Introduction by the Director General
Welcome to this first edition of Oftel's new Competition Bulletin.
In our December 1995 Consultative Document Fair Trading in Telecommunications we confirmed our commitment to greater transparency in our procedures. With increasing competition in an ever wider range of markets for telecommunications services, we recognise the need to reinforce and expand upon the open and consultative approach which we seek to adopt across all our activities. This bulletin is another step down that road.
Our aims in this publication are threefold:
We pursue no sectional interest here, only the common goal of fair and objective decisions.
Over time this process, together with the considerable body of other information and guidance we publish, should enable the industry to understand better the analytical background to our work and thus the approach we are likely to adopt in individual cases and circumstances. This should help equip the industry to operate within well understood parameters of fair and effective competition without excessive reliance on regulatory intervention.
As always, views and comment on both content and approach are very welcome.
Don Cruickshank
This section lists cases which Oftel's Licence Enforcement and Fair Trading Branch opened between 1 January and 30 April 1996. The Director General has a duty under the Telecommunications 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. This bulletin does not include allegations about which no assessment has been made. Nor does the opening of a case imply that Oftel has reached any view of the merits of the case, whether preliminary or otherwise.
J Walter Thompson complained that BT had been selective in which companies it compensated for fraudulent calls from Meridian switches
Condition 17 of BT's Licence prohibits undue preference and undue discrimination against persons of any class or description.
BT claims to have adhered to its policy on switch misuse in all cases, ie it has compensated companies where it accepted fault and has not compensated where it has not accepted fault. We are looking at events surrounding the case and how this fits with BT's policy on switch misuse.
Case officer: Jonathan Dawson
Reference: BX/017/036
Following a complaint about BT's activities in relation to telecommunications outsourcing and facilities management, we are gathering market information with a view to determining whether there is a breach of BT's licence. A questionnaire aimed at establishing the facts (eg, how the market should be defined/measured, and seeking to elicit information as to any entry barriers and how contracts are awarded) has gone out to those companies which Oftel believes are active in the market, but additional views would also be useful.
Case officer: Andrew K Miller
Reference: BX/018/008
BT's audio circuits are used for carrying broadcast quality sound for radio stations. BT wishes to withdraw the existing product. Several users allege that BT is withdrawing a service for which there is still reasonable demand and that there has been a lack of consultation to establish demand. The new circuits are claimed not to meet all the uses to which the old circuits were put and are uneconomic for some others. Users have claimed that they are dependent on BT for the supply of audio circuits and that they are thus being exploited by BT. Condition 53 of BT's Licence disapplies the obligation to supply telecommunications services if there is no reasonable demand for it.
Oftel has proposed that withdrawal of audio circuits should delayed or abandoned until the complainants' concerns can be addressed.
Case officer: Andrew K Miller
Reference: BX/301/111
The service provides internet access through 0345 (lo-call) numbers. A complainant alleges that:
We are conducting an assessment of the market so that we can test the validity of these allegations and examine whether the service may be discriminatory to the extent that it only benefits a particular group of customers and specialist competitors.
Case officer: Andrew K Miller
Reference: BX/301/108
On 19 March BT announced a new fixed charge (then called Campus World Option 1 but since rebranded as Education On-Line) effective from 1 April, for calls made by schools and colleges to on-line education services, including those offered by its own service provider, Campus World. We initiated enquiries to ensure that by making a late announcement BT has not given Campus World an unfair advantage over other providers by allowing it to build out local Points Of Presence in order to offer the tariff to all schools and colleges. Condition 17.2 of BT's licence prohibits BT from unfairly favouring a business carried on by it if that gives a significant competitive advantage over competitors.
Taking into account BT's obligations under its Licence , we need to ensure that the benefits of such new deals are spread as widely as possible across the education sector and that other service providers may benefit from the tariff. We are considering representations received from education and service providers in response to Oftel's Press Notice of 21 March.
Case officer: Andrew K Miller
Reference: BX/580/014
In the context of developing policy on independent service providers, Oftel has been looking at the provision of BT's Call Minder. Oftel has also received a complaint alleging that the provision of Call Minder as a network embedded service is an abuse of BT's market position and that provision in this form is stifling the growth of competing services by not making the components of the service available to independent service providers. Call Minder is provided by BT's Systems Business. Oftel's investigation will be material in making a decision about whether the service should continue to be provided out of the Systems Business or from BT's Supplemental Services Business.
Case officer: David Edwards
Reference: BX/663/082
Complaints have been received about BT's 'Off The Shelf' Trial. Through third party retailers, and its shops, BT is offering four year contracts for certain services at reduced prices. The promotion of BT Select Services: Call Waiting, Caller Display and Call Minder runs from 8 January to 30 June 1996.
BT has said that the promotion does not bind customers to it for a four year period. Rather they are paying a fee for four years' access to these services. In effect third part retailers act as agents for BT by amending customer's telephone service agreements. We are now reviewing the cost justification for the offer.
Case officer: David Edwards
Reference: BX/663/083
BT has recently begun to include unpaid invoices for outright purchases of equipment on certain business customers' next bill for telephone services. A complaint about the difficulties this caused a customer alerted us to possible anti-competitive effects of the practice. We are considering whether BT has conferred on part of its own business a benefit which it is not making available to others. Condition 17.2 of BT's licence prohibits BT from unfairly favouring a business carried on by it if that gives a significant competitive advantage over competitors. BT's views have been sought.
Case officer: Glynn McDonald
Reference BX/663/085
This section describes new or ongoing cases where input from the industry generally would be particularly useful in reaching a conclusion. If you have experience of the issues mentioned which you believe may be of use to Oftel's investigations, please send this in writing to the case officer listed. If in doubt use the Hotline to check first.
A number of Other Licensed Operators (OLOs) have alleged that BT is obstructing the launch of number translation services (such as 0800 and 0891) in the following ways:
BT is requiring the use of 10 digits for number translation services, such as 0800. This is the length now advocated by the Numbering Administration Unit, but BT is currently using 9 digit streams for its own number translation services.
BT is calculating data amendment charges by looking at number allocations rather than actual use.
While data amendment is technically possible at Digital Main Switching Unit level, BT carries out data amendment at Digital Local Exchange level, ostensibly in order to maintain 'tariff flexibility'. OLOs may not want tariff flexibility for such numbers as 0800, but it is claimed that BT is retaining the right to impose a higher retail rate on particular operators if agreement cannot be reached on termination rates which BT regards favourably.
Oftel has written to OLOs who have alleged malpractice for details of their experience in the above areas. Further OLOs are invited provide details of their experience.
Case officer: Glynn McDonald
Case reference: BX/017/038
We wish to ensure that Oftel has sufficient knowledge about the internet access market to react promptly to possible anti-competitive practices.
Prompted by several internet related complaints, some from service providers, we are monitoring the market for internet access provision. This should enable Oftel to react more easily to any sudden changes in the market place. At the most basic level market share information , in terms of prices and customers (numbers and type), held by companies will be regularly collected and checked.
We will be writing to service providers to request their assistance in compiling this database but information would be welcomed from any other source.
Readers with an interest in this subject should also see the item in the 'Other Fair Trading Issues' section.
Case officer: Andrew K Miller
Reference: BX/171/002
This section lists cases resolved in the period 1 January - 30 April 1996. It summarises the outcome of each case and gives general guidance on Oftel's approach rather than forming an exhaustive inventory of precedent. If you wish to discuss the principles underlying decisions in more detail please contact the case officer listed.
An article in 'Network News' suggested that BT had offered one-off tariff deals to Essex Fire & Rescue Services in order to keep its custom.
Condition 16 of BT's Licence obliges BT to publish many of its tariffs (see 'BT's voice and data services' later in this section) and to adhere to those tariffs. An Oftel initiated investigation revealed that the prices offered were in fact a combination of a three-month special offer on connection charges, and a reduction on rental charges available to those with a 5 year contract. There was no breach of BT's Licence.
Case officer: Jonathan Dawson
Reference: BX/016/123
This case concerned the fraudulent use of 0800 calls. Technocom plc complained that BT had acted in a discriminatory manner by waiving these to two companies, whose switches were supplied and maintained by BT, whilst refusing to waive them to Technocom (whose switch BT does not supply or maintain).
Condition 17 of BT's Licence prohibits it from unduly preferring certain persons or classes of persons in the provision of a wide range of services. BT claimed that the waivers were granted to the two companies in error. Oftel's view was that two companies were preferred in comparison to customers whose applications for waivers were refused (and/or in comparison to other customers who made no application at all for waiver of the 0800 number charges). It was questionable whether the grant of just two waivers in breach of BT's policy was enough to constitute undue preference. However, in any event BT was under no obligation to grant further waivers as to do so would mean a further breach of Condition 17 ie favouring other customers in comparison to any other customers whose application for waivers have been refused.
Case officer: Jonathan Dawson
Reference: BX/017/024
Sprint alleged that BT's International Featurenet rate was substantially below interconnect rate to many destinations and that this was predatory. Sprint did not pursue the case, but on information obtained from BT we concluded that the rate structure did not appear to have an appreciable effect on competition on those routes.
Case officer: Andrew Miller
Reference: BX/017/028
Oftel received a complaint that BT's prices for its SMDS service could not be covering its costs, that BT was unfairly subsidising the service and that there was insufficient accounting transparency where the provision of fixed links was concerned.
Condition 17 of BT's Licence prohibits BT from unfairly favouring to a material extent a business carried on by it, giving a significant advantage over competitors. Condition 20 allows the Director General to direct BT to stop unfair subsidy of a part of its business where this has a material effect on competition. BT was asked for detailed information on its SMDS service. However, the complainant declined to provide information necessary to pursue the case and it was closed.
Case officer: Andrew K Miller
Reference: BX/017/030
Oftel sought to confirm that BT was making only reasonable charges for use of its CNIS, which might be of particular use to customers who wished to switch to another operator.
The movement of BT's charges and the introduction of new technology to the CNIS over several years were examined and found to be reasonable. No action was taken but we will revisit the situation later in the year.
Case officer: Glynn McDonald
Case reference: BX/017/037
BT is running a trial of a multi-user online service for games players. This service used a newly launched premium rate service - 08944. This was accessible to other service providers who wished to use it, but Mercury complained that BT had launched 08944 before it had altered the interconnection terms. Such behaviour would be amenable to a request for a determination under Condition 13 of BT's Licence.
The determination route was not used. Oftel took the matter up on behalf of Mercury and BT offered an interim rate.
Case officer: Andrew K Miller
Reference: BX/053/006
Carlton was negotiating a contract and asked for NTL's tariffs for certain shared facilities for TV broadcasters. NTL refused to supply them. Condition 4 of NTL's licence requires it to publish tariffs for services it is obliged to provide. These are set out in Condition 1 and include the TV services required by Carlton. Investigation also revealed that Teletext service tariffs had not been published.
NTL was told to comply and published tariffs for both services.
Case officer: Andrew K Miller
Reference: BX/073/001
A consumer complaint alerted Oftel to the possibility of anti-competitive practice relating to the Payphone 200MkII. Our investigations revealed that the 200MkII, sold by BT, is hard-wired. BT holds the key that allows internal access to the payphone, which restricts the owner's access to the payphone and can cause difficulties if the owner wishes to choose a different maintainer or take a line from another operator. The meter pulsing on which the payphone depends will be withdrawn in approximately 3 years making the it obsolete.
Condition 17.2 of BT's Licence prohibits BT from unfairly favouring a business carried on by it, giving a significant competitive advantage over competitors. BT agreed to our proposals to address the current problems with the 200MkII while taking into account the limited lifespan of the payphone. BT will:
Case officer: Jonathan Dawson
Reference: BX/112/034
Norline Comms wished to purchase capacity on a trans-Atlantic circuit from the UK to the US in order to provide service to Europe. Having secured a circuit in the other direction at a large discount it wished to receive similar treatment from BT.
This case involved International Simple Resale. Tariffs for international private circuits have to be published and those tariffs abided by. BT is free to discount but it must publish such tariffs and make them available to all. Initially a complaint, the case was resolved by supplying Norline with information on tariffs and the licensing regime and putting it and BT in touch.
Case officer: Andrew K Miller
Reference: BX/301/107
A competing operator alleged that BT had responded to its offering of an ATM based video network with a below-cost offering to several Soho companies and that this was a misuse by BT of the licence condition which allows BT to run trial services.
In fact BT had requested an approval for apparatus to be used in a trial service but not started it. The trial was monitored in case it became, in practice, a special offer targeted at certain customers. BT sought to extend the trial, especially as problems were being experienced in establishing interconnection standards. We considered the possible anti-competitive impact of such an extension and concluded, after consulting in the market, that it would not damage competition.
The proposed new licence condition on trials is designed to ensure such ad hoc methods of regulation are no longer necessary.
Case officer: Andrew K Miller
Reference: BX/585/022
An independent apparatus supplier alleged that BT had waived the connection charge and rental for two years for a Kilostream private circuit, provided the customer purchased a BT switch. This raised a number of competition related issues. The complainant declined to provide details and the case was closed.
Case officer: Andrew K Miller
Reference: BX/585/022
ISI (Information Services International) Mars complained that BT was failing to meet certain licence obligations in relation to the voice and data services marketed by its GNS (Global Network Services) business.
Condition 16 of its Licence requires BT to publish the prices for many of the services and products which it offers. The requirement extends, in general, to the telecommunications services which BT is obliged to provide by means of its systems under the terms of its Licence. The requirement to publish prices does not extend to all of its services and products, including many within BT's Supplemental Services Business (SSB), which BT is not obliged to offer under its Licence. Further, as a result of a waiver from the publication requirement granted in December 1988, the obligation to publish does not extend (with some limited exceptions) to what are termed 'Relevant Services' - broadly, value added services.
The effect of the above is that many value added products and services of BT's GNS business are exempt from the requirement to publish prices for them. However, GNS should incorporate, in its offerings, those of BT's services it uses at BT's Systems Business published tariff price.
Condition 18 enables the Director General to direct BT to remedy the effects of any unfair cross subsidy by BT, in particular of BT's Apparatus Supply Business or its Supplemental Services Business. Condition 20B.15 enables the Director General direct BT to remedy the adverse effects of any unfair cross subsidy by BT of any part or parts of its businesses which has or could have a material effect on competition in the United Kingdom.
We found that BT was complying with its price publication obligations in this case. The issue of cross-subsidy was not investigated separately as BT's Managed Network Services (MNS) was under investigation at the time (see item in 'Monitoring' section).
Case officer: Jonathan Dawson
Reference: BX/663/070
KPC requested ISDN 2 from BT. BT declined to provide it. KPC sought to invoke BT's obligation to provide service under Condition 1 of its Licence.
BT supplies ISDN 2 across copper lines up to 4km from a suitably equipped exchange. In this case the exchange was equipped but the network distance to the site was 4.6km. To have supplied the service would have required additional apparatus, the cost of which would have exceeded the demand for the service.
Condition 53 of BT's Licence disapplies the obligation to provide telecommunications services if the demand or prospective demand in an area is insufficient to meet the costs of providing the service. BT was not obliged to supply the service.
Case officer: Andrew K Miller
Reference: BX/854/001
In October 1995 BT advised Oftel that it proposed to launch a service for the remote collection of data from utility metering systems by the use of 'no-ring' calls. An independent service provider suggested that BT might exploit its monopoly position as it would be the only organisation able to communicate with meter reading equipment in the home. We wished to encourage the development of BT's service but expected other licensed operators and independent service providers to be able to enter the market.
Condition 17.2 of BT's Licence prohibits BT from unfairly favouring a business carried on by it, giving a significant competitive advantage over competitors. Discussions with BT produced details of interconnection terms for a 'no-ring' call service; these are available from BT on request. BT also provided assurances that relevant network information would be available and that service providers would have access to its Managed Telemetry and No Ring Call services on the same terms as BT's Supplemental Services Business. The interface necessary to enable independent service providers to offer a basic 'no-ring' call service is being taken forward in the work programme of the Network Interoperability Consultative Committee and Oftel will continue to encourage competition in this new market.
A statement - 'Telemetry and 'No Ring' Call Services' was issued on 30 November 1995 and is available from Oftel's library.
Case officer: David Edwards
Reference: BX/860/001
Mercury and BT have a duopoly on international facilities licences which have to be used by operators offering international services. A number of operators (BT, COLT, MFS, Sprint, Worldcom) claimed that Mercury's retail price meant that the margin left once the operator had purchased Mercury service at wholesale rates was insufficient to allow a reasonably efficient competitor to operate. Condition 16 of Mercury's Licence prohibits Mercury from unfairly favouring a business carried on by it, giving a significant competitive advantage over competitors.
We obtained costing information from Mercury in order to establish what margin was needed by a reasonably efficient operator and what was the actual difference in cost, to Mercury, between its wholesale and resale tariffs. We also attempted to look at alternatives. BT wholesale rates were comparable to Mercury's and did not decrease during this period, therefore failing to provide a competitive alternative. There was evidence that other operators used ISR routes and "tromboning" (a process allowing them to reach non-ISR destinations) and so were not in fact reliant on Mercury.
Discussions were held with Mercury to establish a reasonable margin and ensure that Mercury altered its retail or wholesale tariffs to meet it. Such a margin was achieved by Mercury cutting its wholesale rates. Mercury has agreed to inform Oftel if it plans to reduce retail costs if this would reduce the margin.
Case officer: Andrew K Miller
Reference: MX/016/002
The resolution of some cases requires directions to the licensee to take measures to remove the anti-competitive effects of certain behaviour. Compliance with these directions is monitored.
On 22 September 1995 the Director General directed BT (under Condition 20B.15 of its Licence) to cease unfair subsidy of its Network Applications Business as a whole, and several parts of that Business. The Direction covers the supply of corded and cordless telephones, telephone answering machines and faxes to residential and small business customers. On 21 May the Director General issued a Statement on BT's progress towards meeting the Direction and said that he would be consulting on how he proposes to amend it.
While BT has not met the requirements of the Direction in all respects, the Director General is satisfied that it would not be appropriate in each case to enforce the Direction. The reasons for this are set out in the Statement.
BT has decided to exit from the rental markets (except for corded telephones) and it has already ceased taking on new customers. The Director General therefore proposes to amend the Direction so that in relation to rental BT is not required to meet the specified rate of return tests. The Director General also proposes to exclude all such rentals from the rate of return requirement and from the calculation in relation to the Network Applications Business as a whole since it seems highly likely that the rental of corded telephones will continue to make a return well above that required. This way the return on capital achieved by the remainder of the Business will be more fairly evaluated.
BT is failing to meet the rate of return test of the Direction in respect of trade sales of fax machines. Compliance before the end of the BT financial year (1995/96) would have required a disposal of existing stock which would have been likely to have disrupted the market and to have had a material effect on competition. The Director General therefore concluded that it was not appropriate to enforce the Direction with respect to that period.
BT has presented plans to Oftel aimed at reducing certain fax stock over time and avoiding similar problems of surplus stock in the future by streamlining its inventory management. BT has said that it will comply with the rate of return test by the end of the first quarter of 1996/97 without disrupting the market. The Director General proposes to amend the Direction so that BT is prohibited from disposing of any excess fax inventory in a manner that would significantly disrupt the market or retailers' businesses.
Retail sales of fax machines are also affected by the stock issue. As a result BT may not have been in compliance with the rate of return test in these areas in quarter four 1995/96. The Director General, for the same reasons as above, has concluded that to the extent that failure to comply results from problems of surplus stock, the subsidy test applicable for trade, retail and zone sales in quarter four should not be enforced.
The Director General therefore gave notice under section 16(5) of the Telecommunications Act that he is satisfied that the duties imposed on him preclude, at the present time, the making of an enforcement order in relation to trade sales of fax machines in the second and third quarters and in relation to trade, retail and zone sales of fax machines in the fourth quarter of 1995/96.
The Director General has accepted BT's arguments that it was not practicable to supply, in the time elapsed, certain disaggregated financial information about the Network Applications Business. He has concluded however that BT will be in a position to comply fully with this requirement by the end of the first quarter of 1996/97.
A copy of the Statement is available from Oftel's library, and a copy of the direction is available for inspection in the library's public register.
Case officer: Andreas Avgousti
Reference: BX/663/060
In 1992 four complainants alleged anti-competitive practice by MNS, centring on unfair subsidy of MNS's activities from its systems business and predatory pricing in the provision of value-added data services and misuse of customer information. In December 1994 the Director General expressed his concern that a lengthy investigation had proved inconclusive because of limitations in the financial information available to him from within BT. He stated his intention to verify the adequacy of accounting improvements BT was making in 1994/5 and 1995/6, and then to return to the original allegations.
In February this year the Director General announced that he had been satisfied that there was no need for further action in six of the eight areas examined. However, in two important areas this was not so: adequacy of internal accounting controls within BT's core business over charges to other parts of BT (such as MNS), and whether customers were charged all relevant costs for services offered by MNS. The Director General therefore directed BT (under Condition 20.B.15 of its Licence) to take steps to ensure that it does not unfairly subsidise or cross-subsidise parts of its MNS business.
The Direction requires BT:
Complaints were also made about the unfair use by MNS of customer information from BT's Systems Business. The Director General concluded that there was no evidence of an organised system for the transfer of such information. However, the acquisition and use of customer information by individuals - such as account managers - whose work crosses boundaries between BT's Systems Business and other of its Businesses, is the subject of a broader examination.
A summary Statement is available from Oftel's library and a copy of the full Direction is available for inspection in the library's Public Register.
Case officer: Andreas Avgousti
Reference: BX/872/001
Oftel has initiated a new project designed to examine and address perceived barriers to competition which are not fully covered in other Oftel projects (detail of all projects are contained in the Management Plan, available from the Oftel library). The project will audit all the areas where operators believe that there are serious remaining competitive barriers. Where appropriate action will be taken to remove those barriers.
Amongst the issues identified to date are the following:
Oftel has invited comments from other operators on possible additional issues. A preliminary paper was issued to the Interconnect Policy Forum on 28 February. Copies are available from Alex Blowers. Further views would be welcome. We intend to present discussion papers on the issues identified above to during the course of Spring and early Summer.
Contact: Marly Didizian
Assessing complainant satisfaction
The Casework Team carried out a scrutiny of cases closed last year to establish complainants' reaction to the outcome of their complaint. Only 6 complainants had informed the team of what they thought of the outcome their cases. Feedback from complainants is very important for assessing our performance in handling complaints and monitoring the needs and expectations of complainants. In future Case Officers will send out a questionnaire to complainants after the closing of the case asking them a series of questions aimed at gauging the level of satisfaction.
Contact: Mohinder Mahi
Complementary to the residual barriers project is the development of an ongoing proactive programme for investigating parts of the telecommunications market or aspects of behaviour likely to have an adverse effect on competition. Some of the issues already being investigated are:
review of cost structure and pricing of ISDN service.
criteria for assessing BT special offers.
criteria for analysis of business cases for new PTO services.
Contact: Mohinder Mahi
'A review of the trials provision in BT's Licence' was published in February (available from the Oftel library). The period for informal consultation has now finished. We intend to issue licence modifications for formal consultation in July. The next Bulletin will contain an update on our proposals.
Contact: Graeme Gordon
On June 6 Oftel issued a statement following up proposals made in February to promote competition in services provided over telecommunication networks, in particular by those not installing their own networks ('independent service providers' or 'ISPs'). Oftel's aim is to help secure a fairer and more competitive market in services delivered over fixed networks and thus a better choice for the consumer.
The statement sets out measures to:
Copies of the statement are available from Oftel's library. Comments on the measures set out in it are invited by 1 July. Statutory consultation on proposed licence modifications to implement the measures runs until 15 July.
Contact: Philip Sack
Competition Surgeries and Hotline
Christopher Wright, Director of Licence Enforcement and Fair Trading has decided to hold regular competition 'surgeries' to enhance the existing channels of communication with Oftel. The last Wednesday in each month will be set aside on which a senior member of staff will be available in person or on the Branch's new Competition Hotline (0171 634 8833) for consultation on competition related issues. The surgeries will concentrate on new or potential complaints; give guidance on the approach to be taken by the Casework Team and the information needed to pursue a particular issue. It is not intended to use them for updating complainants about the progress of their complaints. The first surgery will be held on 26 June. Dates for future surgeries this year are 31 July, 28 August, 25 September, 30 October, 27 November and - exceptionally - 18 December. The hotline is open 9 - 5 every weekday.
Contact: Mohinder Mahi
Copies of the Competition Bulletin and Oftel statements referred to in this bulletin can be ordered from the Oftel Library - fax 0171 634 8946 .
E-mail - press.office.oftel@gtnet.gov.uk
If you would like to be on the mailing list for future issues of the Competition Bulletin (quarterly) and have not already informed us via Oftel News, please fill in the form and return to: Oftel Update
c/o Annopack
Tanners Court
Brockham
Betchworth
Surrey RH3 7NH
fax: 01737 843954
or telephone: 01737 842089 (ask for 'Oftel Update).
Name............................................................
Address........................................................
........................................................
Do you receive Oftel News?
........................................................
Reference code............................................
If not, would you like to receive Oftel News regularly?...................................................
(For those who subscribe to Oftel News a mailing list reference code is required - to be found on the envelope Oftel News arrived in)
Live competition cases opened prior to 1 January 1996 Case officer
Mercury: Need to establish that BT are properly estimating/paying recharge costs for calls made to 150 David Edwards
which relate to the BT's Apparatus Supply Business. (BX/407/012)
PMS Communications Ltd: Complaint that Campus Connect has been unfairly favoured by BT, and that Campus Andrew K
Connect business is being cross-subsidised. (BX/301/102) Miller
Mercury: Allegation of cross-subsidy of BT's Callstream Managed Service. (BX/542/001) Jonathan
Dawson
Mercury: Alleged breach by BT of Conditions 16 & 17 by aggregation of call charges for companies no longer David Edwards
in common ownership. (BX/017/022)
Unipalm/Pipex: Allegation of anti-competitive behaviour by BT in the market for Internet services. Andrew K
(BX/018/007) Miller
Nynex: Complaint that BT's Number Retention Package in FeatureNet is cheaper than PSTN Call Divert, whilst Andrew K
being principally the same service, raising the possibility of cross-subsidy. (BX/301/105) Miller
Maintel Communications Ltd: Claims that BT is breaching Condition 17 of its licence with regard to payphone Jonathan
sales and installation. (BX/112/033) Dawson
Mr Courtney: Unavailability of Orange numbers from Directory Enquiries. (BX/835/081) Alex Blowers
Caller Display Ltd: Complaint that BT rental charges for Caller Display service create problems in selling David Edwards
caller display units. (BX/663/074)
BT/Flora joint promotion: concerns about possible cross-subsidy (BX/580/008) David Edwards
Nat West Bank agreement with BT/CML: Allegation that the agreement includes the provision of some regulated Andrew K
services for less than cost price. (BX/018/008) Miller
Flextel: Alleged cross subsidy of BT's 0990 service and obstruction of personal numbering service. Glynn McDonald
(BX/018/012)
BT Price Notifications: Reduced charges in certain areas for Network Services. BT wish to gauge take-up of David Edwards
certain Network Services when offered at different tariffs and in different combinations. (BX/580/011)
Research Machines: Alleged unfair competition from BT in Internet market through cross-subsidy of Campus Andrew K
World by BT. (BX/301/106) Miller
PMS: Complaint that BT's provision of fixed cost access to the Internet involves cross-subsidy of Campus Andrew K
World. (BX/018/010) Miller
Abbey Telecom: Alleged cross-subsidy by BT in relation to upgrades of Meridian Norstar Modular switches Jonathan
(BX/018/011) Dawson
Eurobell: Allegation that BT telesales aimed at cable customers denigrates competitors. (BX/816/014) David Edwards
Direct Fax Limited: Complaint about availability of spare parts for BT branded fax machines. (BX/663/080) Andreas
Avgousti
Scottish Telecom: Complaint about BT failure to provide Lo-call and Premium Rate services by promised date. Glynn McDonald
(BX/017/033)
Vector Microsystems: Complaint about linked sales in relation to PictureTel equipment. (BX/035/002) Andrew K
Miller
