http://www.ofcom.org.uk/telecoms/groups/nts_focus/notes/nts8dec05

Meeting Notes & Actions
Agenda item (1) - Introductions
Attendance:
Andrew Wileman
Telewest (Chair)

Marcus Rudkin
Band-X

Durmuid Jennings
Reality Telecom

Gareth Davies
Ofcom

Geoff Brighton
Ofcom

Clive Hillier
Ofcom

Harry Broomhall
Easynet

Anne McCardle
MCI

Andy Martin
IV Response

Ray Copeland
Opera Telecom

Will Goodall
Flextel

Colin Scott
Thus

Becky Hewlett
Cable & Wireless

Nancy Saunders
Kingston

Rob Day
BT

Alex Cheetham
BT

Kath Embleton
BT

Paul Bonafin
IV Response

Martin Pagnamenta
Gamma Telecom

Debbie Mulloy
NTL

Mike Barford
Tiscali


Agenda (2): Update/discussion on the current live NTS/PRS related consultations (Ofcom/All)
Geoff Brighton said that Ofcom had nothing to add to the consultation documents already published, but was happy to take any questions/clarify additional points.

NTS: A Way Forward
The deadline for responses to the consultation was 6 th December 2005 . Clive Hillier said that Ofcom had received approximately 1300 responses, most of which were from consumers. In particular, there was a notable volume of submissions using a downloadable template from the ‘saynoto0870’ website.

Of the remaining responses, around 100 were received from industry stakeholders (including ICSTIS), and business users . Approximately 100 of the responses were confidential (or included confidential annexes). Ofcom hoped to have published all outstanding responses on its website within a week. Geoff Brighton added that while the consultation was closed Ofcom would not ignore further representations made to it in the time before it has reached its final decision.

Andrew Wileman sought clarity on Ofcom’s timeline for decision making/publication of the final statement. Gareth Davies said that Ofcom would confirm a proposed date in due course, but the current intention was to publish a final statement in March 2006. Nancy Cox asked if the proposed 12 month interim period for 0870 would still commence from the date of publication of the final statement. Gareth said that since a final outcome to the consultation had not been decided upon, Ofcom could not fetter its discretion at this stage. Gareth added that the General Condition 14 consultation would be co-ordinated with the ‘Way Forward’ consultation as far as was possible. However, in the event that either of these consultations contained detail that anticipated the outcome of the other, it may be necessary to delay publication in order to coincide their release.

Andrew Wileman requested that pre-release embargoed copies of the consultation be made available to NTS Focus Group members in advance of any general release. Gareth Davies agreed to consider this request but noted that Ofcom had not agreed to such requests in the past.

Ofcom was asked how much influence it ascribed to short, ‘one-line’ consultation responses. Gareth said that all responses are regarded as valid and judged on their own merits. Nancy Cox asked how Ofcom would decide how representative the consumer responses are?. Gareth said that such a measure could be established from the results of the consumer research.

William Goodall presented Flextel’s perspective of the consultation to the group. William said that Flextel regarded the NTS problems as being entrenched in a lack of consumer understanding/confidence in call tariffs. He believed that the issues could be resolved by improving pricing transparency rather than introducing what Flextel perceived to be additional, unnecessary micro-regulation. William said that this could be achieved via the implementation of real time call pricing information.

Durmuid Jennings added that the problem was not limited to 0870 – price transparency was a far wider issue.

To reinforce Flextel’s theory of low levels of consumer confidence in pricing information, William presented an example of 118 pricing. This showed a broad variance by 118 code and demonstrated the fact that callers could be charged vastly different prices for what were in many cases comparable services. William then presented an example of a selection of NTS calls made from various mobile networks and the differing charges that would prevail depending on the network used. William said that Flextel had concluded that in general, consumers do not know what they are paying for telecom services. Durmuid Jennings/Andy Martin concurred with Felxtel’s thinking.

Flextel’s response to the NTS: A Way Forward consultation proposes that a mandatory ‘price labelling’ mechanism be implemented by OCPs and identifies three potential solutions. One of these would enable callers to obtain, free of charge, real time call pricing information via a ubiquitous 1XX code

William added that if callers knew the cost of calls in advance they would have no cause for complaint.

...

...

Debbie Mulloy said that she was not convinced that pre-call announcements were the answer to the problem. Debbie added that she did not think that callers were as sensitive to call pricing as Flextel believed and expressed concern at the potential costs of such a solution.

Nancy Cox said that any loss of consumer confidence in telecom tariffing could have been triggered by the complexity of mobile tariffs and that this could possibly have caused fixed line tariffs to come under greater scrutiny. Nancy added that pricing levels must be of concern to at least some consumers, otherwise the NTS problems would not have materialised in the way that they have. She added that she liked certain elements of the Flextel proposal, but the cost of providing announcements was also a significant concern.

It was suggested that any price labelling solution would have difficulty distinguishing between different originators. William said that each individual OCP should provide information about its own tariff to its own customer base exclusively. The intention was for the solution to be handled independently by each CP.

Colin Scott said that he saw merit in certain elements of the concept tabled by Flextel. However calling plans, discounts and inclusive call minutes could complicate the solution.

Alex Cheetham said that the myriad of pricing available to consumers was a feature of a competitive market.

William noted that the BT ‘call my bill’ feature was still available. Nancy Cox said that Kingston offered a similar service but usage was insignificant.

Gareth Davies said that price awareness was not the only issue, but Flextel’s proposal would be afforded due consideration by Ofcom. Gareth encouraged additional input from communications providers about the cost of pre-announcement solutions of the types identified by Flextel and re-iterated the fact that it was not too late to input on this subject.

Attendees debated the question of how/if to progress discussions. It was suggested that the NTS Focus Group was not necessarily the most appropriate forum under which to debate the general concept of price awareness. However, Focus Group members were encouraged to consider the issue (and the benefits/downsides of the Flextel proposal) in order that a further discussion could take place at the next meeting.

Findings of additional research studies
See above.

Modifications to GC 14 for NTS & PRS
Geoff Brighton said that there had been a smaller response to the General Condition 14 consultation. Around 150 submissions had been made to Ofcom, with consumers again in the majority. Alex Cheetham asked if there had been any response from Mobile CPs. Geoff Brighton said that he did not believe so. [NB: a response from the Mobile Broadband Group representing all 6 mobile CPs was received shortly after the meeting.]

Agenda item (3): Update on the NTS market review/NCCN 500 investigation (Ofcom)
Gareth Davies said that the NCCN 500 investigation had been delayed as a result of BT issuing NCCN 651. Ofcom was considering the implications of the new NCCN in the context of its ongoing investigation and had asked BT for additional information.

Mike Barford made the point that NCCN 651 did not reverse NCCN 500, nor did it undo the past effects – it simply reverted the BT terminating charging to its original form, on a forward looking basis.

Debbie Mulloy asked why NCCN 651 should cause a delay and queried why Ofcom’s consideration of the effects of NCCN 500 would be impacted by the new NCCN. Gareth said that it was relevant to the assessment: The impact on competition of NCCN 500 is an important consideration and the fact that the price has reverted to its original form is a pertinent factor in this. Ofcom needed to take into account both past and future bearing on competition.

Gareth said he anticipated that a recommendation would be made to the Ofcom board at the end of January 2006 in respect of what action to take.

Agenda Item (4) – Ofcom’s impending review of Numbering Policy (Ofcom).
Ofcom confirmed that the Numbering Policy Review remained as outlined at the previous focus group meeting. The consultation document was still earmarked for publication in January 2006, with a statement following in June. The linkage to the current NTS initiatives would be maintained as far as was practical.

Andrew Wileman asked if the NTS: A Way Forward consultation could impact on the timing of the Numbering Policy initiative (or vice-versa). Gareth Davies said that any linkage or interdependencies would have to be taken into account.

Andrew requested that Nic Green & Liz Greenburg be invited back to present to the NTS Focus Group once the consultation document had been published.

...

...

Agenda Item (5) – INCA/CLI Update
Rob Day confirmed that the INCA/CLI billing upgrade had been implemented successfully and was being used in the live environment from 1 st December 2005.

William Goodall said that Flextel had refused to sign BT’s OCCN while future arrangements for the NTS regime were unclear. Geoff Brighton said that CPs effectively had no choice but to accept the OCCN – application of the new functionality had been made compulsory by an Ofcom direction.

The group discussed the implications for the new charging regime should Ofcom’s 0870 proposals be implemented. BT was asked to confirm what impact the effective removal of 0870 from the NTS regime would have on INCA/CLI billing.

New Action X1: BT to provide an indication of the impact of Ofcom’s proposed 0870 reforms on the INCA/CLI billing regime.

Harry Broomhall expressed concern around CLI being increasingly easy to corrupt and the corresponding fraud implications. A CLI could, for example, be changed from a BT allocated number to a non-BT allocated number. Colin Scott said that he did not think it was a significant issue. Transit calls will always be identifiable by BT, regardless of the CLI, so there was no issue from this perspective. Harry said that the CLI could also be altered in order to achieve a higher termination payment (e.g. from DTL to ST). Mike Barford said that there was probably a question of materiality – given the (relatively) small delta between charge bands and the effort required to alter the CLI, there was probably little incentive to carry out such practices.

Colin Scott asked what would happen if a CP was unable to invoice BT using the new methodology. Kath Embleton said that BT would probably invoke the standard billing dispute procedures. Kath said that on a related note, many CPs had not signed the INCA/ CLI OCCNs and BT was discussing the situation with Ofcom.

Debbie Mulloy said that there had been some issues with the DEDS server, particularly in respect of how information is posted by BT. Kath Embleton said that the DEDS helpline should be able to deal with such queries.

Agenda Item (6) – Review of remaining outstanding actions
Action #T/1 – Mike Barford to establish an NTS FG working group with the aim of resolving the NGNP issue.

Mike said that the issue had been impacted by the issuing of NCCN 651. The charging differential affecting ported calls would still exist, but would be slightly lower in some cases due to the reduction in BT terminating rates. Mike said that the materiality would need to be considered. Action to remain ongoing.

Action #W1: All FG members to consider if the rates in the CPL should be applied only from the date the letter was signed, not the effective date on the letter (as is current practice).

Alex Cheetham said that nobody had expressed a preference to BT. Some debate followed amongst the group, but no consensus was reached. The issue was to be added to the agenda for the next Focus Group meeting and the chair asked everyone to make sure they were prepared to debate this topic.

Agenda item (7) – Any Other Business
Andrew Wileman thanked Colin Scott for his chairmanship of the NTS Focus Group. Andrew said that he did not intend to change the format or operation of the group, but was happy to discuss this, or revisit the terms of reference if anyone wished to do so.

Date of Next Meeting:

Wednesday 18th January– 2.00pm Ofcom – Riverside House, London

Summary of New and Outstanding Actions:

# T/1:
Mike Barford to establish an NTS FG working group with the aim of resolving the NGNP issue – ongoing.

# W/1:
All FG members to consider if the rates in the CPL should be applied only from the date the letter was signed, not the effective date on the letter (as is current practice) – ongoing

#X1:
BT to provide an indication of the impact of Ofcom’s proposed 0870 reforms on the INCA/CLI billing regime.


end