Mae'r cynnwys hwn ar gael yn Saesneg yn unig.

Ofcom own-initiative review of the level of donor conveyance charges (DCCs)

14 Chwefror 2014

Case: Ofcom own-initiative review of the level of donor conveyance charges (DCCs)
Case Opened: 14 October 2013
Case Closed: 14 February 2014
Issue: Whether Ofcom should set a maximum DCC on an ex ante, industry wide basis.
Relevant Instrument: General Condition 18.5 ('GC18.5') concerning charges for portability.

Ofcom has today published its statement and direction concluding on its own-initiative review of the level of donor conveyance charges (DCCs). A non-confidential version is available under related items.

Update note – 06 December 2013

On 06 December, Ofcom published its consultation concerning this own-initiative review (please see related item).

The period for comments on the consultation will close at 5 pm on 14 January 2014. Please send responses to:

Gala Poole
Ofcom
Riverside House
2A Southwark Bridge Road
London
SE1 9HA

Or by e-mail to gala.poole@ofcom.org.uk

End of update note

Under GC 18.5, communications providers (CPs) must provide portability on reasonable terms and any charges for the provision of portability must be cost oriented and based on the incremental costs of providing portability unless the donor provider and the recipient provider have agreed another basis for charges, or Ofcom has directed that another basis for charges should be used. In the case of mobile portability, the donor provider typically charges a DCC to the recipient provider for the conveyance of calls to numbers that have been ported by the donor provider to the recipient provider’s network.

Ofcom has the power to adopt a measure setting a maximum DCC on an ex ante, industry-wide basis, based on the costs of an average efficient operator.[1] On 14 October 2013, we opened a review to assess whether it is appropriate to set a maximum DCC on a forward-looking basis, and if so at what level.

Case Leader: Gala Poole (email: gala.poole@ofcom.org.uk)
Case Reference: CW/01113/10/13

Footnotes:
1.- See Case C438/04 Mobistar