Home > Telecoms > Industry Groups > NTS Focus Group > Notes of meetings > NTS Focus Group - 15th J

16|11|04

NTS Focus Group - 15th July 2004

Agenda item (1) - Introductions

**Attendance**
Colin Scott	THUS (Chair)
Nicola McKenna	THUS
Caroline Wallace	Ofcom
Clive Hillier	Ofcom
Gareth Davies	Ofcom
Katherine Duncan	Band-X
Philippa Sides	Mobile
Dave Simpson	Easynet
Toby Higho	Centrica
Dirmuid Jennings	Reality Telecom
Mike Barford	Tiscali
Karen Wray	C&W
Andrew Wileman	Telewest
Tim Stephens	C&W
Minal Shah	Energis
Kath Embleton	BT
Mike Ankin	BT
Colin Annette	BT
Alex Cheetham	BT
Nancy Cox	Kingston
Huw Saunders	Kingston

Agenda item (2): Ofcom Presentation – NTS Framework Re-examination Update

Ofcom provided an update presentation on the NTS Framework re-examination. A copy of the presentation has been provided along with these meeting notes.

Operators asked a series of questions relating to Ofcom’s current NTS options:

Q	Colin Annette asked why a price ceiling was proposed in option 3?
A	Ofcom said that it was designed to protect consumers in the same way as the current pricing ceiling on 0844 / 0871 (up to 5ppm / up to 10ppm on the BT network).

Q	Nancy Cox asked if Ofcom’s option 4 proposal would still result in 0845 / 0870 revenues going to the terminating communications provider?
A	Ofcom said that a geographic pricing model would apply and that no additional value added termination revenue would be allowed. Call Centres which subsidied their operations through the use of 0870 services would have to move to PRS under options 4 if they wanted revenue share, as consumer recognition / understanding of the 09 range is much better. The other alternative would be for call centres to continue to use 0845/0870, but they might be faced with having to pay the Terminating Communications Provider for translation and intelligent routing. Huw Saunders said that use of 09 numbers may cause problems as many consumers have opted for 09 barring. Ofcom said that override PINs were available.

Q	Tim Stephens asked how Ofcom would define ECS (ie. who could use these numbers)?
A	Caroline Wallace said that a numbering consultation would be required as this solution would require a change to the numbering plan.

Q	Dave Simpson asked what would happen if an ECS provider wanted to offer a non-ECS service?
A	Ofcom said that one option was that the definition would cover the service, not the provider, so only ECS services would be permitted.

Q	Nancy Cox asked what the rationale was behind option 5 (the switch off of 0845/0844/0870/0871)?
A	Ofcom said that consumers would be left with PRS and Freephone. Both of which have much better level of recognition / understanding than the existing chargeable 08 services.

Ofcom said that they were aware of the consequences of Option 6 (a total switch-off of the UK NTS regime) and that it was an extreme option which would cause a great deal of disruption and that it wasn’t likely to be implemented in the short term and a phased approach would be required. Option 6 would improve consumer tariff transparency (by simplifying the current tariff structure) but Ofcom would need to understand, amongst other things, the capabilities of Next Generation Networks for enabling micro payments.

Ofcom said that they had issued a draft information request and were looking for comments on the request by Tuesday the 20th of July.

Dirmuid Jennings asked what Ofcom’s timescales were for publishing the consultation. Gareth Davies said that Ofcom hoped to issue the consultation document in mid-September.

Karen Wray asked what criteria Ofcom were using to review particular markets. Gareth Davies said that there were no definite plans to conduct a full market review, however Ofcom were likely to look at the NTS termination market and the implications of any proposed changes on call origination. Karen Wray said there was an obvious conflict between competition at the retail call origination end and competitive service provision at the terminating end – which of these would have priority?

Gareth Davies said that the framework re-examination would look into which of these would have priority.

Caroline Wallace highlighted the existence of a section 105 notice in relation to NTS. This is required when Ofcom is considering a question of network access (including call origination, call termination and transit – the notice doesn’t specifically mention retail – but there is nothing to stop this being covered within the framework re-examination). This notice should not be mistaken for notification of a market review.

Ofcom asked for brief targeted comments (lengthy comments should be saved for the consultation in September) on the NTS options by close of play on Friday the 23rd of July (eg. have Ofcom missed an option / is there a variant on one of the options proposed?).

Agenda item (3): Ofcom Update – Other NTS issues

Ofcom provided an update on: (1) Policy Work - & - (2) Case Work

INCA / CLI statement:

The INCA/CLI statement has now been published with a response date of the 9th of August.

Retail Uplift & PRS bad debt surcharge consultation:

The draft modifications to conditions to implement a retail uplift charge control and the PRS bad debt surcharge have now been published with a response deadline of the 19th of August.

Tim Stephens said that no charge control had been proposed for the PRS Bad Debt surcharge (Ofcom propose this should increase from 2% to 2.7%) and asked Ofcom how they envisaged this charge being reviewed over time?

Caroline Wallace said that the Ofcom experts on this topic were currently on leave (David Brown & Geoff Brighton) and this issue should be picked up within responses to the document.

Agenda item (4): Implementation of the INCA billing proposal (BT)

Colin Rochester said that BT was required to produce extra files which then would be loaded on to operator billing systems to enable / verify NTS billing. Colin said that a formal file specification would be made available soon after the final direction. Dummy test files from BT's system integration testing (i.e. containing accurate data) would be produced prior to INCA/CLI going live. The actual timescale for this will be available when BT has put together its plan for the development, which will be after the final direction.

A number of operators requested a technical workshop to look in detail at this issue.

New Action #M1: BT to discuss the issue of an industry technical workshop on NTS INCA/CLI billing internally and let operators know if one will be held.

Tim Stephens asked if BT had given any more thought to the issue of operators formally rejecting CLI based NTS pricing. Colin Annette said that there was no contractual difference between NCD and CLI pricing and that BT’s policy currently allowed operators to reject the pricing (ie. if operators wrote to BT rejecting CLI pricing, BT would continue to interaccount on the last set of agreed rates).

Mike Ankin said BT would take away the action of developing an OCCN process which would allow individual operators to reject CLI based rates.

New Action: #M2: BT to come up with proposals / standard paper work to enable operators who use INCA / CLI pricing to reject / accept rates on an operator by operator basis.

Agenda item (5): Kingston Communications proposal for NTS origination

Huw Saunders outlined Kingston’s proposal for recovering higher origination charges within the Hull area. Huw said that a precedent had been established in that Kingston was allowed to recover a higher pay phone access charge.

Huw asked for feedback from terminating operators. Huw said Kingston intended to write out to all terminating operators and ask if they wish their services to remain open in the Hull area. If they do, they would require to have some mechanism for paying Kingston’s higher origination charges. Huw said Kingston had now incorporated this charging structure within their RIO and at least one operator had agreed to the clause retrospectively.

Colin Scott asked how Kingston’s network access obligations sat with Kingston’s intention to close access to number translation services hosted by operators who hadn’t agreed to this arrangement? Huw said Kingston only had to open access on reasonable request and that they believed that this request was reasonable.

Mike Barford asked what response Kingston had from BT on a twix only transit offering. Colin Annette said that BT already had a twix only transit offering, but operators would need to conclude their own bi-lateral agreements to use this.

Colin Scott asked if Kingston expected operators to agree to this retrospectively? Huw said that was a matter for negotiation. Colin asked how Kingston’s headline retail pricing and discounts compared with BT (ie. If discounts were lower or headline rates higher, Kingston’s retention was already greater then BT’s). Huw said Kingston’s retail and wholesale pricing was available to all at http://www.kcom.com/

Ofcom said they didn’t wish to comment on the issue at this stage.

Agenda item (5): PRS 1.50ppm and above

Colin Scott raised the issue of introducing PRS services above the current £1.50ppm threshold. Colin said that a number of operators at the last FG had indicated their support for the introduction of services up to £2ppm. Colin said that the best way forward was to issue a joint SoR and interested operators should contact him. THUS were contacting ICSTIS to seek their view on the topic. Karen Wray said that ICSTIS had already said that they wouldn’t support an increase in the pricing ladder at this stage. Colin agreed to raise the subject later in the year following the resolution of the current rogue dialler issue.

Caroline Wallace asked what services operators envisaged putting on these new chargebands. Operators indicated that similar services to those hosted on £1.50 were likely to move onto the new price points.

Agenda item (7): Review of Outstanding Actions

#K/2:	All operators to provide feedback to Dave Simpson on questions 1 -3 below relating to the application of the ‘squirreling’ option for distributing the minimum call fee: 1) What interest arrangements should cover the over-recovered amount prior to it being distributed to operators? 2) What was an appropriate trigger level amount for the money to be distributed to operators? 3) What date should this new arrangement commence from?
	Carried Forward: Dave said Becky Hewlett (Energis) had agreed to take over this issue. All interested operators should contact Becky.
#L/1	Clive Hillier to publish the ToR for the technical part of the framework re-examination.
	Closed – Clive circulated this following the last FG.
#L/2	Mike Ankin to explain how number portability issues/pricing will be handled following the release of NCCN 500.
	Carried Forward – Mike said he hoped to have an answer to the question shortly.

Agenda item (8) – Any Other Business

Dave Simpson asked BT if they had considered the issue of NTS in the context of Next Generation Networks. Colin Annette said NGN wasn’t product specific and that BT was considering a wide range of issues on NGN (producing a number of high level slide packs). BT were planning to ramp up industry engagement in the NGN process. Any one interested in the issues should speak to Colin Annette.

• Date of Next Meeting : Thursday 26th August– 2pm Ofcom – Riverside House, London

Other meeting Dates for 2004:

• Thursday 7th October • Thursday 18th November

Summary of New and Outstanding Actions:

#K/2:	All operators to provide feedback to Becky Hewlett on questions 1 -3 below relating to the application of the ‘squirreling’ option for distributing the minimum call fee: 4) What interest arrangements should cover the over-recovered amount prior to it being distributed to operators? 5) What was an appropriate trigger level amount for the money to be distributed to operators? 6) What date should this new arrangement commence from?
#L/2	Mike Ankin to explain how number portability issues/pricing will be handled following the release of NCCN 500.
#M1	BT to discuss the issue of an industry technical workshop on NTS INCA/CLI billing internally and let operators know if one will be held.
#M2	BT to come up with proposals / standard paper work to enable operators who using INCA / CLI pricing to reject / accept rates on an operator by operator basis.