Allocating Access Codes for Directory Enquiry Services - 1 March 2002

A statement issued by the Director General of Telecommunications on proposals for the allocation of Access Codes for Directory Enquiry Services, and the necessary changes to the Numbering Conventions

Contents

Summary

Chapter 1 Background

Chapter 2 Responses to the Consultation

Chapter 3 Other Issues

Annex A Revised Numbering Conventions A9.4, A9.6, and A9.9

Annex B Revised International Directory Enquiry Definition

Annex C List of ‘Protected’ DQ codes

Annex D Timetable of DQ Code Allocation Procedure

Annex E S10 (DQ Lottery) Application Form

Annex F List of Non-Confidential Respondents to the Consultation

Glossary

Summary

S.1 This Statement follows the consultation document entitled Allocating Access Codes for Directory Enquiry Services (December 2001) (the ‘Consultation Document’).

S.2 The Consultation Document set out proposals for a procedure for the initial allocation of codes for directory enquiry (DQ) services. The proposed procedure was intended to ensure that codes were allocated to operators on a fair and equitable basis; and to support effective competition.

S.3 The allocation procedure for codes for DQ services also required changes to the Numbering Conventions, to allow its implementation, which were set out in Annex A to the Consultation Document.

S.4 This Statement details the responses to the Consultation Document that Oftel received, Oftel’s conclusions on the allocation of DQ Codes, and on other issues raised by this consultation.

S.5 As a result of the consultation Oftel has amended some of the proposals contained in the Consultation Document. The following summary represents Oftel’s decisions, including amendments where necessary:

Oftel will -

allocate 6-digit codes for DQ services ie. 118XXX, and hold back a proportion of codes for possible expansion to 7-digit codes in the future;
‘protect’ problematic and historically significant codes;
only allow ‘eligible’ operators to apply for allocation of DQ codes (as provided in the Conventions);
provide a specific application form for the initial DQ code allocation procedure – S10 (DQ Lottery) Application Form, and will revise the existing S10 Application Form for DQ code applications subsequent to the initial allocation procedure;
use a lottery procedure for the initial allocation of ‘contested’ codes for DQ services;
withdraw DQ codes that are not in use after a specified period or that are not being used for the originally stated purpose;
not restrict the number of DQ codes that may be applied for (subject to specific application criteria being met); and
amend the Numbering Conventions to cover arrangements for DQ codes.

S.6 The summary points above should be read in conjunction with the Consultation Document – available on the ‘Publications’ page of Oftel’s web site – together with this Statement.

Chapter 1 Background

1.2 Oftel’s standard procedure for allocating numbering, as set out in the Numbering Conventions (3^rd Issue) (the ‘Conventions), is on a first-come first-served basis. However, the opening up of a new number range, for DQ services, required a modified approach, to prevent a potential rush from the moment the numbers are designated for allocation.

1.2 Oftel needed to ensure that numbering arrangements were able to meet initial requirements for numbers, and also to cope with anticipated growth and demand for numbering in the future.

1.3 In light of the above, the Consultation Document of December 2001 set out Oftel’s proposals for a specific allocation procedure for initial allocation of DQ codes. In determining the allocation procedure, as well as taking account of responses to the Consultation Document, Oftel has taken into consideration the views and ideas, of the operators and service providers who had volunteered to be part of Oftel’s DQ Numbering Sub-group (and who wished to provide DQ services) and the information supplied by them prior to the Consultation.

1.4 Oftel recognised that some DQ codes should not be allocated and should be ‘Protected’ either because they were problematic ie similar to other codes used to access common services, or historically significant ie the last 3 digits were the same as existing DQ services.

1.5 The Numbering Conventions have also been amended to ensure they cover arrangements for codes for DQ services (see Annex A – Revised Numbering Conventions).

Chapter 2 Responses to the Consultation

2.1 In December 2001, Oftel set out the main issues surrounding the allocation of DQ codes:

Length of codes;
Golden numbers and protection of problematic codes;
Eligibility to apply for codes;
Application procedure;
Allocation procedure;
Withdrawal of codes;
Number of codes per operator/ service provider; and
Changes to the Numbering Conventions.

i) Length of codes

2.2.1 Oftel proposed that codes allocated for directory enquiry services would be 6 digits in length.

Responses

2.2.2 The majority of respondents favoured Oftel’s proposal for 6-digit codes. They believed that allocating 6-digit codes would provide sufficient number of codes to meet initial demand and growth, to allow for future requirements, and to provide a wider choice of golden numbers. Also, it would provide a level playing field for all entrants, no matter when they entered the market.

2.2.3 A few respondents felt that, in light of the definitions in the Consultation Document for National and International Directory enquiry services (NDQ and IDQ, respectively), 6-digit codes may not provide a sufficient volume of codes to meet current or future demand. They felt that Oftel should ‘protect’ part of the range eg. one tenth, for possible future expansion to 7-digit codes, and to prevent code changes for customers.

2.2.4 One respondent believed that provision should be made in the datafill of 118XXX codes to enable additional digits (not dialled by the customer) to be added automatically to the digits dialled in order to determine the network originating the 118XXX call (known as ‘call tagging’). The same respondent also believed that if 5-digit call tagging were introduced for 118XXX codes, the total number string length passed through the network would then be 6+5=11 digits. If 118XXXX (7-digit codes) were then introduced, this would then increase the total number string length passed through the network to 7+5=12 digits. Although not an issue in itself, they believed that the need for call tagging should be agreed before networks commence datafill preparations.

2.2.5 Three respondents believed that 5-digit codes would provide sufficient codes to meet demand. The first two respondents believed that the initial straw-poll of the number of codes required (carried out via Oftel’s Numbering Sub-group) provided an inflated estimate, and that the subsequent joint Statement of Requirement ("SoR") provided a much lower figure. In addition, the respondent believed that following ‘Phase II’ of the launch of DQ services (which may allow the flexibility to provide multiple services on one code and mid-call tariff changes), many codes would be handed back to Oftel.

2.2.6 The second respondent referred to experiences in European countries where demand has never exceeded 100 codes. They believed that Oftel should establish demand before deciding the allocation procedure.

Conclusions

2.2.7 In relation to demand for DQ codes, the figures provided by operators initially in responses to the ‘request for information’ (RFI), and subsequently in the SoR (both of which were initiated via Oftel’s DQ Industry Groups), are an estimate of requirements, they are not intended to be a firm commitment by operators to the actual number of codes that will be applied for. Oftel acknowledges that the DQ Questionnaire may have over-estimated demand, but Oftel also considers that it is equally possible that not all operators or service providers were able to respond to the questionnaire.

2.2.8 Furthermore, Oftel does not see any benefit in delaying the launch of DQ services by further trying to establish the actual demand for codes, as any such indications of demand will not be binding on service providers or operators. One respondent to Oftel’s consultation suggested that during the initial application procedure, applicants be asked to express preferences for codes based on both a 5-digit and 6-digit code format, in order that Oftel could at that stage accurately gauge demand for codes. Oftel considers this to be unnecessarily complicated and onerous for both applicants and Oftel, with the potential to delay both the application and allocation procedure. On balance, therefore, Oftel considers that DQ codes should be allocated in 6-digit format.

2.2.9 On the issue of using additional non-dialled digits to determine the network originating the call (call-tagging), Oftel is aware that the Industry is considering this issue via the DQ Industry Groups, and does not consider that it is necessary or appropriate to comment on this issue in this Statement.

2.2.10 Oftel will therefore allocate 6-digit codes for DQ services. Oftel believes that this will:

provide sufficient codes to meet initial demand and growth;
provide sufficient codes for future requirements;
offer a level playing field to all companies, no matter when they enter the market;
provide more choices of golden numbers than 5-digit codes; and
provide a better opportunity than 5-digit codes for operators to obtain sequential or otherwise related codes (where required).

2.2.11 Oftel cannot fully anticipate the way the market may develop or the range of DQ services that may be offered in the future. Also, Oftel would not wish customers to experience a code change where this can be avoided. Oftel will therefore ‘protect’ approximately one tenth of the numbering space to allow for possible future expansion to 7-digit codes.

ii) Golden Numbers and Protection of Problematic Codes

2.3.1 In the Consultation Document, Oftel proposed that a minimal number of problematic and historically significant codes would be protected (ie not made available for allocation), but that golden numbers (that were simply memorable) would be available for allocation.

Responses

2.3.2 Virtually all respondents agreed that certain codes should be protected as they were either problematic ie. similar to existing codes used for common access services, or historically significant i.e. the last 3 digits are the same as existing DQ services.

2.3.3 One respondent stated that if 5-digit codes were allocated then there would be no problematic codes to protect.

2.3.4 Another respondent believed that there could be a problem with mis-dials to numbers that resembled the Reading code area eg 0118 3XX or 0118 9XX. However, other respondents (including major network operators) did not believe this to be a significant problem, as they believed such a problem did not exist in other code areas eg. 01924. They also believed that if the code is marketed correctly then customers would be well informed and not mis-dial.

2.3.5 There was concern about possible legal action against companies who might be allocated codes that had been trademarked or which are ‘www.’ domain names. Respondents believed that such codes should be protected.

2.3.6 There were also suggestions that golden numbers should be protected, or that part of the range should be protected eg. 1181XX, as this not only contained a significant amount of golden numbers – putting an operator who obtained such a code at a commercial advantage - but would also allow for expansion to 7-digit if required.

2.3.7 One respondent believed that smaller operators wishing to provide DQ services may be disadvantaged if allocated certain DQ codes, where some operators are using ‘Full National Dialled’ number ranges where the local number begins ‘11’ (eg. 01924 11XXXX) for number translation purposes, etc. The local switch may route on the first two digits of the local number and disregard the STD area code so calls to DQ codes may not be routed correctly.

2.3.8 Respondents believed the list of available codes for allocation should be made available as soon as possible to allow applicants and systemless service providers ("SSPs") time to consider the codes they wish to apply for – a timescale of 2 weeks before submission of applications was suggested.

Conclusions

2.3.9 Oftel will protect DQ codes that it considers to be problematic and codes that have historic significance, in order to avoid customer confusion, and for possible future expansion to codes of 7-digits. The full list of protected DQ codes, ie. those unavailable for allocation, is at Annex C.

2.3.10 Oftel does not believe that there will be a significant number of mis-dials to DQ codes from customers dialling Reading numbers as customers are aware that geographic codes begin with ‘0’. Further, Oftel considers that mis-dials to Reading numbers or other geographic numbers owing to customers dialling DQ codes is not likely to be a problem. This is because the call would "time-out" as not enough digits would have been dialled. Oftel will therefore not protect DQ codes that resemble Reading code area numbers or that resemble any other geographic code area.

2.3.11 With regard to any legal action that may result in the use of allocated DQ codes that may be considered trademarks and ‘www.’ domain names, Oftel cannot take this into account when allocating DQ codes as this issue is not covered in operators’ licences or in the Numbering Conventions. Oftel will therefore not protect DQ codes that may be considered as trademarks or ‘www.’ domain names (except where they have already been protected as being problematic, etc).

2.3.12 Oftel will also not protect codes considered as ‘golden numbers’. First, as already mentioned in the Consultation Document, these are not easily identifiable because what may appear ‘golden’ to one operator my not be to another. Secondly, the lottery procedure was designed to ensure that operators are given an equal opportunity to be allocated codes they consider to be ‘golden’. Lastly, Oftel believes that suitable use of such memorable codes by DQ service providers may make it easier for consumers to make the transition to using the new DQ services.

2.3.13 On the issue of routing of DQ codes, Oftel does not believe there is a clash between 118XXX codes and numbers allocated for full national dialling only. However, if a 118XXX code is used as a ‘subscriber number’ in the final digit analysis at a terminating exchange, care may be needed to ensure that no clash occurs with any existing subscriber numbers. Oftel is aware of several methods to avoid this speculative problem and does not consider that this need delay the number allocation process.

2.3.14 Oftel agrees that applicants should know which DQ codes are available for allocation as early as possible, and have time to consider which codes to apply for. Oftel has provided a list of protected DQ codes in this Statement, which has been issued at least 2 weeks before applications can be received (a timetable of events is included in Annex D).

iii) Eligibility to apply for codes

2.4.1 In the Consultation Document Oftel stated that, as provided in Conventions 2.1 and 2.2 of the Conventions, it only allocates DQ codes to those operators providing publicly available telecommunications services and running a telecommunication system under a licence granted under Section 7 of Telecommunications Act 1984, whether that is an individual or a class licence, containing a Numbering Arrangements Condition, or it may consider allocating numbers to SSPs or others in demonstrably exceptional circumstances, such as where the provider is in the process of setting up a system.

2.4.2 As provided in Convention 2.2, those not eligible to apply for allocations, but who wish to compete to provide DQ services, should seek a sub-allocation(s) from an eligible operator.

Responses

2.4.3 A number of queries and concerns were raised in relation to eligibility to apply. First, there was general concern about ‘gaming’ by company groups (i.e. companies related by ownership). Such companies may apply for numbers for the same service and therefore have a better chance of obtaining golden numbers between them, and then relinquish unwanted codes back to Oftel after the lottery. There was a suggestion of including a declaration in the S10 Application Form of an interest in other companies who are also applying for DQ codes.

2.4.4 One respondent suggested adopting the guidelines used in the Wireless Telegraphy (Broadband Fixed Wireless Access Licenses) Notice – August 2000 (the "Broadband Notice") for defining ‘candidate groups’ and ‘concerned persons’.

2.4.5 In contrast, another respondent believed that associated companies may have an association for a number of legal reasons and can legitimately run differing, independent and competing DQ services. This respondent implied that such associated companies should not therefore be excluded from entering the lottery process separately.

2.4.6 One respondent believed that the S10 Application Form should include a declaration of intent to launch service within 6 months, to ensure only serious applicants apply for DQ codes.

2.4.7 Another respondent requested clarification on where ‘Oftel may consider allocating DQ codes to SSPs or others in demonstrably exceptional circumstances’, to assist with removing any disadvantage non-Annex II companies may have.

2.4.8 Another respondent requested clarification on how Oftel defines ‘publicly available telecommunication services’. The respondent suggested that this was not well understood by the potential DQ market participants and requested that Oftel provide an indicative list of types of ‘system’ to prevent time spent on queries at the time of application. The same respondent also queried how applicants may apply under the ‘exceptional circumstances’ criterion, and how Oftel would process such applications.

2.4.9 Another respondent suggested that those operators that have been allocated a DQ code(s) should appear on the ‘Convention 7’ list, and queried how Oftel would confirm that they will appear. The same respondent also commented that the allocation procedure does not allow time for appeals against Oftel’s decision for those deemed not eligible.

2.4.10 There was a suggestion that the network operator should not be able to prevent a sub-allocatee from applying for the same DQ code(s) as itself nor those of any other sub-allocatee that it represents.

2.4.11 One respondent suggested that Oftel consider allocating 118 codes for stand-alone ‘find and connect’ services, where the number of the called party would not be given out to the caller, but the caller would be connected directly to the called party.

2.4.12 A couple of respondents were not in favour of Oftel's proposal. One respondent referred to Oftel's intention as set out in the 19 September 2001 'Liberalisation Document' - Access codes for directory enquiry services - of encouraging 'more varied, higher quality and lower cost services'. The respondent considered that this could only be achieved if DQ providers had control of the DQ codes themselves. The other respondent felt that restricting allocations to Annex II operators does not promote competition, and suggested that the proposal was a move from a monopoly to an unofficial cartel of licensed operators.

Conclusions

2.4.13 In response to concerns about ‘gaming’ among related companies, Oftel will include a section in the S10 (DQ Lottery) Application Form requiring applicants to declare any interest in other companies applying for DQ codes, and what that interest is (see Annex E - S10 (DQ Lottery) Application Form). Oftel will consider such applications on a case-by-case basis. Oftel will generally not allocate individual DQ codes to related companies wishing to offer the same DQ service, unless those companies can provide Oftel with suitable justification for doing so. Oftel will not use the guidelines developed by the Radiocommunications Agency in the Broadband Notice. The process set out in that notice involved large amounts of money being bid for radio spectrum licences, whereas no money will change hands for the allocation of DQ codes. Oftel believes that a declaration of interest in other companies will be sufficient for assessing DQ code applications from related companies (as provided in Convention 2.4).

2.4.14 Oftel will not include a declaration in the S10 (DQ Lottery) Application Form of intent to launch service within 6 months.. Oftel believes this is unnecessary as Oftel may of course withdraw codes which are not in use or not being used appropriately after 6 months from the start date of the parallel running of the new 118 services with the existing DQ codes (see paragraph 2.7.6 below).

2.4.15 With regard to the issue of eligibility to apply for DQ codes, and whether applicants require Annex II status, Oftel confirms that those eligible to be allocated DQ codes (apart from holders of PTO licences) include Telecom Service Class Licence (TSL) or International Simple Voice Resale Class (ISVR) licence holders (where the licence contains a Numbering Arrangements Condition) who may or may not have Annex II status. However, applicants who do not have Annex II status must be able to demonstrate to Oftel in the S10 (DQ Lottery) Application Form that they fit the criteria (as provided in Conventions 2.1 and 2.2) eg. by way of a system diagram and appropriate timetable for implementation of its system, confirmation of exclusive use of a port(s) of a switch of another (possibly Annex II) operator, etc.

2.4.16 Oftel will consider allocating DQ codes to SSPs and others in exceptional circumstances (as provided in Convention 2.2). For example, an SSP may not yet be ‘providing publicly available telecommunications services’ but is in the process of setting up a system and is applying for a DQ code(s) in order to provide a publicly available service for the first time. As such, those SSPs will become a service provider operating under a licence. Further, the SSP would still have to demonstrate its eligibility in the same way as other applicants do, in its S10 (DQ Lottery) Application Form, as set out above (albeit, for example, that they would be referring to a system which is not yet fully set up).

2.4.17 The term ‘telecommunication service’ is set out in the Telecommunications Act 1984. ‘Publicly available’ means advertised and offered to the generality of the public, often on published terms and conditions.

2.4.18 Those not eligible to apply directly should seek a sub-allocation from an eligible operator. Oftel expects at least BT and Kingston to offer a suitable product to SSPs that will entail the operator obtaining a code(s) on their behalf.

2.4.19 Oftel has carefully considered whether 118 codes should be allocated for stand-alone ‘find and connect’ services where the telephone number is not necessarily given out to the caller. Oftel considers that such a service could be offered as an enhanced service in addition to a national or international DQ service that meets Oftel’s criteria for such a service. However, Oftel considers that consumers will have an expectation on dialling a 118 number that they will at least be offered the telephone number requested, even if they decline the offer and are directly connected instead. If a service provider wishes to provide a stand-alone ‘find and connect’ service this could be offered using a premium rate number, for example. Therefore Oftel will not be allocating codes for stand-alone ‘find and connect’ services where the caller is not at least offered the relevant telephone number.

2.4.20 As for other applications for numbering, Oftel will process all applications for DQ codes in the normal way, prior to the DQ Lottery. If it does not consider an applicant eligible to be allocated a DQ code(s), it will reject the application and inform the applicant (as provided in Convention 4.9). Oftel will allow a period of up five working days, following Oftel’s notification of a rejected application, for applicants to appeal to the Director General against Oftel’s decision. The Director General will expect to respond within 2 weeks following the receipt of the appeal (see Annex D – Timetable of DQ Code Allocation Procedure).

2.4.21 Oftel will not issue a definitive list of what constitutes a ‘system’ because it is probably impossible to produce a comprehensive list. The DTI web site provides information on licensing, and it is up to applicants for DQ codes to obtain appropriate legal advice on whether they are running a telecommunications system, as necessary. If you own and manage a call centre it is likely that you are running a system. If, however, you are using someone else’s call centre it is unlikely that you are running a system. However, nothing in this paragraph can fetter future DTI/Oftel discretion in the event a dispute arises.

2.4.22 All those to whom Oftel has allocated DQ codes will appear on the Convention 7 list. This is a list of all companies to whom numbering has been allocated and exists in order for companies to be able to contact each other about number range activation.

2.4.23 The issue was raised as to whether operators might stop a sub-allocatee applying for the same codes as the operator is applying for itself (or for which another sub-allocatee is applying). As detailed in paragraph 2.4.18 above, Oftel expects at least BT and Kingston to offer a suitable product to SSPs. Oftel believes that there are sufficient commercial incentives for the eligible operator and the sub-allocatee to come to mutually acceptable arrangements as to which code(s) will be sought.

2.4.24 Oftel does not believe that the eligibility criteria represent any limitations to the development of competition. The eligibility criteria are in fact very wide, and include those deemed to operate under a TSL or ISVR licence (who provide publicly available telecommunications services and run an appropriate telecommunications system).

iv) Application Procedure

2.5.1 The Consultation Document discussed whether there ought to be a restriction on the number of DQ codes that may be applied for. If a code(s) is sought on behalf of a sub-allocatee, then it was proposed that evidence of a firm order from the sub-allocatee must accompany the application. It was also proposed that alongside each code applied for, the applicant should state the nature of the service and the name of the sub-allocatee (as appropriate).

2.5.2 The Consultation Document also proposed that applicants should provide 3 choices for each DQ code required, and the applicant should submit all further information requested by Oftel within the 28-day processing period. Oftel would inform applicants as appropriate if their applications had been accepted and invite them to the lottery (if one or more of their DQ codes were ‘contested’).

Responses

2.5.3 The majority of respondents generally agreed with Oftel’s proposals. However, some respondents were concerned about the timescale of the allocation procedure. One respondent suggested that the provisional timetable discussed in the DQ Industry Groups should be adhered to in order to prevent delay to competition in DQ market. Others believed that Oftel should allow more time to enable network operators to establish relationships between themselves, and with sub-allocatees. One respondent commented that appropriate Statements of Requirement ("SOR") - documents prepared by the DQ Industry Billing and Interconnection Sub-Group for the implementation of 118 codes for DQ services - had not yet been agreed. Also, the issue of host transfer (porting) of DQ codes had not been clarified.

2.5.4 One respondent believed that Oftel should allow 2 weeks after the end of the 28-day processing period for applicants to address Oftel queries on application forms.

2.5.5 Another respondent believed there should be some flexibility in stating the nature of the service alongside the DQ code (as Oftel was proposing to prevent misuse of codes) to take account of the current uncertainty as to which services can be provided using 118 codes. The same respondent commented that there was no benefit in making the name of the sub-allocatee publicly available beside the DQ code as Oftel will have this information in its own records.

2.5.6 There was a suggestion that a full justification of intended use should be specified on the application form to ensure only serious applicants apply for DQ codes.

2.5.7 Another respondent believed that applications should be made available for viewing by other applicants. This would give the other applicants the opportunity to change their choice of codes during the application period if there is clustering and over-demand for any particular codes.

2.5.8 It was questioned whether the allocation procedure included ‘reservations’ of DQ codes as well as ‘allocations’ – normal numbering applications allow for eligible operators to be able to apply for reservation as well as allocation of numbering capacity.

2.5.9 One respondent suggested that applicants provide the trading name in their applications, and that bonds should be paid to Oftel, to help confirm the seriousness of the application.

2.5.10 A couple of respondents were not generally in favour of Oftel’s proposals. One thought that operators should apply for both 5 and 6 digit codes required, and that Oftel should assess the demand once all applications had been received. The same respondent suggested that Oftel should restrict every company group to one 118XX (5-digit) code, but allow them to use one trailing digit, thereby allowing the possibility of up to 10 service numbers, in sequential order.

Conclusions

2.5.11 Oftel recognises that network operators may need time to establish relationships with sub-allocatees and with other network operators. At the time of writing, Oftel notes that SORs exist both for service providers directly connected to originating operators and for service providers wishing to transit DQ traffic across another network from an originating operator. These SORs should provide the necessary framework to enable negotiations to commence between network operators, and between network operators and sub-allocatees. However, Oftel does not believe that it is essential for such relationships to be conclusively established prior to allocating DQ codes, and this issue should therefore not delay the allocation procedure.

2.5.12 With specific regard to the claim that SoRs for commercial arrangements to carry the 118 DQ codes need to be established before the code allocation procedure in order to cater for the DQ code requirements of sub-allocatees, Oftel considers that:

the SoRs for call origination and transit relate to relationships between operators directly allocated codes, and are not directly relevant to sub-allocatees (although Oftel does acknowledge that origination and transit arrangements are building blocks for a sub-allocatee offering);
on the basis of current information about likely origination and transit arrangements it should be possible for eligible network operators and service providers to determine the number of codes required and the types of service to be offered behind them;
there could be a delay in consumers obtaining competitive DQ services if number allocation is delayed until detailed commercial arrangements for carrying the 118 DQ codes are finalised; and
sub-allocatees are entitled to transfer (or ‘port’) their DQ code(s) to another network operator(s) after the lottery. Sub-allocatees have the right to transfer their DQ code(s) as they fall under the definition of 'Subscriber' for the purposes of the Interconnection Directive 97/33 ('ICD') (as amended by the Numbering Directive 98/61).

2.5.13 Oftel will therefore not request that evidence of a firm order from the sub-allocatee(s) should be submitted with the application (as originally proposed in the Consultation Document). A serious ‘statement of intent’ from the sub-allocatee, to support the application, will be sufficient.

2.5.14 Where a sub-allocatee wishes to change network operator after the lottery, the operator to whom the DQ code(s) had originally been allocated would need to relinquish the code(s) back to Oftel, and the recipient operator would need to apply in the normal way for the code(s). However, this numbering administration process will not prevent immediate change to DQ codes between operators. Oftel expects DQ code porting to function along the line of whole number block transfer in the Number Portability Functional Specification.

2.5.15 Oftel acknowledges that applicants may require time to respond to queries raised during the processing period. However, the S10 (DQ Lottery) Application Form should ensure that all information is requested. The onus is on applicants to ensure that they supply the information requested. Also, applicants can contact Oftel to clarify questions in the application form, before submitting it (although all main points are addressed in this Statement).

2.5.16 On reflection, and in light of the issues raised about gaming, Oftel will provide a specific application form for the initial DQ code allocation procedure – a S10 (DQ Lottery) Application Form (see Annex E below for a specimen form).The existing S10 Application Form will be revised for DQ code applications subsequent to the initial allocation procedure. The S10 (DQ Lottery) Form will allow Oftel to ask applicants to provide 6 choices (rather than 3 choices as originally proposed) for each DQ code required. As well as reducing gaming by applicants at the lottery, this will help to increase transparency by ensuring, as much as possible, that applicants attending the lottery do not pick undesired codes for sub-allocatees (who will not be present – see below).

2.5.17 Oftel will not allow flexibility on stating the name of the service alongside the DQ code at the time of applying. This Statement clearly sets out, below, the type of services that can be provided using 118 codes. Applicants should therefore state the service(s) to be provided alongside the code(s) in the application form. Also, Oftel believes there are benefits in terms of both regulatory and consumer transparency in publishing the name of the sub-allocatee next to the DQ code. Consumers can easily identify a company which they may be having problems with, and Oftel can monitor use of DQ codes by sub-allocatees.

2.5.18 Oftel will ensure that a justification of intended use is requested in the S10 (DQ Lottery) Application Form, to support the application (if Oftel has any doubts it can seek further information during the processing phase). The trading name is currently requested for other numbering and will also be requested in DQ applications. However, Oftel will not request bonds from applicants as it has no powers to do this under the current legislation, nor will it make applications available for viewing by other applicants as this would be a breach of confidentiality, as well as encouraging ‘gaming’. The suggestion that applicants be given a chance to view applications and change preferences during the application period to avoid clustering and over-demand for particular codes, seems to Oftel to be impractical. Such a process would require yet another deadline to be set for ‘revised’ applications to be received during the application period, and there would be nothing to prevent further clustering and over-demand for codes as applicants all switched their choices to try to avoid each other.

2.5.19 Oftel will only issue allocations of DQ codes in the initial allocation procedure, and not reservations. Unlike allocations, when Oftel issues reservations of numbering capacity, the name of the applicant is not published. This would not allow transparency of the allocation procedure, therefore.

2.5.20 Oftel will not allow applicants to select 5 and 6-digit codes in their application – it would delay the allocation procedure for Oftel to establish demand at this point. Nor will it restrict every company group to one 118XX code with a trailing digit (allowing up to 10 service numbers) – this may result in a waste of numbering as the company group may not use all 10 numbers. Also, there is the potential for one company group obtaining a set of golden numbers while another gets none. As stated above, Oftel will allocate 6-digit codes for DQ services.

v) Allocation Procedure

2.6.1 In the Consultation Document, Oftel proposed a lottery procedure for the allocation of contested DQ codes (with uncontested codes to be allocated separately before the lottery).

2.6.2 Eligible applicants would be requested to send one representative to the lottery. However, if an applicant’s choice(s) of codes were uncontested, they would be allocated the codes before the lottery and would therefore not be invited to the lottery.

2.6.3 If an applicant’s original choices had already been allocated earlier in the lottery procedure, the representative would be responsible for choosing alternative codes for itself and any relevant sub-allocatees.

2.6.4 Oftel would send out allocation certificates after the lottery, and publish the list of allocated DQ codes, the network operator, the sub-allocatee (where relevant), and the service offered behind the code.

Responses

2.6.5 The majority of respondents generally supported Oftel’s proposals. However, there were specific comments and suggestions made about the detail of the allocation procedure.

2.6.6 Respondent comments and suggestions included:

Oftel should make clear that uncontested codes will be allocated initially before the lottery, and then contested codes entered in lottery rounds.
Oftel should do an in-house dry run of the allocation procedure to iron out potential problems that could cause a delay on the lottery day.
Companies should not be allowed to by-pass the lottery by bidding for uncontested DQ codes. It was argued that this would favour companies bidding for less popular codes as they would get the codes they want.
The proposal largely overlooks the demand for sequential or linked codes – sequential codes are easier to communicate to consumers.
Codes should not be allocated in pairs as this is at the cost of golden numbers being distributed equitably.
There should be an ‘A’ list of golden numbers, and codes allocated in pairs as a company is drawn out of the hat, with applicants being able to select only one code from the ‘A’ list and another to make up the pair for each time drawn. This allows for linked codes.
If, at the end of the lottery, an applicant is not happy with the codes allocated, they should be changed for other codes remaining eg. where it is important for the applicant to have obtained sequential codes that may not have been obtained by lottery process.
One respondent considered the Allocation procedure is too complex. Applicants should not specify which codes they require, but just state the number of codes and the services. When the name of the applicant is drawn from the hat they choose the code at that point from those available. The respondent claimed that this would prevent gaming.
It was requested that Oftel confirm that the proposed allocation procedure does not set a precedent for allocating codes for other new services.
The lottery should be held 2 weeks after the end of the 28-day application processing, to allow applicants to respond to Oftel queries on applications.
Oftel should confirm that a sub-allocatee’s first choice will be treated in the same way as a network operator’s first choice ie no discrimination.
Sub-allocatees should also be present at the lottery to be able to make alternative choices for themselves if their original choices have already been allocated – network operators should not select for sub-allocatees. This would ensure transparency.
It was suggested that it is impracticable to select alternative codes by way of a mobile phone call as the called party may not be available, causing delay to lottery, and if they are available they will not know which codes remain available.
Only one operator per company group should be allowed to participate in the lottery draw.

Conclusions

2.6.7 Oftel will follow the proposed procedure as set out in the Consultation Document, with the following changes or points of clarification. Oftel will do a dry run of the lottery in-house to establish and sort out potential problems before the lottery.

2.6.8 Oftel will allocate uncontested codes before the lottery ie. any code that has been selected as a first choice and which no other company has requested in any of their 6 choices will be allocated first and hence that code(s) will not be available for the lottery. (Oftel will provide details of codes already allocated at the start of the lottery).

2.6.9 Although there have been arguments both ways, Oftel believes that on balance, allocating uncontested codes before the lottery does not unduly favour companies bidding for less popular codes. There is a greater chance that an applicant will obtain the codes it has requested (and be able to get sequential codes where this is important to them), but this is at the expense of not bidding for ‘golden numbers’. Also, the lottery process has been designed to ensure that more popular codes (‘golden numbers’) are allocated on a fair and equitable basis.

2.6.10 All remaining requests for codes will be entered into the first round of the lottery, at one entry per company (this includes additional requests for codes (contested) from those companies that have already been allocated one or more uncontested codes). All remaining requests will be entered into subsequent lottery rounds on the basis of one entry per company, until all requests have been allocated.

2.6.11 There will be no discrimination by Oftel in allocating choices of codes between network operators and sub-allocatees.

2.6.12 Although Oftel recognises that there may be commercial and customer benefits to sequential codes, Oftel will not allocate codes sequentially (unless this happens naturally through the allocation procedure) nor will it allocate codes in pairs. Codes used currently for DQ services are not sequential eg. 153, 192, etc. and where codes may be sequential or linked, there is a potential for customers to mis-dial to a high tariff service resulting in complaints and claims for compensation. Also, allocating codes in pairs reduces the chances of golden numbers being allocated equitably. It would also add significant additional complexity to the lottery process.

2.6.13 Oftel will not provide a list of ‘golden numbers’ nor allow applicants to choose one when their names are drawn out of the hat. Golden numbers are not easily identifiable, as what may appear golden to one applicant may not be to another.

2.6.14 Oftel will allow applicants to change code(s) with which they are not happy after the lottery. However, they will need to do this by submitting a new application(s). Oftel will process such applications in the normal 28-day period and will process them on a first-come first-served basis.

2.6.15 Oftel does not consider the allocation procedure too complex, rather Oftel considers the chosen allocation procedure to be an appropriate balance of the needs for transparency, fairness and simplicity. Any procedure designed to cover all eventualities will be seen to be complex in one area or another. Also, Oftel does not agree that operators should just submit applications for the number of codes they require, and select the codes during the lottery. Allowing applicants to choose numbers freely on the lottery day (rather than working first down a list of preferences previously submitted) would in Oftel’s view encourage gaming, as one applicant would be free to change its choice of codes in response to codes allocated earlier in the process to its competitors.

2.6.16 Oftel cannot confirm that the allocation procedure will not set precedents for other new services. Oftel cannot predict services that may come along in the future that may require the same or a similar allocation procedure, and, if appropriate, Oftel would expect to be able to use the experience gained from this allocation procedure in developing suitable procedures when required.

2.6.17 Oftel will not permit sub-allocatees to be present at the lottery. Applicants will select 6 choices per code required, which Oftel believes is likely to ensure that sub-allocatees are allocated at least one of the codes from their list of preferences. Also, where the network operator will need to select an alternative choice(s) for the sub-allocatee, if all 6 choices have been allocated, Oftel would expect that arrangements between interested parties would have been agreed before the lottery.

2.6.18 Oftel will allow mobile calls during the lottery for discussions on alternative codes with colleagues. Oftel will allow 5 minutes for a call and for a choice of alternative code to be made. Oftel will assume that arrangements will have been made before the lottery for the colleague to be present when called. If a choice of alternative code is not made within the 5 minutes allowed, the applicant will have to wait until the end of that lottery round to re-select a code. Failure to select an alternative code at the end of that lottery round will result in disqualification from that round. However, the company will be allowed (one) entry into the next lottery round. The lottery chairman’s decision is final and binding.

2.6.19 Oftel will send out allocation certificates to eligible applicants in the week following the lottery (this includes certificates for uncontested codes allocated before the lottery).

vi) Withdrawal of Codes

2.7.1 In the Consultation Document Oftel stated that it proposed to withdraw DQ codes that were not in use after 6 months, where the code(s) either: (i) have not been built on all networks, or (ii) have no billing and interconnect arrangements in place, or (iii) have not been actively marketed.

2.7.2 Oftel would also withdraw codes that it discovered were not being used for the service or by the company indicated on the allocation certificate. Operators must approach Oftel with a suitable justification to change the service behind the code or to move it to another operator’s network.

2.7.3 Withdrawn codes would go back into the pool to be available to be re-allocated.

Responses

2.7.4 There was general support for codes to be withdrawn for the reasons outlined in the Consultation. However, there were specific comments and suggestions made about the detail of the withdrawal procedure.

2.7.5 Respondent comments and suggestions included:

Oftel should consider the case of a company hoping to launch in the mid-term future, but that would hope to retain code(s) allocated in the lottery.
There was concern over the timescale of withdrawal after 6 months from allocation date, causing financial risk to companies that may not have marketed or set up interconnection within that time scale. Respondents pointed out that at the time of writing, neither interconnection nor billing arrangements had yet been agreed between the Industry, and this in turn might cause a delay to launch.
Oftel should consult with an allocation holder to determine withdrawal in line with the current Conventions (6.3 & 6.4).
The term ‘not in use’ in the Consultation Document is not in the Conventions.
Operators would not like to see codes withdrawn as a result of a failure by another operator to open the code on its network.
Definition of ‘not in use’ should not include ‘marketed’. Rather, this should be ‘offered’ and should include data management amendments and interconnect arrangements having been established.
If the sub-allocatee does not use the code it should be returned to Oftel and not the holder of the allocation.
Oftel should only consider withdrawing codes after the end of parallel running of 192, etc. to allow for slippage of the current timetable and for commercial arrangements to be agreed.
Oftel should consider withdrawing codes 6 months from launch rather than from allocation.
Oftel should specify if there will be a sterilisation period for withdrawn codes before they go into the pool for re-allocation.
The definition of ‘not in use’ in the Consultation implies all 3 conditions should be met before the code(s) is withdrawn.

Conclusions

2.7.6 Oftel acknowledges that the timescale for considering withdrawing DQ codes of 6 months after allocation may not be appropriate, bearing in mind that negotiations are still continuing on interconnect and billing arrangements for the new 118 services. Oftel will therefore consider withdrawing codes 6 months from the start date of the parallel running of the new 118 services with the existing DQ codes eg 192. This should encourage all companies to ensure that they are ready to launch around the same time.

2.7.7 Oftel will not generally withdraw codes from network operators if another operator has failed to open it on its network. However, any withdrawals will be considered on a case by case basis.

2.7.8 Oftel will withdraw codes ‘not in use’, or those in use, but not appropriately, as provided in the Consultation Document(section 4.40). Codes will not be withdrawn until after Oftel has consulted with interested parties for a period of not less than 28 calendar days, as provided in Conventions 6.3 and 6.4. Such withdrawal will be subject to a period of notice of not less than three months (also as provided in Conventions 6.3 and 6.4).

2.7.9 For clarification, Oftel will treat ‘not in use’ as meaning:

where the code(s) has not been data-built on at least one network; or
where no billing or interconnect arrangements are in place; or
where the code(s) has not been actively marketed.

2.7.10 Oftel has changed the definition of the first bullet point to reflect the fact that it might be impractical to expect a DQ service provider to have concluded arrangements for the code to be carried on all networks within 6 months of the start of parallel running. Having the code data-built on at least one network would indicate that the code could be used by at least some consumers.

2.7.11 Oftel believes that the term ‘marketed’ should not be replaced by ‘offered’ in the last bullet point as it ensures that there is transparency in what type of service the code will be used for. This will also help to protect consumers.

2.7.12 Although the above definition of ‘not in use’ is not set out in the Conventions, Oftel uses similar criteria when assessing whether other numbering is not in use and should therefore be withdrawn. Also, Oftel felt it appropriate to prevent potential abuse by operators holding on to codes and not pushing to launch their DQ service(s) within a reasonable period of time.

2.7.13 Only one of the above criteria needs to be met before Oftel begins the withdrawal process (the published Consultation Document should have included ‘or’ at the end of the first and second bullet points – this was a typographical error). Oftel will also consider withdrawing DQ codes after the lottery where it discovers that a company had not declared, in its application, an interest in any other company applying for DQ codes.

2.7.14 All withdrawn codes will be returned to Oftel, not the allocatee. Oftel will consider whether a period of sterilisation of the code is appropriate, and for how long. This will be on a case-by-case basis.

vii) Number of Codes per Operator/ Service Provider

2.8.1 The Consultation Document discussed whether there ought to be a restriction on the number of codes for which network operators can apply. Oftel would request evidence of a firm order from the sub-allocatee (where appropriate) to support applications, to prevent sub-allocatees approaching several operators to get several codes for the same service. Also, Oftel would publish the name of the sub-allocatee and the service offered behind the code to prevent mis-use or trading of the code.

Responses and Conclusions

2.8.2 Respondents were generally in favour of not limiting the number of codes per applicant, or did not make any specific comments on the issue. However, some respondents raised issues in relation to different members of company groups applying separately to get more golden numbers between them, and allocating DQ codes in pairs. These issues have been addressed above.

2.8.3 The only additional comment, addressed below in ‘Other Issues’, was a concern about the IDQ definition. If the current description remains, respondents consider that Oftel needs to clarify whether separate code allocations can be made for IDQ services for any country and any language and any combinations thereof.

viii) Changes to the Numbering Conventions

2.9.1 In the Consultation, Oftel set out the changes that would be necessary to the Conventions to allow for the implementation of DQ code allocation (see Annex A of the Consultation).

Responses

2.9.2 Respondents generally favoured Oftel’s proposals. However, some respondents raised specific concerns:

Classifying DQ codes as Type B seems to automatically exclude 118 codes from Carrier Pre Selection (CPS) as they will be routed directly by BT and therefore billed by BT. This also seems to pre-empt the findings of Oftel’s current Consultation on proposed inclusion of Directory Enquiries within the Carrier Pre-Selection 'all calls' option. They could easily be a ‘Type D’ code instead.
Type B access codes are generally for indirect access for which operators do not have to open access on their networks. The same practice may occur with DQ codes, preventing the aim of creating competitive DQ services. Is Oftel expecting Convention 7 to act as the driving force for the success of the availability of access to DQ services? Is Oftel considering legislative changes to assure availability, and will all Type B codes be covered by such changes? ‘Type D’ would be preferred.
Oftel appears to wish to proceed with the allocation procedure under the revised Conventions without giving the requisite period of notice ie 3 months (as provided in the appropriate licence Condition). The same respondent who made this comment agreed to waive its right to the 3 month notice if Oftel agreed to its suggestion of ‘adequately considering consumer feedback on such issues as tariff and service transparency, and cost and service implications for IDQ under the proposed definition’.
The revised Convention A9.6 (as shown in Annex A of the Consultation) does not reflect the allowance for 6-digit codes for DQ services.

Conclusions

2.9.3 Oftel does not believe that classifying 118 DQ codes as Type B Access codes is pre-empting the current Consultation on proposed inclusion of Directory Enquiries within the Carrier Pre-Selection 'all calls' option. Firstly, that consultation relates specifically to 153 and 192 calls – not 118XXX calls. Secondly, the CPS Functional Specification is not driven by the classifications of access codes that Oftel may consider useful for the purposes of numbering administration, but by what types and combinations of calls Oftel considers it appropriate and necessary to be subject to CPS. Thirdly, Oftel is open to comments at any stage on 118 calls and CPS, and policy changes to the CPS Functional Specification can be, and are made to reflect changes in regulatory and Industry requirements.

2.9.4 The issue was raised as to how Oftel will ensure that DQ codes are accessible on all networks. Oftel is investigating this issue separately and does not consider it necessary to establish and confirm such arrangements in a Statement on DQ code allocation procedures. Any such arrangements would cover 118 DQ codes only, and would not extend to all other Type B access codes.

2.9.5 The changes to the Conventions to allow for the implementation of codes for DQ services have been kept non-specific. This also allows for the fact that, in future, other services may need to fall under the Type B definition. Further, Convention A9.6 now indicates that ‘allocation of codes will generally be on the basis of five-digit’. The term ‘generally’ allows for the fact that Type B codes are usually allocated as 5-digit, but for a one-off period 6-digit codes will be allocated (for DQ services) – Oftel does not expect an influx of applications for DQ codes after the lottery. Oftel does not therefore agree that a ‘Type D’ category needs to be created for codes for DQ services.

2.9.6 The changes to the Conventions will be made at the same time as the issue of this Statement, and a new issue of the Conventions is to be published at the same time as this Statement. As provided in Convention 1.6, operators will not be required to comply with Convention changes until 3 months from the issue date of the Statement. However, although Oftel recognises that DQ codes do not have to be recognised formally until 3 months after the publication of a revised issue of the Conventions, this does not prevent the allocation procedure from taking place. Neither does it stop operators choosing to recognise the new Type B codes or applying for such codes as they wish to. Additionally, Oftel believes that it is unlikely that the launch of the 118 DQ services will occur until at least 3 months after the issue of this Statement. By this time operators will be required to comply with the Convention changes and the codes allocated for DQ services will be recognised as such. Oftel does not consider it necessary to consult consumers separately on the allocation procedure for 118 codes for DQ services (this is addressed below).

Chapter 3

Other Issues

3.1 The Consultation Document raised other issues of concern to respondents (not covered by ‘main issues’ above). The other issues raised were:

Consulting consumers and businesses;
National and International Directory Enquiry service definitions;
Withdrawal of existing codes used for Directory Enquiry services;
Banding of 118XXX codes – tariff and service type; and
Embargo on launching 118XXX codes prematurely.

i) Consulting Consumers and Businesses

Responses

3.2.1 Respondents were generally concerned that insufficient consultation of consumers had occurred on the issue of implementing codes for DQ services. The main points of concern were:

Consumers had not been involved in the process.
Oftel does not seem to be considering the views of consumers, which is inconsistent with the Director General’s duty to do so (as provided in Section 3(2)(a) of Telecommunications Act). Consumers should have had key issues put to them before the Consultation Document was prepared. In the absence of such consultation, Oftel should consider allocating different parts of the 118XXX number range for services of different cost and type, rather than having different services and tariffs scattered randomly across the range.
Lack of consumer input on banding 118XX(X) numbers according to the tariff charged which may result in significant dissatisfaction at the launch of the new DQ codes.
An apparent suggestion that consumer representatives should be invited to all Industry meetings.

Conclusions

3.2.2 The concern was raised that consumers have not been sufficiently consulted. It is not clear as to which process respondents were referring. Oftel assumes that these concerns were with respect to the subject of the consultation i.e. the specific procedures for allocating DQ access codes.

3.2.3 Oftel believes that this consultation was on a specialised subject that was likely to be of much greater interest to Industry rather than consumer groups and that this is reflected by the list of respondents.

3.2.4 It must be noted, however, that this was a public consultation open to all stakeholders, as was clearly stated in the summary (S.6) of the December 2001 Consultation -

" Oftel is seeking the views of stakeholders (ie the telecoms Industry and consumers) on its proposal for allocation of DQ codes and necessary changes to the Numbering Conventions."

3.2.5 If respondents were making a general comment about DQ liberalisation, rather than the specific subject of the consultation, Oftel would like to make it clear that it has set up a consumer Sub-group to liase with the Industry on general consumer facing DQ issues. This group is now underway and Oftel looks forward to the Industry listening closely to consumer representatives' views on issues such as (amongst other things) the nature and timing of any announcements when existing DQ access codes are dialled, to alert consumers to the new DQ arrangements.

3.2.6 One respondent pointed out that, in spite of there having been a number of DQ-related Industry meetings, consumer representatives had not (at that stage) been invited to any of them. The respondent appears to Oftel to be suggesting that consumer representatives should be invited to all Industry meetings. Oftel considers that this would be a significant departure from Industry practice and is surprised that this suggestion has been made. It is Industry concern over commercial confidentiality that has lead to consumer representatives not being invited to Industry DQ meetings. Oftel will continue, as per normal practice, to run a specific Consumer Issues Sub-group to seek consumer views.

3.2.7 Oftel also notes that the question of number allocation procedures was discussed in Oftel's November 2000 consultation on DQ services. Oftel can conduct public consultations but it cannot force stakeholders, including consumer groups, to respond in detail to such consultations.

3.2.8 Notwithstanding the ample opportunity that all stakeholders have had to comment on these issues, Oftel has taken the specific issues of 'banding' 118XXX codes according to tariff and service type and the definition of international DQ (which is discussed elsewhere in this statement) to the DQ consumer issues Sub-group.

3.2.9 The issue of tariff banding of the 118XXX code range is discussed below in ‘Banding of 118XXX Codes – Tariff and Service Type’.

ii) National and International Directory Enquiry Service Definitions

National DQ Definition

Responses

3.3.1 One respondent commented that it was not clear under the definition of a national DQ service whether non-geographic and mobile entries would be included.

Conclusions

3.3.2 It is Oftel’s intention that a full national DQ service would cover the same range of numbers as is currently available via existing DQ services (which use data from BT’s OSIS database, which does not at the moment comprehensively cover mobile numbers). Oftel would also point out that it is unlikely that consumers currently assume that a national DQ service will provide information on mobile phone numbers, however Oftel would expect this information to be included in national DQ services as it becomes commonly available.

International DQ Definition

Responses

3.3.3 Several respondents voiced concerns about the proposed definition of international directory enquiry (IDQ) services.

3.3.4 Some respondents considered that the proposed definition would lead to consumer confusion, as not all countries would necessarily be covered by any given IDQ service. Also, the wording of the proposed definition would allow only a very small number of listings from any given non-UK country to be provided. There were concerns that advertisements might not make it clear to consumers which countries were covered by an IDQ service, nor what calls would cost, and this could lead to complaints and requests for refunds.

3.3.5 One respondent suggested that all IDQ services should "offer as a minimum listings of main European countries covered". Another respondent proposed that an IDQ service should be defined as including numbers from "the majority of non-UK countries, or an international service that is deemed by Oftel to be appropriate at the time of application." Yet another respondent proposed that the definition should include coverage of "destinations in less frequently requested countries where no automated database of subscribers is available". The same respondent suggested that, in the absence of a DQ Service Provider ("SP") wishing to make such a comprehensive IDQ service available, it should be required to support a purported BT universal service obligation for IDQ by paying a relevant amount to support BT’s IDQ service.

3.3.6 Several respondents were concerned that the broad IDQ definition would create problems during the number allocation process, and lead to multiple applications, excess demand for codes and ‘gaming’ to enhance an applicant’s chance of being allocated a memorable code. Some respondents felt there was a risk of applicants deciding to offer DQ services for a small number of obscure non-UK countries simply to get a DQ code. These respondents proposed that requiring an SP to provide a national DQ service alongside an IDQ service for at least one non-UK country in order to obtain a code for IDQ would address this problem. One respondent sought clarification as to whether the proposed IDQ definition would allow an SP to apply for a separate code for each country and each language, and each combination thereof.

Oftel specifically sought the views of the members of the DQ consumer issues Sub-group on the issue of the definition of IDQ services. Members of the Sub-group responded that consumers might have difficulties finding a DQ service covering the right country if Oftel’s proposed IDQ definition were to be adopted.

Conclusions

3.3.7 Oftel has noted the various comments made by respondents regarding the IDQ definition. Oftel has modified the IDQ definition to make it clear that, where a DQ service is provided for a non-UK country, it must cover the same range of numbers as commonly available DQ services in that country.

3.3.8 As regards the number of countries covered by an IDQ service, Oftel would point out that the definition of an IDQ service used to qualify applications for 118 codes is a regulatory definition, and Oftel would not expect it to be used in consumer-facing communications. (It is worth noting in this context that there is a definition of International Directory Service contained in the PTO licence that is even broader than that used in this Statement, and that definition is clearly not intended for use in marketing materials either). Oftel therefore would not consider it appropriate for DQ services simply to be advertised as international DQ services without a clear and unambiguous indication of the countries covered by the service. Oftel expects the relevant rules on advertising standards (and the ICSTIS code of practice where relevant) will also prevent this sort of abuse. The most likely way a customer would know of a 118 number for an IDQ service is through advertising (which will indicate the countries covered by the service). This should reduce the chances of consumers accidentally dialling an IDQ service that does not cover the country they require.

3.3.9 Oftel considers that the alternative definitions of IDQ proposed by several respondents entail arbitrary distinctions between countries that are required to be included in the IDQ service and those that are not. As such, if these alternative definitions were implemented, they are likely to give rise to exactly the same concerns about consumer confusion as the definition proposed by Oftel.

3.3.10 Oftel considers that insisting that an IDQ service cover every possible country where DQ data is available would represent an unacceptable barrier to entry for newcomers wishing to offer IDQ services due to the cost of obtaining this data. This would in turn discourage competition and ultimately reduce benefits to consumers. The suggestion by some respondents that IDQ SPs should provide a national DQ service and an IDQ service for at least one non-UK country would also, in Oftel’s view, hinder entry by SPs only interested in competing in relation to IDQ services.

3.3.11 Oftel is not aware of a ‘universal service obligation’ in relation to IDQ in BT’s (or any other operator’s) licence as one respondent claimed. Oftel therefore does not consider it appropriate that there be any payments between DQ SPs to support the provision by one SP of a comprehensive IDQ service. Oftel notes that there is nothing in the licence that would prevent an operator today setting up different IDQ services covering different parts of the world. Oftel also notes that in at least one other European country, competitive DQ SPs choose to offer a comprehensive IDQ service even though there is no obligation to do so.

3.3.12 In relation to the number allocation process, Oftel acknowledges that the proposed IDQ definition would make it possible, in theory, for a DQSP to apply for a large number of codes. This in turn could increase demand for codes and the opportunity for unscrupulous applicants to apply for multiple codes under the impression that this will enhance the chances of being allocated a memorable code. Oftel would point out that changing the IDQ definition would not solve this problem, as under the current proposals there is no upper limit on the number of codes for which any SP can apply (even for a national DQ service). Most respondents to the consultation did not object to Oftel’s proposal not to institute a limit. Oftel considers that there are over-riding commercial imperatives on SPs not to apply for large numbers of codes. Marketing spend on raising awareness of the new codes will focus on each code used by the SP. The larger the number of codes used, the higher the marketing spend required and the more difficult it will be to develop a commercially viable business plan. Oftel will be reviewing all applications received for the DQ code lottery, and will be seeking further information from applicants where the commercial viability of the proposed DQ service appears to Oftel to be questionable.

3.3.13 The possibility that the proposed IDQ definition could lead to increases in the costs of IDQ services to some countries is one that Oftel has considered very carefully. Oftel is aware that the charges for current IDQ services are usually geographically averaged. This means that the high costs of providing DQ services to some countries (where data is expensive, or automated searches are not possible for example) is off-set by the low costs of providing DQ services to other countries, and an average prices is set for services to any country. Oftel considers that offering DQ services in at least one non-UK country should continue to be sufficient for the allocation of a 118 code for IDQ services. There are commercial incentives on SPs to offer a comprehensive DQ service (eg simplicity of advertising message, focussed marketing on one DQ code). Should these not be sufficient for a DQSP to offer a comprehensive DQ service, then a DQSP may wish to offer a geographically deaveraged IDQ service or services. Oftel considers that efficient use of IDQ services is encouraged where charges for the service are cost-reflective. Whilst the proposed definition of IDQ services may lead to some consumers paying higher prices to reflect the cost of their service, it should also lead to other consumers (who have arguably been paying too much for their IDQ services) paying less. Oftel would also point out that consumers also have the option for some countries of dialling DQ services based in that country directly, which would be an additional source of competition in this market

iii) Withdrawal of Existing Codes Used for Directory Enquiry Services

Responses

3.4.1 One respondent queried why Oftel had mentioned, in the Summary of the Consultation, the withdrawal of existing DQ services, but had not addressed it elsewhere in the same Document, and why the withdrawal of existing codes was mentioned at all in a consultation document on allocating and withdrawing 118 codes. The respondent added that 142 had not been mentioned in that context.

3.4.2 The same respondent also commented that it was far from clear that the rules for withdrawing numbering capacity in the Conventions cover the withdrawal of highly utilised Type A and Type C.

3.4.3 Another respondent commented that there should be agreement between network operators on the managed changeover to the new codes and parallel running. Also, the respondent considered that there should be no obligation for implementation to proceed at the speed of the slowest DQ provider, but rather implementation should proceed at the pace of a ‘reasonably efficient’ DQ provider.

Conclusions

3.4.4 Oftel covered the issue of withdrawing existing codes used for DQ services in its September 2001 Statement – Access codes for directory enquiry services. Oftel mentioned it in the December 2001 Consultation Document by means of a reference to the September 2001 Statement, and to remind interested parties that existing codes will no longer be available for DQ services after a period of time. The Summary section in the December 2001 Consultation stated that ‘any other access codes (where used) for DQ services’ are planned to be withdrawn at the same time as 192 – this will obviously include 142, and any other short codes used for DQ services at that time.

3.4.5 Oftel can withdraw services behind specific Type A codes, and withdraw permission to use specific Type C access codes for DQ services, after appropriate consultation i.e. not less than 28 days as required by Convention 6.3. Oftel is also required to give at least three months’ notice following that consultation. As those types of access code are not allocated to a specific operator, Oftel would announce that the codes should no longer be in use by operators, or be used for specific services. Operators would be required to move services off the codes, having been given a suitable period of notice by Oftel (at least three months).

3.4.6 Agreements between operators on the timing and changeover to the new 118 codes are being discussed by the relevant DQ Industry Sub-groups and need not be addressed in this Statement.

iv) Banding of 118XXX Codes – Tariff and Service Type

Responses

3.5.1 There was concern expressed by some respondents that the proposals in the Consultation Document did not cover banding of the 118XXX codes by tariff and/or service type (eg allocating 1181XX codes for national DQ services up to 20p per minute and 1182XX codes for international DQ services up to 40p per minute etc) . Some respondents believed that there were consumer benefits in having separate bands eg. for NDQ and IDQ, to prevent mis-dials to higher tariff services.

3.5.2 Another respondent suggested that retail price points should be considered as part of interconnect and billing arrangements. SPs need a degree of choice and Oftel should consider consumer impacts, and impacts on network operators if required to open a range of retail prices as this will impact on demand for codes. Oftel specifically sought the views of the members of the DQ consumer issues Sub-group on the issue of whether 118XXX codes should be banded by tariff. Members of the Sub-group that responded were not strongly in favour of such banding.

Conclusions

3.5.3 Oftel made it clear in the Consultation Document that it found proposals for dividing the 118XX(X) range between particular price bands inadequate and impractical. Oftel still considers such a proposal unconvincing because:

It assumes consumers are aware, in minute detail, of the relevance of such bands (and Oftel’s understanding is that this is not the case for existing number/code ranges);
It would prevent competitive pricing (in that DQ service providers would not be able to change price without changing their code);
It would compromise DQ service providers ability to link their access codes e.g. 118075 for national DQ, 118175 for international DQ;
It would demand that Oftel decide the scope and range of prices to be charged by Industry participants (rather than market forces);
Oftel would expect marketing material for the new services to contain a clear reference to the price(s) charged anyway;
It would probably prevent future developments such as mid-call rate changes for services such as call completion (and at the very least would introduce considerable complications);
Tariff bands may be rendered irrelevant by proposals, currently under discussion with the Industry, whereby a tariff announcement (as for certain premium rate services) would be included at the beginning of a call. This would appear to offer a far superior method to consumers of establishing the cost of the service; and
It is pre-empting the DQ market ie. NDQ and IDQ may be provided on separate codes instead of both on the same code. Also, it could introduce an assumption that IDQ will be at a higher tariff than NDQ – this may not be the case.

3.5.4 The issue of setting price bands for different parts of the 118XXX range appears to cut across earlier comments from some respondents that codes should be allocated in pairs for NDQ and IDQ. Given the current price difference between national and international DQ services, implementation of price bands would clearly impact upon the flexibility with which paired codes could be allocated to NDQ and IDQ.

3.5.5 Oftel will therefore not band 118XXX codes by tariff and/or service type.

3.5.6 On the issue of agreeing retail price points, Oftel believes that this is an issue for commercial negotiations between operators. Where no agreement is reached, Oftel intervention may be necessary. However, Oftel is aware that early Industry discussions suggest that most potential DQ service providers and operators are content (as a starting position) with the current range of tariffs available for Premium Rate services.

v) Embargo on Launching 118XXX Codes Prematurely

Responses

3.6.1 A couple of respondents were concerned that once DQ codes had been allocated, network operators in particular would be in a position to launch service earlier than service providers, and therefore gain commercially. They suggested that Oftel place an embargo on any operators or service providers launching DQ services before an agreed date. One respondent suggested a minimum embargo of 65 working days from allocation of DQ codes before they can be activated.

Conclusions

3.6.2 Oftel considers that the only way Oftel could ensure an absolute embargo on the use of the new DQ codes would be not to allocate them until all necessary commercial arrangements for carrying the DQ codes are in place between operators and service providers. Unfortunately, Oftel considers that this could unduly delay the introduction of competition in the DQ market, and several network operators have commented to Oftel that they would not be prepared to finalise commercial arrangements with service providers until service providers have been allocated a DQ code. Oftel would however make it clear that it expects all network operators and service providers to abide in good faith by any embargo discussed and agreed by the majority of the participants in the DQ Implementation Working Group.

Annex A

Revised Numbering Conventions

The following will appear in the Numbering Conventions:

‘A9.4 Type B access codes have network-wide significance as they are used by the end users of one public telecommunications operator to have selected calls connected by an operator other than the one from whom they rent their telephone line (known as ‘Indirect Access’). For example, callers might use Type B codes to select Indirect Access providers for long distance and/or international calls. Type B codes can also be used by callers to access services available from their own operator’s system or another public operator’s system. These codes are allocated by Oftel.’

‘A9.6 Given the need to ensure reasonable numbering capacity, allocation of access codes will generally be on the basis of five-digit ‘1XXXX’ codes. While three- and four-digit codes will no longer be issued, three- and four-digit codes already in use will remain in use. Access codes may, however, be withdrawn in accordance with Convention 6.’

‘A9.9 There are generally three types of Type B Access Code:

a) Access codes used for the purpose of a direct call set-up, where the dialled digits of the access code and the following number are treated as a single unit, or ‘string’, by the telephone networks in setting up the call;

b) Access codes used as a prefix, where the second stage relies on the conveyance of a Personal Identification Number (‘PIN’); and

c) Access codes that are used to access services, but which are not necessarily used in conjunction with a following number, or with a second stage which relies on conveyance of a PIN.’

Annex B

Revised International Directory Enquiry definition

A Directory Enquiry Service which provides information to UK subscribers on allocations of numbers from the numbering scheme(s) of at least one, probably several major non-UK countries, covering the same range of numbers as commonly available DQ services in that country.

Annex C

List of ‘Protected’ DQ Codes (not available for allocation at the present time):

DQ Code: