| International benchmarking study of fixed line services - 4 June 2003 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Basket |
Basket 1 |
Basket 2 |
Basket 3A |
Basket 3B |
Basket 4A |
Basket 4B |
Basket 5A |
Basket 5B |
Basket5 C |
Average |
|
France |
105 |
116 |
125 |
118 |
128 |
119 |
124 |
119 |
120 |
119 |
|
Germany |
114 |
118 |
117 |
116 |
111 |
108 |
116 |
112 |
111 |
114 |
|
Sweden |
98 |
101 |
99 |
98 |
97 |
93 |
101 |
98 |
95 |
98 |
|
UK |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
|
USA – CA |
127 |
120 |
99 |
98 |
95 |
91 |
100 |
96 |
119 |
105 |
|
USA - OH |
147 |
140 |
116 |
116 |
104 |
100 |
106 |
102 |
119 |
116 |
Note: the average is a simple unweighted average across all baskets in the table.
Table 2 Price index for business PSTN services
|
Basket |
Basket S1 |
Basket S2 |
Basket S3 |
Basket M1 |
Basket M2 |
Basket M3 |
Average |
|
France |
93 |
91 |
88 |
106 |
103 |
101 |
97 |
|
Germany |
96 |
95 |
94 |
92 |
94 |
95 |
95 |
|
Sweden |
72 |
69 |
74 |
79 |
75 |
76 |
74 |
|
UK |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
|
USA – CA |
81 |
94 |
105 |
95 |
117 |
134 |
104 |
|
USA – OH |
93 |
106 |
114 |
103 |
123 |
136 |
112 |
Note: the average is a simple unweighted average across all baskets in the table.
S.7 Analysis of the price trend shows that between February 2002 and February 2003:
ISDN
S.8 Comparisons have also been made of prices for ISDN services offered by the incumbent operators.
S.9 The results show that for residential use, UK ISDN prices are on average lower than prices in France and Ohio (which are around 8-19% higher), similar to prices in California and higher relative to Germany and Sweden (which are around 5-14% cheaper). For business consumers, UK ISDN prices are higher than the other countries considered, with Sweden over 45% cheaper.
Results for special schemes
S.10 This study has also considered comparisons of "special" tariffs provided by incumbent operators, whose purpose is to ensure that basic telephony services are affordable for disadvantaged groups. The results show that, for the countries compared:
Introduction
1.1 Oftel’s aim is to provide the best possible deal for telecommunications customers in terms of quality, choice and value for money through effective competition and adequately protecting consumers. International comparisons of telecoms services are one way of assessing the achievement of this aim.
1.2 Oftel carries out regular reviews of the major telecoms markets to determine the appropriate level of regulation for the future. Regular benchmarking exercises allow a time trend to be developed, which provides greater information than a single snap shot. The results in this report will form part of the data input for future reviews.
1.3 This study focuses on comparing the cost for representative users for fixed line services in each country using a "basket" methodology. Oftel has carried out its own benchmarking work (as opposed to using alternative published sources) to ensure that the methodology is rigorous and robust and that it addresses the following issues:
Price comparisons need to take into account the range of products available to the consumer.
1.4 The following countries are included in the analysis:
1.5 This study is a follow up to the study published by Oftel in June 2002,which was based on tariff data valid as at February 2002. This study is the fourth in a series that started with a study carried out by Teligen for Oftel and published in May 2000. A list of the "tariffs valid at" date and date of publication of previous studies is given in table 1.1.
Table 1.1: List of previous studies
|
No. |
Tariffs valid at date |
Date published |
Fixed line services covered |
Report prepared by |
|
1. |
February 00 |
May 2000 |
PSTN and ISDN |
Teligen |
|
2. |
February 01 |
June 2001 |
PSTN and ISDN |
Oftel |
|
3. |
February 02 |
June 2002 |
PSTN and ISDN |
Oftel |
|
4. |
February 03 |
June 2003 |
PSTN and ISDN |
Oftel |
Reports can be found at: www.oftel.gov.uk/publications/research/index.htm
1.6 The analysis and drafting of this report have been carried out by Oftel.
1.7 Data has been collected from the vast range of tariff packages available to residential and small/medium sized businesses for major operators and service providers in each country as at February 2003. Data collection has been carried out for Oftel by consultants HI Europe and Analysys.
Points to bear in mind
1.8 There are a huge range of operators and service providers offering services to consumers and it is not possible to cover all packages on offer. In addition, it is not possible to fully capture all aspects of innovative tariff products. While it is believed that the sample chosen is fully representative and covers the range of offers available by country, the possibility that consumers have access to additional offers outside the range calculated for the sample used in this report cannot be excluded.
1.9 The objective of this report is to provide a comparison between countries for a range of consumer usage profiles. A range of profiles is chosen to be illustrative of the most frequent types of customer calling patterns, but is not comprehensive. Prices are based on a snap shot as at 19th February 2003. Although providing a sound overall picture, the comparison of companies within a country should not be taken as necessarily being representative for an individual consumer.
1.10 The analysis is based on a basket methodology, which allows prices to be compared across different operators in different countries. It is not, however, intended to be a buyer’s guide to services as:
The objective is to illustrate the scale and level of prices available to consumers in different countries.
1.11 There are separate industry funded initiatives and reports which seek to help UK consumers be better informed purchasers of telecommunications services (examples are; fixed and mobile quality of service indicators - www.cpi.org.uk/www.oftel.gov.uk; advice to consumers on using a mobile abroad - www.oftel.gov.uk; and information for small businesses about using telecoms and the internet - www.TelecomsAdvice.org.uk). Oftel has also recently produced a range of consumer guides and has introduced a seal of approval, called the Oftel PASS, for websites that compare the prices of different suppliers and provide impartial and accurate information - http://www.oftel.co.uk/publications/consumer/2002/pass0902.htm. This report is not part of that body of work as it seeks to compare positions between, not within, countries and it is not, therefore, intended in any way to be a buyer's guide to services in the UK.
Outline of the report
1.12 Chapter 2 presents the results for both PSTN and ISDN services. Further details of the results are given in the Annexes.
1.13 Chapter 3 presents an additional analysis considering the "special schemes" offered by incumbent operators to low users / disadvantaged groups. This includes both quantitative comparisons of the prices paid by eligible low users and a qualitative comparison of the eligibility criteria.
Fixed line (PSTN and ISDN) Services
General Introduction
2.1 This chapter covers basic fixed line telephony ("PSTN") services, which continue to provide the main source of telephony for the majority of consumers. ISDN services are also considered. The comparisons in this chapter exclude "special schemes", with specific eligibility criteria, which are considered in Chapter 3.
2.2 Oftel is currently carrying out a review of competition in fixed narrowband services (as part of the retail market review) and the output of this study forms one of the inputs to the forthcoming consultation and statement. This study also forms part of the ongoing monitoring of the market for fixed line services, and the resulting time series will be used in subsequent reviews.
2.3 A comparison of PSTN and ISDN prices formed part of the international benchmarking study carried out by Oftel and published in June 2002, based on February 2002 tariffs. The results in this chapter provide an update of the results in the June 2002 study and enable the price trend from February 2002 to February 2003 to be analysed.
2.4 This chapter contains:
Methodology for PSTN benchmarking
PSTN usage baskets
2.5 The analysis contained in this chapter is based on a basket methodology. The details of the usage baskets used are given in the June 2002 report and are not repeated here.
2.6 A total of 9 baskets are used for residential consumers. These cover a range of usage levels and calling patterns.
2.7 A total of 6 baskets are used for business consumers, covering 2 different levels of usage (for "small" and "medium" businesses) and 3 different calling patterns.
2.8 A number of the baskets include an element of Internet usage and hence there is a degree of overlap between the services benchmarked in this chapter and the analysis reported in an accompanying report on Internet access. In this chapter it is assumed that consumers access the Internet using a "subscription free" ISP service and pay standard local call charges. This may not always be the cheapest option. However, given that Internet usage is only one component of the overall basket, it is not expected that this simplification has a big impact on the results.
Methodology for PSTN Price Analysis
2.9 The basket methodology involves combining the usage baskets with tariff data to provide a set of prices. The approach used is the same as that described in the June 2002 report.
Choice of packages and discounts included
2.10 The analysis takes into account tariff schemes and discount options for a range of operators per country (this excludes "special schemes" with specific eligibility criteria - these are considered in Chapter 3). Some operators offer a wide range of different tariff schemes that can be combined with a number of discount options. Incumbent operators in particular appear to offer a large number of tariff schemes and/or discount options. Taking all possible combinations of tariffs plus discount options into account is not feasible and is unlikely to be a productive use of available resources. The focus is on including the main tariff packages plus a selection of discounts that are expected to have the greatest impact on the usage profiles used.
2.11 In the US, consumers generally purchase different elements of their overall service from different providers. For example, the line itself and local calls will typically be provided by the local incumbent operator, while long distance and international calls are provided by one of a number of long distance operators. Overall "packages" have been constructed by combining the individual elements. Taking all possible combinations of the different elements is not feasible. The focus is on modelling those combinations which are expected to be most cost effective for the profiles modelled. However, increasingly "all in one" packages are being offered by both local and long distance operators, and these are also included in the model.
Treatment of discounts
2.12 The following types of discount schemes have been included:
2.13 More complicated types of discount scheme (eg discounts which depend on the duration of the call) have not been modelled.
Results for residential baskets
Price index
2.14 The price index for residential PSTN services is presented in Table 2.1. As in the June 2002 study, this has been constructed by taking the average of the cheapest package offered by the incumbent (in the US AT&T is taken as the incumbent for long distance calls) and the cheapest of the packages offered by other operators. This reflects the fact that the incumbent generally continues to have a large market share. Detailed results showing the cost of each basket for each tariff package modelled are shown in Annex B.
Table 2.1 Price index for residential PSTN services
|
Basket |
Basket 1 |
Basket 2 |
Basket 3A |
Basket 3B |
Basket 4A |
Basket 4B |
Basket 5A |
Basket 5B |
Basket5 C |
Average |
|
France |
105 |
116 |
125 |
118 |
128 |
119 |
124 |
119 |
120 |
119 |
|
Germany |
114 |
118 |
117 |
116 |
111 |
108 |
116 |
112 |
111 |
114 |
|
Sweden |
98 |
101 |
99 |
98 |
97 |
93 |
101 |
98 |
95 |
98 |
|
UK |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
|
USA – CA |
127 |
120 |
99 |
98 |
95 |
91 |
100 |
96 |
119 |
105 |
|
USA - OH |
147 |
140 |
116 |
116 |
104 |
100 |
106 |
102 |
119 |
116 |
Note: the average is a simple unweighted average across all baskets in the table.
2.15 From table 2.1 it is seen that:
Price trend
2.16 The results in table 2.1 indicate that the UK’s relative position has improved since the June 2002 report, based on February 2002 prices. The percentage changes in price between February 2002 and February 2003 are shown in table 2.2. Price changes are presented in real terms. Changes in Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) exchange rates have some impact on the results.
Table 2.2 Percentage change in price levels for residential consumers between February 02 and February 03.
|
Basket |
Basket 1 |
Basket 2 |
Basket 3A |
Basket 3B |
Basket 4A |
Basket 4B |
Basket 5A |
Basket 5B |
Basket5 C |
Average |
|
France |
-3% |
-3% |
-7% |
-9% |
-9% |
-10% |
-10% |
-11% |
-13% |
-8% |
|
Germany |
6% |
2% |
0% |
0% |
-3% |
-2% |
-1% |
-1% |
-1% |
0% |
|
Sweden |
-3% |
-3% |
-3% |
-3% |
-3% |
-3% |
-3% |
-3% |
-3% |
-3% |
|
UK |
-2% |
-3% |
-7% |
-7% |
-7% |
-8% |
-8% |
-8% |
-8% |
-6% |
|
USA - CA |
6% |
3% |
1% |
1% |
-1% |
-1% |
-2% |
-2% |
-3% |
0% |
|
USA - OH |
11% |
6% |
-4% |
-4% |
-4% |
-5% |
-6% |
-6% |
-9% |
-2% |
Note: the average is a simple unweighted average across all baskets in the table.
2.17 From table 2.2 it is seen that:
2.18 It should be noted the results in the US include a range of taxes and surcharges that are charged to telecom users. These have been more accurately reflected in this report, compared to previous reports, resulting in a worsening of the US relative position.
2.19 Price trends need to be considered in the context of price levels. Figure 2.1 shows the price changes for residential PSTN services relative to UK prices as at February 2000. This illustrates a declining trend for most countries, with little change in relative country positions over the period studied. Price trends in individual countries can also be compared and in the period February 2000 to February 2003 prices in the UK and the US fell faster than in other countries.
Figure 2.1: Price trends by country from February 2000 to February 2003

Price spread
2.20 "Price spread" charts are shown in figure 2.2. The charts show the price for the cheapest package offered by each operator as a percentage above the cheapest price across all operators in all countries, for each basket. These charts illustrate the relative spread of prices by country, as well as allowing relative price levels to be compared.
2.21 The price spread seen varies by basket and by country. In general, the price spread in Sweden is less than the spread seen in other countries. The largest price spread is seen in Ohio and California. This is due to the inclusion of "all in one packages": these tend to be flat rate packages, which are expensive for low usage baskets.
Figure 2.2: Price spread charts

Results for business baskets
Price index
2.22 The price index for business PSTN services is presented in Table 2.3. As in the June 2002 study this has been constructed by taking the average of the cheapest package offered by the incumbent (in the US AT&T is taken as the incumbent for long distance calls) and the cheapest of the packages offered by other operators. This reflects the fact that the incumbent generally continues to have a large market share. Detailed results showing the cost of each basket for each tariff package modelled are shown in Annex B.
Table 2.3 Price index for business PSTN services
|
Basket |
Basket S1 |
Basket S2 |
Basket S3 |
Basket M1 |
Basket M2 |
Basket M3 |
Average |
|
France |
93 |
91 |
88 |
106 |
103 |
101 |
97 |
|
Germany |
96 |
95 |
94 |
92 |
94 |
95 |
95 |
|
Sweden |
72 |
69 |
74 |
79 |
75 |
76 |
74 |
|
UK |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
|
USA – CA |
81 |
94 |
105 |
95 |
117 |
134 |
104 |
|
USA – OH |
93 |
106 |
114 |
103 |
123 |
136 |
112 |
Note: the average is a simple unweighted average across all baskets in the table.
2.23 From table 2.3 it is seen that:
2.24 Prices in the US are higher than might be expected. As was noted in the June 2002 study, "case by case" discounts are often available in the US. It is not feasible to take these into account in the price comparisons, and hence the US prices may be overstated.
Price trend
2.25 The results in table 2.3 indicate that the UK’s relative position has improved slightly since the June 2002 study, based on February 2002 prices. The percentage changes in price between February 2002 and February 2003 are shown in table 2.4. Price changes are presented in real terms. Changes in PPP exchange rates have some impact on the results.
Table 2.4 Percentage change in price levels for business consumers between February 02 and February 03.
|
Basket |
Basket S1 |
Basket S2 |
Basket S3 |
Basket M1 |
Basket M2 |
Basket M3 |
Average |
|
France |
-3% |
-6% |
-8% |
-2% |
-5% |
-6% |
-5% |
|
Germany |
-2% |
-2% |
0% |
-2% |
-1% |
1% |
-1% |
|
Sweden |
-5% |
-5% |
-4% |
-4% |
-4% |
-13% |
-6% |
|
UK |
3% |
1% |
-8% |
0% |
-4% |
-14% |
-4% |
|
USA – CA |
5% |
3% |
3% |
5% |
7% |
2% |
4% |
|
USA – OH |
-2% |
-2% |
-2% |
-2% |
-3% |
-3% |
-2% |
Note: the average is a simple unweighted average across all baskets in the table.
2.26 From table 2.4 it is seen that:
2.27 Improved modelling of relevant taxes and surcharges in the US has had some impact on the US relative position (see paragraph 2.18).
2.28 Price trends need to be considered in the context of price levels. Figure 2.3 shows the price changes for business PSTN services relative to UK prices as at February 2000. This illustrates a general declining trend for all countries, with little change in relative country positions over the period studied. Price trends in individual countries can also be compared and over the period February 2000 to February 2003 prices in the Germany and Ohio fell the fastest and the UK was in line with the other countries included in the benchmark.
Figure 2.3: Price trends by country from February 2000 to February 2003

Price spread
2.29 ‘Price spread’ charts are shown in figure 2.4. The charts show the price for the cheapest package offered by each operator as a percentage above the cheapest price across all operators, for each basket. These charts illustrate the relative spread of prices by country, as well as allowing relative price levels to be compared.
2.30 The price spread seen varies by basket and country. In general it is seen that:
Figure 2.4: Price spread charts

Sensitivity analysis
2.31 In order to ensure that the results are robust, a number of sensitivities have been considered:
2.32 The results of these sensitivities are shown in table 2.5 for residential consumers and table 2.6 for business consumers.
Table 2.5: Results of sensitivity tests for residential consumers
|
Sensitivity |
Base |
i |
ii |
iii |
|
t |
Main results |
Distribution of call lengths |
Alternative mapping of tariffs onto distance bands for US |
Remove calls to mobile from baskets |
|
France |
119 |
117 |
119 |
123 |
|
Germany |
114 |
117 |
114 |
112 |
|
Sweden |
98 |
95 |
98 |
96 |
|
UK |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
|
USA - CA |
105 |
108 |
106 |
102 |
|
USA - OH |
116 |
118 |
116 |
115 |
Table 2.6: Results of sensitivity tests for business consumers
|
Sensitivity |
Base |
i |