainant: BT
Issue: BTs obligation to publish backhaul charges
Relevant instruments: Condition 16 BTs licence
Case opened: 14 June 1999
BT has requested that Oftel consider a potential relaxation of Condition 16 of its licence in respect of its obligation to publish charges for backhaul services (backhaul is a high capacity inland circuit connecting a cable landing station to an operators international switch). This request follows Oftels consent to a similar request from CWC in February 1999.
BT has made representations to Oftel that in view of various changes to market conditions (eg fall in market share, strength and number of competitors etc) it is not justified that it should be subjected to asymmetric regulation in the market for backhaul services at STM-1 level and above.
Oftel is considering BTs representations and to assist in this process has written to operators seeking both market information and comments on BTs request.
Case officer: Jim Ford
Case reference: BX/663/219
Itemised Billing under RVTD Provisions
Complaint Against: Telecom Plus
Issue: Alleged failure to supply an itemised bill to a consumer
Relevant Instrument: Regulation 23 of the Telecommunications (Open Network Provision) (Voice Telephony) Regulation 1998.
Case opened: May 1999.
A former customer of Telecom Plus has complained in relation to the failure of Telecom Plus, a systemless services provider, to provide an itemised bill either as an original or a copy.
This is the first complaint to Oftel under the provisions introduced by the Revised Voice Telephony Directive (RVTD) as implemented by the Telecommunications (Open Network Provision) (Voice Telephony) Regulation 1998. The Regulations came into force on 28 July 1998. This is also the first case in relation to the provisions for systemless service providers in the Regulations. Under the provision of the Regulation an itemised bill must be made available to customers at no extra charge with sufficient information to allow a subscriber to verify and control charges incurred.
Oftel is investigating what information Telecom Plus holds in relation to billing before and after a bill is issued and what information is held for the purpose of back-up and dispute resolution.
Case Investigator: John Naughten (extn 8810)
Case Reference: BX/663/198
Internet Directory Enquiry Services
Complaint Against: BT
Issue: Alleged anti-competitive practices in relation to the provision of Directory Enquiry services over the Internet.
Relevant Instrument: Condition 18A BTs Licence
Case opened: June 1999.
i-CD (UK) Limited, a provider of directory enquiries and related services via the telephone and Internet has complained that BTs provision of a version of its directory enquiry services via its website and free of charge is anti-competitive, given that companies wishing to compete need to purchase the data on a wholesale basis.
Oftel is investigating the issues in order to determine if any abuse of dominance has taken place contrary to the competition provisions of BTs licence.
Case Investigator: John Naughten (extn 8810)
Case Reference: BX/663/222
Notice period for BT Cellnet promotional offers
Complaint against: BT Cellnet
Issue: Notice period given for BT Cellnet promotional offers
Relevant Instrument: Condition 9 of BT Cellnets licence
Case opened: June 1999
Hutchinson Cellular Services Limited (HCS), an independent service provider, has complained that BT Cellnet has provided insufficient notice and support of promotional offers.
HCS has alleged that it has been subject to several instances of inadequate notice periods. HCS is concerned that inadequate notice of promotional offers has presented it with difficulties in preparing for the offers adequately and taking full advantage of them. Further, HCS contend that BT Cellnets tied service providers do not appear to have been subject to similar difficulties.
HCS alleges the problems it has faced in preparing for and taking advantage of promotional offers have adversely affected its business.
Oftel is investigating whether this could amount to a breach of BT Cellnets licence.
Case officer: Lawrence Wardle (ext 8859)
Case reference: BX/663/221
Complaint against: BT
Issue: Alleged discriminatory pricing
Relevant Instrument: Condition 17 BTs Licence
Case Opened: 14 June 1999
Norweb has alleged that BT may be offering an inequitable pricing structure for its dial-up directory information service, Phonebase.
This service is available on both wholesale and retail terms to carriers and end users respectively. Norweb argues that OLOs cannot match BTs tariff for the calls because the interconnect rate they are charged is higher than the discounted retail rate available to end-users. Norweb is concerned that this pricing is anti-competitive and possibly discriminatory.
Oftel is investigating this issue to see whether BT is in breach of its licence.
Case officer: Naaz Rashid (extn 8849)
Case reference: BX /663/220
Subject of investigation: BT
Issue: BTs policy of allowing separate companies to aggregate NTS traffic
Relevant instrument: Condition 17 of BTs licence
Case opened: June 1999
A BT customer has alleged that BT is not applying its policy of allowing separate companies to aggregate NTS traffic consistently between different customers. Aggregation allows customers to take advantage of volume discounts.
To allow different companies to aggregate traffic, one company must take responsibility for bill payment and must therefore have all the relevant telephone numbers allocated to them by BT. When separate companies move to aggregate traffic, one must effectively cease ownership of its numbers and hand them back to BT, who will then re-provide them to the other company. The two companies have a separate contractual arrangement to settle bill payment and other issues.
Problems arise when requests to cease and re-provide are made for numbers in closed number ranges. In these circumstances, it would seem that BT cannot re-provide the number to the other company, just as it cannot allocate a number from a closed range to other companies.
The allegation made to Oftel suggested that BT has allowed some companies to cease and re-provide from closed ranges. No firm evidence has yet been received and at the present time, Oftel is trying to establish the facts. Oftel would welcome input from any other companies who may have tried to aggregate traffic in this way.
Case officer: Tim Cross
Case reference: BX/663/213
Complaint against: Vodafone and BT Cellnet
Issue: Terms and conditions on which ISPs are supplied
Relevant Instrument: Condition 9 Vodafones and BT Cellnets licences
Case opened: July 1999
Oftel announced in the statement of the Review of the Mobile Market, published on 1 July 1999, that it was initiating investigations into the terms on which independent service providers are supplied with network services.
This follows information supplied by the two networks which suggests that they might have been unfairly subsidising tied service providers and/or unduly discriminating against independent service providers. Oftel is investigating this matter to see whether there has been a breach of a licence or whether there is a need to issue a direction.
Case officer: Lawrence Wardle (extn 8859)
Case reference: BX/663/224 & BX/663/225
Complainant: Proactive investigation
Issue: PIN number access for adult PRS
Relevant instrument: Conditions 17 and 18A of BTs Licence
Case opened: 1 July 1999
Oftel has received various complaints regarding the scheme BT has proposed for adult premium rate services (PRS), which would require users of such services to obtain a personal identification number (PIN) before access to such services would be allowed. Oftel has launched a pro-active investigation into the competition aspects of this issue.
Given BTs position in the market for originating calls and the previous impact a similar scheme had, Oftel is concerned that such a scheme could have a detrimental impact on the PRS industry and on certain terminating operators also.
Oftel is to shortly consult on aspects of PRS regulation and as part of that exercise, a section within the consultation document will invite relevant factual information on this investigation to be submitted.
Case officer: Philip Taylor (extn 8829)
Case reference: BX/663/226
Termination Rates For Mobile Operators
Complainant: BT
Targets of the complaints: Orange/ Dolphin Telecommunications
Issue: Pricing
Relevant instruments: Regulation 6.6 of the Telecommunications (Interconnect) Regulations
Case opened: July 1999
BT has asked the Director General to settle a dispute between BT and each of Orange and Dolphin regarding the termination rates paid by BT to the mobile operators.
BT issued an Operator Charge Change Notification (OCCN) under the terms of its interconnection agreement to each of the mobile operators. The mobile operators rejected the OCCN and the parties failed to reach an agreement within the agreed timescale.
BT therefore referred the disputes separately to the Director General for determination.
Case officer: Ursula Harnischfeger
Case references: BX/663/228 and BX/663/229
This section lists cases resolved since April 1999. It summarises the outcome of each case and gives general guidance on Oftels approach, which we hope will be of use to the reader. It is not an exhaustive inventory of precedent.
If you wish to discuss the principles underlying decisions in more detail please contact the case officer listed. Case officers can be contacted direct on 0171 634 + extn.
Complaint against: BT
Issues: Separation of short and long duration NTS local rate calls and notification of price changes
Relevant Instrument: BT Licence
Case Opened: May 1999
Closed: June 1999
Esprit Telecom sought an explanation of the determination established by Oftel for NTS local calls within the 1997/98 Interim Standard services determination (known as the 2Ds principle). This sought to remove the distortion, caused by BTs minimum call charge of 4.2p+VAT, in payments made by BT to OLOs to terminate the growing number of long duration Internet calls.
The effect of separating short and long calls is to create, for short calls, a deemed retail charge, which significantly exceeds the actual retail price for the call, particularly during weekdays. An operator who adopts BTs charges but does not have a similar minimum call charge can find itself charging customers more for short calls than BT. Esprit has had such complaints from its customers.
Oftel gave Esprit a detailed explanation of why the methodology was adopted, indicating however, that it was for Esprit to resolve the complaints from its customers. Esprit complained that either BT or Oftel should notify other operators of BTs forthcoming price changes in particular in relation to the recent retail price reduction on calls to BT Cellnet and Vodafone.
Oftel explained that BT had notified Oftel 28 days before the due date and had posted notices in its major offices and updated its website pages as required within its licence. It had also, exceptionally, issued a press release. As such it had more than met its licence obligations. Oftel explained it was neither a licence condition requirement on BT or within Oftels remit to advise operators on an individual basis. This case was therefore closed.
Case officer: Geoff Brighton (extn8925)
Case reference: BX/663/200
BTs Interconnection charges in Northern Ireland
Complaint against: BT
Issue: Interconnection charges
Relevant Instrument: BT Licence
Case Opened: June 1999
Case Closed: July 1999
Energis have entered into a joint venture with Viridian to build and operate a telecoms network in N Ireland. They have complained that the conversion of Belfast DMSU to a Wide Area Tandem (WAT) switch has enabled BT to switch calls from the UK to N Ireland at single tandem. Energis maintained that, as a result, BTs interconnect charges do not reflect the full costs of switching calls to N Ireland and that this reduces the incentive for other operators to build their network out to N Ireland.
Whilst an extreme case, N Ireland echoes the situation in other rural parts of the UK where relatively large distances are accessed at single tandem. Furthermore this has been the case for some time and was not the direct result of the WAT conversion.
Oftel therefore closed this case.
Case Officer: Geoff Brighton (extn8925)
Case Reference: BX/663/218
Complaint against: CWC
Issue: Supply of in-bound ISDN connections
Relevant instrument: Fair trading condition in CWCs licence
Case opened: 31 July 1998
Case closed: 22 June 1999
This case was first mentioned in Issue 10 of the Competition Bulletin and involved an allegation that CWC was abusing its dominant position in respect of the provision of ISDN to businesses.
To assess whether CWCs conduct was in breach of the fair trading condition, Oftel needed firstly to define the relevant market and then assess CWCs market power. Further correspondence with the complainant revealed that the service at the centre of the complaint was the provision of 30 Channel ISDN (ie primary rate ISDN). In Oftels analysis, the relevant market was the provision of primary rate ISDN in the United Kingdom.
After lengthy enquiries it was established that although CWC has an appreciable market share, this share is still much less than BT. Furthermore, it is clear that CWC could not act independently of consumers or other competitors in setting its price for the service. On the basis of market shares and in the absence of others factors indicating dominance, Oftel concluded that CWC was not dominant in this market.
Oftel has therefore closed this case.
Case officer: Philip Taylor (extn 8829)
Case reference: BX/663/122
Issue: Sending of unsolicited faxes
Relevant instrument: Condition 7 TSL
Case opened: September 1998
Case closed: March 1999
A company complained to Oftel that it had continued to receive faxes from Launchasset Limited after requesting that the sending of such unsolicited faxes should cease. Launchasset trades under the names British Fax Directory, Second Telecom, Top Twenty Limited and 20th Century Fax. Requests to cease sending faxes were sent to all these companies. Continuing to send faxes following requests to cease is a breach of condition 7 of the TSL. Launchasset initially admitted sending the faxes in error after failing to enter the complainants fax numbers on its call barring machine. Launchasset informed Oftel that all numbers had been entered in November 1998. On this basis, it did not appear that Launchasset was likely to breach the relevant licence condition again.
However, further complaints were received from the same complainant between January and March 1999 on the grounds that further faxes had been received. Launchasset denied that it or any of its trading companies had sent the faxes. Further investigation by Oftel including an assessment of the calling records of the relevant network operators failed to provide evidence to show that the faxes were issued by any of Launchassets various businesses.
Without such evidence, Oftel cannot be satisfied that any breach of condition 7 has occurred.
Readers should note that the Telecommunications (Data Protection and Privacy)(Direct Marketing) Regulations 1998 are now in force which will provide new, comprehensive powers to protect all consumers from junk calls and faxes. The new Telephone Preference Service and Fax Preference Service have been operational since May 1999. Full details can be found in Issue 11.
Case officer: James Tickel (ext 8826)
Case reference: BX/663/129
Determination request from Kingston regarding BTs Fixed Channel Service
Complaint against: Kingston
Relevant Instrument: Condition 13 BTs Licence
Issue: Interconnection
Case opened: 30 September 1998
Case closed: 24 February 1999
BT published a PCN and NCCN introducing a retail product and an interconnection product, respectively, each of which enables indirect access to its fixed channel network; both products were effective from 21 September 1998. Kingston raised its concerns about the charges for both products and it therefore asked Oftel to determine whether:
Oftel did not agree that it needed to make either determination. Oftels view is that the ISDNconnect: Retail Access Node does not need to be brought into the Network Charge Control regime and it has no reason to doubt that the Fixed Channel Service Interconnection Link (FCSIL) charge is cost-oriented. Kingston argued that the ISDNconnect product requires a physical interconnection between networks and, therefore, should be brought under the Network Charge Control regime. Although a physical interconnection needs to exist, the same could be said of any interconnection with a private circuit. It has long been Oftel policy that private circuits should be charged on a retail rather than a wholesale basis to encourage infrastructure competition. BT describes this service as a point to multi-point private network. Oftel concurs with this description.
Kingston further claimed that the Fixed Channel Service Interconnect Link (FCSIL) was not charged in accordance with Condition 13 of BTs Licence. Kingston compared the charge for the FCSIL (128kbit/s) product with the charge that BT levies for the Packet Switched Interconnect product (64kbit/s). Oftel compared the charges for the Packet Switched Interconnect product and the charge for the FCSIL. It found that there was little difference in the charge between the two. Furthermore, BT has confirmed that it did base the charge in accordance with its obligations under Condition 13 obligations. Oftel has therefore closed this case.
Case officer: Chris Taylor (extn 8850)
Case reference: BX/663/137
Unsolicited Calls from Kitchens Direct
Complaint against: Kitchens Direct a Division of MKD Holdings Ltd (KD)
Issue: Unsolicited sales calls
Relevant Instrument: Condition 6.1 (a) of the Self Provision Licence (SPL)
Case opened: 19 January 1999
Case closed: May 1999
A complaint was made to Oftel by an individual alleging that he was receiving telephone sales calls from KD despite having requested that it stop making such calls. KD operates its telecommunications system under the terms of the Self Provision Licence (SPL). Condition 6.1 (a) of the SPL prohibits a licensee from sending messages for the purposes of advertising or the provision of goods over its telecommunications system to any person who requests that it ceases sending such messages.
In order for the Director General to consider taking enforcement action for breach of a licence condition he has to be satisfied that the breach is continuing or that it is likely to occur again in the future.
The complainant has not reported receiving any sales calls from KD since 13 January 1999. Therefore the Director General cannot be satisfied at the present time that KC is breaching Condition 6.1 (a) of the SPL or that such a breach is likely to occur in the future. On this basis, this case was closed.
Case officer: John Russell (extn.8830)
Case reference: BX/663/157
BTs Interconnection charges for an operators 0800 service
Complaint against: BT
Issue: Interconnection rates
Relevant Instrument: Condition 13 BT Licence
Case Opened: February 1999
Case Closed: June 1999
Global Numbers operate a number of Personal Numbering / Personal Assistant services. One of these has a facility for callers to leave messages on a voicemail facility. Global Numbers customers collect their voice messages by dialling an 0800 number. BT had refused to interconnect with the 0800 number at NTS rates and had offered much higher call origination charges.
Global Numbers insisted that the 0800 facility was not part of the PNS itself but a supplementary facility used only by the renter of the service and not callers to it. It should therefore qualify for NTS interconnection charges. BT refused to offer NTS rates on the grounds that the proposed 0800 facility was an integral part of the personal numbering service.
Oftels view is that 0800 was originally established as a telemarketing service to enable businesses to offer free calls to customers. Global Numbers proposal entailed simply allowing individual customers to make end to end calls free of charge. In this way they were substituting chargeable geographic calls with non-chargeable, non-geographic calls. BT should therefore be able to recover its normal call origination charge for these calls.
In the longer term, however, BTs interconnection charges for all types of call will be examined as part of the forthcoming price control review.
Case Officer: Geoff Brighton (extn8925)
Case Reference: BX/663/169
CWC Number Portability Procedures
Complaint against: CWC
Issue: Number porting/transfers
Relevant instrument: Licence prohibition on undue discrimination and undue preference.
Case opened: 8 March 1999
Case closed: 19 April 1999
A complaint was made that CWC was unduly preferring Freephone Telecom Ltd by offering it more convenient number porting arrangements than those it applies to other operators.
CWCs response was that Freephone Telecom Ltd is a switchless reseller of CWCs CallLink services. The number transfers at issue do not therefore involve number portability between operators. They are simply migrations between resellers on the same network and are not covered by the industry procedures for portability.
Oftel agreed with CWC that number migration is a simpler process than number porting. The fact that there are differences in the procedures applied to the processes should not therefore be seen, in itself, as discriminatory.
On this basis, the case was closed.
Case officer: Sue Peters (extn 8828)
Case reference: BX/663/174
Impact of Mobile Number Portability on Connection Subsidy
Complaint against: BT Cellnet
Issue: Connection subsidies
Relevant instrument: Condition 14 of BT Cellnets licence
Case opened: 17 March 1999
Case closed: 4 June 1999
A service provider for BT Cellnet complained that since the introduction of mobile number portability it has ceased to receive connection subsidies for customers it attracts from Cellnets tied service providers, Cellnet Direct and BT Mobile. Such customers are treated as a migration, for which BT Cellnet pays no subsidy (previously, the customer would normally have been issued with a new number, thus qualifying for a connection subsidy).
The complainant saw the effect of this as being anti-competitive, as it removed the main incentive to compete against the tied service providers, thus reinforcing BT/Cellnets dominant position.
In response, BT Cellnet said that it sees the connection bonus as fundamentally a payment for a new connection, and that it would not make economic sense for BT Cellnet to pay for the migration of a customer already connected to its network.
Oftel agreed with BT Cellnet that there is little or no benefit to BT Cellnet from customers moving between its own service providers, so payment of a connection bonus in these cases would not be cost-justified.
The arrangements cannot therefore be said to be anti-competitive. The complaint was not upheld.
Case officer: Sue Peters (extn. 8828)
Case reference: BX/663/184
Ocean Solutions and Cellnet Condition 8
Complaint against: BT Cellnet
Issue:
Relevant Instrument: Condition 8 of BT Cellnets licence.
Case opened: 15 April 1999
Case closed: 27 May 1999
Cellnet had refused to supply Ocean solutions with tariff information relating to Mobile Radio Telecommunications Services, as required by Condition 8 of its licence. Cellnets justification for this was that Oftels judgement on an earlier case (BX/663/128) meant that Cellnet did not have to supply tariff information to end-users acting in a business capacity.
Following a letter to Cellnet, explaining that the requirements of Condition 8 were additional to, and not superseded by the requirements of the Revised Voice Telephony Directive, Cellnet agreed to supply the required information.
On this basis, this case was closed.
Case officer: Sue Peters (extn 8828)
Case reference: BX/663/194
BT Late notification C.13 Interconnect Agreements
Complaint Against: BT - Own initiative enquiry.
Issue: Late notification of interconnect agreements.
Relevant Instrument: Condition 13.12 and 13.14(a) of BTs licence
Case Opened: 30 April 1999
Case Closed: 14 June 1999
BT is required under Condition 13.12 of its licence to publish details of interconnect agreements within a 28-day period following entry into such agreements. Condition 13.14(a) of its licence states that publication shall be effected inter alia by sending the Director General a copy of such agreements. BT notified Oftel of two interconnect agreements with Cherry Communications Inc and Core Telecommunications Ltd a month outside the notification period.
Oftel has previously written to BT concerning delays in sending agreements in compliance with this condition. Oftel had concerns about these late notifications and initiated an enquiry into this issue.
In response to Oftels enquiry, BT informed Oftel that the particular incidents in question had resulted from human error rather than processes failure and that ongoing remedial steps were being taken to ensure that similar incidents did not recur in the future.
Although late notification is a breach of BTs licence, this matter appears to be an isolated incident and no other operator appears to have been prejudiced by the breach. Moreover, from the information supplied, BT appears to have taken the necessary action to ensure future compliance, and that similar breaches are unlikely to recur in the future. In these circumstances the case has been closed.
Case Officer: Naaz Rashid (extn 8849)
Case Reference: BX /663/197
Indirect Access for Diverted Calls
Complaint against: BT
Issue: Indirect access
Relevant instrument: Condition 1 and Condition 18A of BTs licence.
Case opened: 17 May 1999
Case closed: 28 June 1999
A customer considered that the refusal of BT to allow him to use indirect access for calls diverted from his home phone to another phone of his choice might be anti-competitive.
BTs reason for not providing this service relates to the provision of Calling Line Identification (CLI) to the indirect access operator. The indirect access operator charges its customers on the basis of the CLI supplied to it. In the case of a diverted call, the CLI supplied is the number where the call originated, which is not the correct basis for charging.
On this basis, this case was closed.
Case Officer: Sue Peters (extn 8828)
Case reference: BX/663/201
International Incoming Mobile Termination Rates
Issue: Interconnection
Relevant instrument: Regulation 6(6) of the Telecommunications (Interconnection) Regulations 1997
Complainant: One2One
Case opened: December 1998
Case closed: July 1999
One2One made a request that the Director General determine a dispute between One2One and BT regarding the termination charges for international incoming calls terminating on One2Ones network for the period commencing 1 April 1998 31 March 1999. One2One proposed that its international incoming termination rates should be increased to the level of its national incoming termination rates. Oftel has considered One2Ones representations and conducted a public consultation including a draft direction and an explanatory document. Oftel received comments from One2One, Vodafone, Orange, CWC and BT by 3 June 1999 and comments on comments from One2One and BT.
However, on 19 July 1999 One2One withdrew its determination request and Oftel has therefore closed the case. The withdrawal is without prejudice to any determination request regarding Operator International Incoming rates for the year commencing 1 April 1999.
Case officer: Ursula Harnischfeger
Case reference: BX 663/152
This section lists directors, determination and orders issued under the Telecommunications Act 1984 to licensed operators under their licences since April 1999 and also reports on the monitoring of licensed operators compliance with previous orders, directions and findings on selected cases.
BTs Talking Pages Provisional Order
Complaint against: BTs Talking Pages
Issue: Predatory Pricing
Relevant instrument: Condition 18A BTs Licence
Case opened: 21 May 1999
The Director General issued a provisional order against BT in respect of its Talking Pages (TP) call completion service for an apparent breach of Condition 18A of its Licence. The order was issued following a complaint by Scoot plc and took effect on 17 June 1999. It requires BT to cease provision of the TP call completion service.
The call completion service allowed users of TP to be connected directly to the relevant advertiser free of charge. The TP call completion service was offered free of charge to advertisers and was launched just two weeks after Scoots similar service began operating. The Scoot service, however, charges each time a user is connected directly to the advertiser.
Scoot alleged a breach of Conditions 18 and 18A of BTs Licence. Upon investigation Oftel found that TP was operating as a whole below cost and took the view that the call completion service would increase losses.
The market was taken to be the provision of classified directory advertising services in the United Kingdom. Oftels investigation found that BT was dominant in the relevant market and that predatory pricing was feasible.
Taking into account all the facts available to him, including the timing of the launch of the TP call completion service, it appeared to the Director that BT intended to remove Scoot from the relevant market. On the basis of the scope and duration of the trial nation-wide and one year respectively it appeared to the Director that the predatory pricing would have an appreciable effect on competition.
Case officer: Philip Taylor (extn 8829)
Case reference: BX/663/204
BT Failure To Comply With Request For Information - Provisional Order
Subject of inquiry: BT
Issue: Failure to comply with request for information
Relevant instrument: C52 of BTs licence
Case opened: June 1999
In April 1999 Oftel issued a consultative document seeking views on BTs plans to cease providing commercial maritime radio services.
To enable the Director General to consider whether demand for the services would generate sufficient revenue to cover their costs Oftel also made a formal request for financial information pursuant to condition 52 of BTs licence.
BT did not meet the deadline that had been set and the information that was eventually supplied was inadequate. Oftel therefore opened an investigation.
On 17 June 1999 a Provisional Order was made pursuant to section 16 of the Telecommunications Act 1984 requiring BT to supply the information that had been requested by 2 July 1999 and, to submit a compliance plan setting out BTs procedures for dealing with condition 52 requests.
BT supplied some additional financial information prior to the deadline of 2 July. Oftel is now considering this information prior to deciding whether or not to approve BTs plans to cease providing commercial maritime services. In deciding whether or not to approve BTs plans the Director General will also take into account all relevant information, including the responses to the aforementioned consultation. The Director General expects to be able to publish his decision in August 1999.
Case officer: Alistair Bridge (extn.8782)
Case reference: BX/663/212
In late 1997/early 1998 Oftel investigated several different cases concerning allocation and pricing of capacity on submarine cables. Each of these was eventually settled by commercial negotiations between the parties. However, as a result of these cases, and of other more general concerns that new entrants would have difficulty in obtaining capacity in international circuits, further enquiries were conducted in order to discover whether there was any action which Oftel should be taking to regulate a possible bottleneck.
When the investigation began, the only cables which existed were built and owned by consortia consisting of many tens of different operators. This type of arrangement is still typical for most existing submarine cables. There are also, now, three "sponsored cables". These have been built by two or three carriers who then retain the majority of the systems capacity for their own use, and sell spare capacity off to other operators.
However, the supply of capacity in submarine cables has now been subject to two major changes. The first has been the introduction of completely independent, privately owned, submarine cables such as the Atlantic Crossing cable, which was ready for service in May 1998. More are planned, including several being built by companies without a telecoms licence who intend to sell off capacity in "dark fibre" (ie they just provide the cable and the purchasing operator is responsible for utilising it).
The second major development has been a change in the economics of submarine cables. Developments in technology have led to a fall in the cost of new cables and new cables having capacities far higher than those available on older cables. Moreover, the recent expansion in demand for data transmission capacity has led to massively increased investment. Table 1 shows some recent transatlantic cables, together with rough figures for their capacities and construction costs.
Cable |
Date Completed |
Capacity (Gb/s) |
Cost ($m) |
Cost of 1 Gb/s ($m) |
CANTAT-3 |
1994 |
4 |
300 |
75 |
TAT 12/13 |
1996 |
20 |
750 |
38 |
Atlantic Crossing |
1998 |
80 |
750 |
9.5 |
TAT 14 |
2000 |
640 |
1500 |
2.5 |
Table 1: Transatlantic cables.
Given the newly-changed economics of international capacity, and the ease with which it is now possible to obtain capacity on submarine cable routes, Oftel has concluded that any bottleneck which might have existed in the provision of international capacity has now disappeared.
Concerns remain, though, as regards access to cable landing stations and the provision of backhaul from those stations to the international switches. BT and CWC, control most of the cable landing stations in the UK and so regulations will remain in place aiming to prevent anti-competitive behaviour in these areas.
Case officer: Vince Affleck (extn.8819)
Case reference: OX/009/002
Oftel is continually seeking ways to improve and develop the Competition Bulletin. Oftel would welcome suggestions from readers for the improvement of the Bulletin in terms of, for example, layout, frequency or content. All contributions would be gratefully received. Please send contributions to Philip Taylor at 50 Ludgate Hill, London EC4M 7JJ or ptaylor@oftel.gov.uk.
Copies of past Competition Bulletins and Oftel statements referred to in this issue can be viewed from the website or ordered from Oftel's Research & Intelligence Unit, fax 0171 634 8946
If you would like to be on the mailing list for future issues of the Competition Bulletin (quarterly), please visit Annopack website, or write to:
Oftel Update, c/o Annopack,
Tanners Court, Brockham,
Betchworth, Surrey RH3 7NH
Tel: 01737 842089 (ask for Oftel Update) Fax: 01737 843954