Contents

Summary

Chapter 1 Introduction

Chapter 2 Notification under the new regime

Chapter 3 Licence fees and administrative charges

Chapter 4 Collection of licence fees for the period from 1 April 2003 to 24^th July 2003

Chapter 5 Calculation and collection of administrative chargesfor the period from 25 July 2003 to 31^st March 2004

Chapter 6 Regulatory impact assessment

Chapter 7 Questions to which specific responses are requested

Chapter 8 Consultation process and timetable

Summary

S.1 This consultation sets out Oftel’s proposals in relation to a notification process and the collection of fees for the periods up to 24^th July 2003 and from 25^th July until the establishment of Ofcom.

S.2 It is anticipated that Ofcom will apply Oftel’s proposals at least initially. However, it will be a matter for Ofcom, subject to the provisions of the Communications Bill, to determine its charging structure. It is possible that in future, Ofcom might wish to adopt different policies from those set out in this consultation document. Ofcom would of course need to consult on any such changes.

S.3 Oftel’s proposals are as follows:

• Oftel does not intend to introduce a process of advance notification relating to the provision of Electronic Communications Networks (ECNs), Electronic Communications Services (ECSs) and Associated Facilities (AFs).
• On 25^th July 2003 annual licence fees will be replaced by a system of administrative charges.
• Licence fees for the period from 1 April 2003 to 24 July 2003 (the First Period) will be collected on the current basis save that Oftel proposes to use the turnover figures collected by Oftel for this year’s (i.e. 2002-3) licence fee exercise.
• All licence fees (both fixed fees and turnover related fees) payable for the First Period and Second Period will be calculated on a pro rata basis. Those liable to pay a fixed licence fee of £3,000 for the First Period will for example, have to pay £945.21 (£3,000 x 115/365).
• From 25 July 2003 to 31 March 2004 (the Second Period) and until Ofcom proposes an alternative system, administrative charges will be payable by providers of ECNs, ECSs and specified AFs with a turnover for relevant activities (TRA) of £5m and above. Those with a TRA of less than £5m will pay no charge.
• As part of its regulatory options appraisal, Oftel has considered the possibility of moving to a system of charges based on ‘added value’ rather than turnover. Oftel accepts that there are some arguments of principle in favour of such a system. However, there are also arguments of principle in favour of retaining a turnover basis, which is a clearly established feature of the current system. Moreover, Oftel considers that the additional complexity of such a system, the scope for underreporting and the increased administrative burden on providers would not seem to warrant a change at the present time.
• It is proposed that the current system of turnover bands should be retained through a system of bands for TRA. The level of the turnover bands will be the same for the First Period and the Second Period.
• As provided for in the Communications Bill, Oftel (and in future years Ofcom) will publish each year a general demand requiring payment of the administrative charge.
• Providers with a TRA of £5m and above will be required to inform Oftel of their TRA band. This declaration, as is the case now, will have to be supported by relevant financial information.
• Consideration is being given to the question of whether there should be a separate charge in relation to the allocation and possession of code powers. No decision has yet been taken and before such a charge could be introduced there would be need to be a full consultation with all interested stakeholders.
• The current system whereby licence modifications are referred to the Competition Commission will cease when licences are abolished. At present, the costs of these references can be recovered from all individual licensees paying turnover-based fees. After 25 July, this system will no longer apply. All Communications Providers will have a full right of appeal on the merits to the Competition Appeals Tribunal (CAT) which has the power to make an order as to costs (including its own costs). DTI have published for consultation draft rules for the award of costs by the CAT. Any costs that Ofcom incurs in respect of an appeal will be recoverable as part of the general administrative charge.
• The Bill provides that any deficit in one year will be recoverable in subsequent years, so there will no longer be a need for a supplementary charging regime.
• There will continue to be a cap on the percentage of TRA that can be collected as an administrative charge. It is proposed that the cap should remain at the current level of 0.08% of TRA.
• The Communications Bill includes a power to impose a penalty for failure to pay the administrative charge.

Chapter 1

Introduction

1.1 Parliament is now considering the Communications Bill, which sets out the Government’s proposals for the future regulatory framework of the communications sector. The draft Bill includes provisions relating to a notification procedure (Clauses 29-33) and the fixing of administrative charges (Clauses 34-39). The draft Clauses reflect the provisions contained in the Authorisation Directive.

1.2 The UK is obliged to ensure that the requirements of this Directive are implemented by 25 July 2003. The Government expects, subject to parliamentary scrutiny and approval, that the Communications Bill will implement these requirements and should have received Royal Assent before 25 July. If the Communications Bill has not entered into force prior to this date, a transitional regime would need to be implemented, using Statutory Instruments under the European Communities Act 1972 (ECA).

1.3 This consultation document seeks views on (1) Oftel’s proposal not to implement a notification procedure and (2) the proposed system for administrative charges payable by providers of electronic communications networks (ECNs), electronic communications services (ECSs) and specified associated facilities (AFs).

1.4 The definition of those who are providing electronic communications networks, services and facilities is taken from the Framework Directive and is set out in the Communications Bill. At present, providers of ECNs will either be licensed individually or providing their network under a class licence such as the Telecommunications Services Licence. These companies will also be providing ECSs to their customers. In addition, there are companies who do not run ECNs that are reselling services provided over another company’s network. These resellers, including ISPs, indirect access providers and mobile service providers, are also providers of ECSs. Although those resellers who do not provide networks are currently unlicensed, that does not mean that they are unregulated. A range of requirements applies to these providers under regulations laid under the ECA.

1.5 Companies providing content services over ECNs will not be subject to the general authorisation. For example, a company providing financial services over the Internet will not be a provider of an ECS, as it is providing content not conveyance. Similarly, web hosting and the provision of an Internet portal are content services not an ECS. The provision of metered and unmetered access, video conferencing and voice mail will be ECSs.

1.6 In general, broadcasters are suppliers of content services and therefore are outside the scope of the authorisation regime. However, the transmission of broadcasting services is an ECS over an ECN and therefore within the authorisation. Whether and to what extent terrestrial broadcasters may in addition to the provider of the ECN, be providing an ECS solely with respect to the transmission of content services over anECN, is a matter of fact for each broadcaster in the application of the regulations. broadcasters

1.7 Providers of Associated Facilities will include those companies providing the following: facilities relating to local loop unbundling (including provision of co-location facilities), conditional access and access control.

1.8 It is anticipated that both the proposal not to apply a notification procedure and the proposed system for collecting charges set out in this consultation document will be adopted at least initially by Ofcom. However, it will be a matter for Ofcom, subject to the provisions of the Communications Bill, to determine its charging structure and it is possible that in future it might adopt different policies from those proposed in this consultation document. Ofcom would of course need to consult if any changes were to be proposed.

Chapter 2

Notification

2.1 At present, all persons running a telecommunication system (which equates to but is not exactly the same as providing an ECN) are required to have a licence granted under the Telecommunications Act 1984. Indeed, it is a criminal offence to run such a system without a licence.

2.2 From 25 July 2003, the licensing regime for telecommunications systems will be abolished and replaced by a general authorisation to provide ECNs and ECSs. In accordance with the Authorisation Directive and as set out in Clause 29 of the Bill, Oftel is permitted to require advance notification from those providing ECNs, ECSs and making available AFs. In addition, such providers can be obliged to provide the following information:

i. A short description of the ECNs, ECSs and designated AFs that it is proposed are to be provided.
ii. A declaration of the relevant proposal of the person giving the notification;
iii. The time when it is intended to start provision;
iv. Particulars identifying the person giving the notification;
v. Particulars identifying one or more persons with addresses in the UK who for the purposes of matters relating to the notified network, service or facility are authorised to accept service at such address on behalf of the person giving the notification;
vi. Particulars identifying one nor more persons who may be contacted if there is an emergency that is caused by or affects the provision of the notified network, service or facility;
vii. Addresses and other particulars for effecting service on or contacting each of the persons mentioned in IV-VI above.

Is there a need for a notification procedure?

2.3 The clauses in the Bill give Ofcom the power to require all providers ECNs, ECSs and specified AFs to provide advance notification. The Bill also provides that Ofcom will have a duty to review regulatory burdens (clause 6 of the Communications Bill) and should not impose burdens that are unnecessary. Regulatory requirements must be appropriate, proportionate and grounded in a transparent rationale.

2.4 Oftel considers that it has adequate powers to gather information about market entry, market conditions and the application of the administrative charge without imposing a formal notification process. Oftel therefore proposes not to implement a notification procedure. This applies to both existing providers and those who may enter the market after 25^th July 2003.

Chapter 3

Licence fees and administrative charges

3.1 The Telecommunications Act 1984 allows for the setting of licence conditions requiring the payment of fees. Certain types of Telecommunication Act 1984 licensee have therefore had to pay annual licence fees. This approach was endorsed at the European level with the inclusion of licence fee provisions within the Licensing Directive. This Directive allowed Members States to continue to require the payment of licence fees but limited the scope of activities for which a fee could be charged. The Authorisation Directive has now superseded the Licensing Directive.

3.2 Although the Authorisation Directive prohibits the use of individual licences for the provision of ECNS and ECSs, it confirms the right to continue to collect the costs of regulation from the industry. The provisions within the Authorisation Directive to a large extent replicate those in the Licensing Directive. However, the abolition of licences means that there needs to be a new process for the collection of administrative charges.

3.3 The proposal contained in this document explains how Oftel and at least initially Ofcom will collect its recoverable costs from providers of ECNs, ECSs and specified AFs. This consultation does not deal with the wider question of how Ofcom as a whole will pay for itself. That question will need to be addressed in due course by Ofcom. It is however expected that the system adopted for collecting charges from providers of ECNs, ECSs and specified AFs post 25 July 2003 and implemented by Oftel, will be adopted by Ofcom at least in the short term.

3.4 Next year there will need to be two different regimes for the collection of Oftel’s costs. Oftel has considered a number of options in relation to the collection of licence fees and administrative charges. These options have been appraised against three objectives:

• The requirement that charges are applied and collected through a procedure that is non-discriminatory, objectively justifiable and proportionate.
• The system has to be both practicable and reasonable for the regulator’s purposes.
• Finally, the charges that are payable need to be sufficient to enable the regulator to carry out its functions satisfactorily while at the same time avoiding unnecessary burdens on the industry.

3.5 The following two Chapters set out Oftel’s proposals.

Collection of licence fees for the period from 1 April 2003 to 24 July 2003 (the First Period)

4.1 The current licence fee regime will end on 24 July 2003. The manner in which the current licence fee regime works is explained in detail in the Oftel Document Statement on the revised licence fee regime published in August 1999.

4.2 It is proposed that Oftel should collect licence fees for the period from 1 April 2003 to 24 July 2003 ending with the abolition of licences on 25 July 2003 (the First Period) in the usual manner, with one exception, based on relevant turnover attributable to licensable activities.

4.3 Under the current regime, Oftel collects turnover figures each year from those companies liable to pay a turnover related fee. Once all the figures have been collected, Oftel calculates each company’s annual licence fee. This process takes a number of months. For the First Period, while the current system would continue to meet the first and third objective set out in paragraph 19 above (i.e. it is non-discriminatory, objectively justifiable proportionate and would allow recovery of Oftel’s costs) it does not seem to be a practicable option for a licence fee period that will last for just over three months. The period to collect the information and calculate the fee would almost certainly be longer than the First Period. Moreover, by the time the information was collected and the fees calculated, Oftel’s functions might well have been already transferred to Ofcom.

4.4 Oftel considers that there is an alternative option that would meet all three objectives. This is to use the figures collected for the current year (i.e. the relevant turnover figures that have been provided by licensed network providers for the assessment of fees for the year 2002-2003).

4.5 It is acknowledged that this option would represent a departure from current practice. However, the collection of fees and charges for next year presents a serious administrative challenge with two different regimes using two different processes calculated on two sets of relevant turnover and payment being sought from two different groups of providers. This option would simplify considerably the process for collection of fees for the First Period. It will also mean that providers who are liable to pay fees for the First Period and charges for the Second Period will not have to calculate two sets of relevant turnover based upon slightly different criteria.

4.6 Oftel does not anticipate that this proposal should have a major impact upon the level of licence fees for any particular network provider, as they should remain in the same turnover band as this year. However, respondents are invited to comment on this proposal, in particular if there are network providers who consider that they might be affected adversely.

4.7 It is also proposed that all licence fees payable for both the First and Second Period (including fixed fees and fees related to Annex II status and turnover related fees) will be calculated on a pro rata basis. Fixed licence fees for example will be collected from network providers on the usual basis, although the fee payable will be reduced pro-rata for 115 days. Those liable to pay the fixed licence fee for the First Period of £3,000 will therefore have to pay £945.21 (£3,000 x 115/365).

4.8 The liability of licensed network providers to pay the licence fee for the First Period after licences are abolished on 25 July is retained by the Transitional provisions Schedule in the Communications Bill.

Chapter 5

Calculation and collection of administrative charges for the period from 25 July 2003 to 31 March 2004 (the Second Period)

5.1 Oftel considers that the current system of collecting fees from network providers based on their turnover is non-discriminatory, objectively justifiable and proportionate. From a practical perspective, the Scheme is not unduly burdensome and to-date has worked reasonably well.

5.2 The replacement of the licence fee regime has provided an opportunity to review whether it would be possible to devise an even better system for the collection of the costs of regulation. However, whatever system is devised the costs will remain the same and someone has to pay them.

5.3 Under the new regime, to meet the requirement of no undue discrimination, all providers of ECSs who are above the turnover trigger level will be required to pay the administrative charge. This means that for the first time, service providers (including resellers) as well as network providers will become liable to pay this charge.

5.4 For many resellers margins are small – most of their turnover represents wholesale inputs such as access and interconnection charges. One of the drawbacks of a ‘pure’ turnover-based system is that it does not reflect the ‘value added’ margin being earned by the provider. In practice, the current system therefore involves an element of ‘double counting’ whereby certain wholesale costs may be reflected in the turnover figures of more than one Communications Provider. This does not affect the total amount of licence fees that is payable, but it will affect their distribution between licensees.

5.5 As set out above Oftel’s aim is to ensure that whatever system is in place best meets the three objectives outlined in paragraph 3.4 above.

5.7 Any option based on a ‘net value’ calculation would be considerably more complex (particularly for network providers who are providing both ECNs and ECSs). This means that any change would almost certainly add to the regulatory burden of assessing relevant ‘net value’ turnover.

5.8 It may be the case that for many resellers a relevant ‘net value’ turnover calculation would reduce the amount of charge that they would be liable to pay under the new regime. From the perspective of a reseller this would no doubt mean that the regime was ‘objectively justifiable and non-discriminatory’. However, it would also mean that the burden of paying more of the charge falls on other types of providers. Network providers might take the view that such a system discriminates against them.

5.9 In addition, there is a risk that because the calculation would be far more complex and possibly less transparent certain providers might under-report their relevant ‘net value’ turnover. Again, this could lead to increased charges for other providers.

5.10 Moreover, deciding how a relevant ‘net value’ turnover system would work in practice is not straightforward. The following is a list of just some of the questions that would need to be addressed in setting up a net value system. What does net value mean? How is ‘net value’ to be calculated? Which charges should be included and which should be allowable deductions? If a service provider only resells what net value is the provider supplying? Is net value an objective calculation involving deduction of all wholesale inputs or does it involve some subjective assessment of ‘value added’ such as higher quality service? If the calculation of value added does include a subjective element how is that to be calculated? If the system is entirely ‘objective’ can all ‘wholesale’ inputs be deducted? Which services should count as a wholesale input? Are wholesale inputs to be limited to services provided by a network provider? Is the cost of a call centre responding to customers a wholesale input that can be deducted? Can staff costs be deducted and if so which staff costs? For network providers can they also deduct all their ‘wholesale inputs’? How are these to be calculated? Is there no value added element in the provision of wholesale services within their network? For providers selling interconnect services are they able to deduct all the income from the provision of such services? If not, what element of the provision of the service is ‘value added’?

5.11 There are also arguments of principle in favour of using total turnover, and not changing the base of calculation to ‘net turnover’. Turnover is a clear measure of the trading activity that takes place between a provider and its customers. Any provider will have a number of choices as to how they meet the requirements of their customers. There will, for example, be the choice between own provision of services (which might be by owning and operating some elements of infrastructure) and the purchasing the provision of some services from third parties. If the basis for calculation were to change to net turnover this would benefit those using the latter option over the former. The use of total turnover is arguably a more neutral approach.

5.12 Oftel’s conclusion is that it does not consider that there would be any significant benefit in altering the current turnover-based system. Oftel would however welcome respondent’s views. If respondents favour a relevant ‘net value’ turnover system then it would be extremely helpful if they could also put forward considered proposals as to how it could work in practice.

Table 1 – summary of regulatory option appraisal

Fixed fees

5.13 At present, Oftel collects fixed fees (in addition to turnover related fees) from a large number of smaller network providers. Last year, the amount collected from fixed fees was in total considerably less than half a million pounds.

5.14 From 25 July, two options would be possible. Oftel could continue to collect monies from these communications providers by applying a charge to providers with a turnover below the threshold level. Alternatively, the system of fixed fees could be ended alongside the abolition of licences.

5.15 Oftel considers that it would be advantageous if these smaller providers no longer had to pay any fee or charge to enter the applicable electronic communications market or to continue to provide networks, services or facilities. In addition, the amount collected from these network providers is relatively small but it is a time consuming exercise that imposes additional costs on these small and medium sized businesses. It is to be hoped that this measure should further reduce barriers to entry and encourage further the development of small businesses within the communications sector.

5.16 It is therefore proposed that administrative charges for the period from 25 July 2003 to 31 March 2004 (the Second Period) should only be payable by Providers of ECNs, ECSs and specified AFs with a TRA of £5m and above. It is implicit within this proposal that the payment of fixed fees (including Annex II fees) will be abolished for the Second Period.

Impact of Oftel’s proposals

5.17 The inclusion of resellers within the category of providers liable to pay the administrative charge means that there will be a small extension of the class of providers that have to pay the administrative charge. A number of service providers including those providing mobile, internet or voice services with a TRA of £5m and above, who for various reasons were not liable to pay licence fees, will be subject to the administrative charge regime.

5.18 The proposal to charge all such providers (including those making available specified AFs such as conditional access) on the basis of relevant turnover is firmly routed in the principle of no undue discrimination. With the abolition of licences and the removal of PTO status, there can no longer be any justification for distinguishing between those network providers who provide services over large networks and those service providers who offer services using primarily or solely the networks of other companies.

5.19 The proposed charging regime does mean additional costs for a small number of medium to large size service providers with a TRA of £5m and above. Conversely, this should result in a potential reduction of the charge payable by those network providers already paying fees based on turnover. For the industry as a whole, the proposed new regime should result in a more equal distribution of the costs of regulation. In addition, many smaller providers who previously paid a fixed fee will no longer have to pay any charge at all.

Assessment of relevant turnover

5.20 For the Second Period, relevant turnover will be assessed on turnover attributable to relevant activities for the financial year two years before the charging year. These relevant activities are almost identical to the current list of licensable activities although in accordance with the scope of the general authorisation a number of new activities have been added. The new relevant activities are almost all AFs. A list of both licensable and relevant activities is set out below.

5.21 The level of the licence fee is currently determined though a series of turnover bands for relevant turnover for licensable activities. It is proposed that the same turnover bands should be retained through a system of turnover bands for relevant activities although there no longer will be a need for the bottom band of a RTA below £5m. The bands for relevant activities will therefore be as follows:

Process

5.22 Clause 133 (6) of the Communications Bill, which is part of the information gathering provisions, allows Ofcom to publish a general demand for the purposes of ascertaining who is liable to pay the administrative charge. This general demand will lead to a requirement on providers over the TRA threshold of £5m to supply a self-certificate of their TRA (including the TRA of all subsidiary companies in their control) together with an extract from a provider’s audited accounts.

5.23 It is proposed that Oftel should issue a general demand relating to the collection of charges for the Second Period in April 2003.

5.24 The general demand will be published on Oftel’s website and will be published in the Belfast, Edinburgh and London Gazettes. The expected date of publication is the second Friday of April 2003.

Amount of the charge for the Second Period

5.25 It is anticipated that the turnover percentage applied to calculate the charge should be similar to (and with the addition of a new group of service providers) possibly slightly lower than the current figure of 0.0628% of turnover for licensable activities. As with the licence fee regime, the calculation of the administrative charge will be made against the bottom of the band into which the provider falls i.e. a provider with a TRA of £380m falls within the £300m - £400m band and the calculation of the administrative charge that is payable will be made against a TRA figure of £300m. Again, in accordance with current practice for providers with a TRA above £1 billion, the charge will be assessed against actual turnover rather than against a band.

5.26 As with the fee for the First Period, Communications Providers will pay a pro-rata administrative charge based on the 250 days of the Second Period. It is anticipated that the Director General’s functions will be transferred to Ofcom during this period. The current presumption is that when this occurs, the outstanding balance of monies received from the charges paid by providers will be transferred to Ofcom. There is a possibility that the administrative costs incurred by Ofcom in relation to the management, control and enforcement of the general authorisation may be different from those for which Oftel budgeted. It will be for Ofcom to decide how any surplus or deficit should be utilised or recovered.

Cost of appeals, supplementary charges and a cap on charges.

5.27 At present there are provisions in individual and class licences whereby costs defrayed in making licence modification references to the Competition Commission can be recovered from all individual licensees paying turnover based fees (but not fixed fees). Under the new regime, with the abolition of licences, there will be no licence modification references to the Competition Commission. Instead, all providers will have a right to full appeal on the merits. The Competition Appeals Tribunal (CAT), which will hear these appeals, has the power to award costs. The CAT will have the power to make an award as to both its own costs and the costs incurred by the parties to the appeal. DTI have been consulting on draft rules in relation to the CAT’s power to award costs. A further issue arises in relation to appeals in relation to price controls which have to be referred by the CAT to the Competition Commission. Consideration is being given to the issue of how the costs of the Commission will be recovered. No draft rules have yet been published. It is considered that where any costs of an appeal are payable by Ofcom, these will fall within the monies recoverable as an administrative charge from all providers of ECNs, ECSs and designated AFs with a TRA above £5m and above.

5.28 The current licence fee regime allows for the collection of a supplementary fee (termed a special fee) from all individual licensees paying turnover-based fees (but not fixed fees). From 25 July 2003 onwards, there will be no need for a system for collecting a supplementary fee. Any surplus or deficit can be carried forward and any deficit attributable to administrative costs incurred by Ofcom in relation to the management, control and enforcement of the general authorisation can be collected in subsequent years.

5.29 Communications Providers understandably have a concern about the level of the administrative charges that they may have to pay. The cap on the level of the licence fee offers an important protection. It is proposed that there should continue to be a cap on the percentage of TRA that can be collected as an administrative charge for the Second Period. The proposed cap will be 0.08% of TRA, the same as the cap on licence fees.

Other possible charges

5.30 From 25 July it is proposed that Oftel and subsequently Ofcom will have the power to grant code powers. At present, the possession of code powers is linked to the granting of an individual licence, usually a Public Telecommunications Operator (PTO) licence. In future, the grant of code powers will not be linked to any licence. Consideration is being given to the question of whether there should be a separate charge in relation to the allocation and possession of code powers. No decision has yet been taken and before such a charge could be introduced there would need to be full consultation with all interested stakeholders.

Penalties

5.31 The draft Bill includes provisions giving Ofcom the power to impose a penalty, not exceeding twice the amount of the applicable administrative charge, for failure to pay such charge. Where there is serious and repeated contravention of the requirement to pay administrative charges, Ofcom may direct a suspension or restriction of the general authorisation for a particular provider provided all the requirements of Clause 38 of the Bill are satisfied. Oftel will be publishing a consultation document on the proposed penalties regime later this year.

Chapter 6

Regulatory impact assessment

Notifications

6.1 The abolition of the licensing regime represents a significant deregulatory measure. The decision not to impose a notification procedure reinforces the benefits that are expected to flow from the removal of the requirement to have a licence.

Licence fees and administrative charges

6.2 It is considered that in general the impact of the proposed changes should be fairly neutral.

6.3 The need to implement the Authorisation Directive means that there will have to be two payment regimes for the year 2003-2004. However, the proposal to use this year’s figures for the First Period will mean that network providers with a TRA above £5m will only have to compile and supply one set of relevant turnover figures.

6.4 Some service providers with a TRA of £5m and above will be included within the charging regime for the first time. However, this is counterbalanced by the proposal to abolish fixed fees (including the fee for a new licence, Annex II fees and annual fees for network providers with a TRA of less than £5m) are a deregulatory measure for a large group of smaller providers. In addition, as the overall sum that is to be collected should remain unchanged, the inclusion of all providers with a TRA of £5m and above should mean that the costs of regulation are more fairly distributed amongst all larger providers. In addition, the retention of a cap on charges should ensure further protection for all those liable to pay an administrative charge.

Chapter 7

Questions to which specific responses are requested

7.1 In the carrying out of this public consultation Oftel would welcome answers to the following specific questions.

In relation to the collection of licence fees for the First Period:

a. Respondents are invited to comment on the proposal to use this year’s turnover figures to calculate fees for the First Period?

In relation to the collection of administrative charges for the Second Period:

b. Do respondents agree that the imposition of a notification procedure would be an unnecessary administrative burden?

c. Is Oftel right to continue with a system whereby the administrative charging will be based on gross turnover for relevant activities as opposed to net turnover? If respondents support a ‘net value’ turnover system how would it work?

d. Do respondents agree that the proposal to abolish fixed fees represents a measure that should assist smaller providers and further encourage new entrants?

Chapter 8

Consultation process and timetable

How to make comments on the issues raised in this consultation document

8.1 Oftel is publishing this consultation document so that interested parties may comment on the issues, which it addresses. In view of the fact that the licensing regime is coming to an end on the 24^th July 2003 and that this means that Oftel will have to collect the licence fee for the First Period as soon as possible after the 1^st April 2003 Oftel is not programming a 12 weeks formal consultation period. The closing date for submitting comments is the 11^th March 2003.

8.2 Oftel is for the same reasons outlined in paragraph 8.1 above not inviting interested parties to comment on the responses made by others.

8.3 Where possible, comments should be made in writing and sent by e-mail to christina.spyrelli@oftel.gov.uk. However, copies may also be posted or faxed to the address below. If any interested parties are unable to respond in one of these ways, they should discuss alternatives with:

Christina Spyrelli
Oftel
50 Ludgate Hill
London
EC4M 7JJ

Tel: 020 7634 8839
Fax: 020 7634 8924

e-mail: christina.spyrelli@oftel.gov.uk

Further copies of this document

8.4 This document can be viewed in the Publications section of Oftel’s web site (www.oftel.gov.uk), under classification Licensing & Enforcement Actions. Paper copies and more accessible formats such as large print, Braille, disc and audio cassette can be made available on request. Please contact Oftel’s Research and Information Unit by phoning 020 7634 8761 or by sending an e-mail to infocent@oftel.gov.uk.

Publication of comments

8.5 In the interests of transparency, comments will be published, except where respondents indicate that a response, or part of it, is confidential. Respondents are therefore asked to separate out any confidential material into a confidential annex which is clearly identified as containing confidential material. Oftel will take steps to protect the confidentiality of all such material from the moment that it is received at Oftel’s offices. However, in the interests of transparency, respondents should avoid applying confidential markings wherever possible.

8.6 Non confidential responses can be viewed on Oftel’s web site in the Publications section under Responses to Oftel consultations. Comments can also be viewed at Oftel’s Research and Information Unit. Appointments must be made in advance by phoning 020 7634 8761 or sending an e-mail to infocent@oftel.gov.uk.

e-mail notifications

8.7 Oftel has a free e-mail based mailing list to help people stay informed about the work that Oftel is doing. Each time an Oftel document is published and placed on Oftel’s web site at www.oftel.gov.uk, subscribers to the list receive an e-mail alert. To register, please go to the What’s New section of the web site and access the electronic form.

The consultation criteria

8.8 Oftel considers that this document meets the Cabinet Office code of practice on written consultation documents. The code is reproduced below for convenience. If you have any comments or complaints about this consultation process please contact:

8.9 Oftel Co-ordinator for the code of practice:

Rob Jex
Oftel
50 Ludgate Hill
London
EC4M 7JJ

Tel: 020 7634 5340
Fax: 020 7634 8943