...

Agenda Item (2): ICSTIS update
PW and NM updated the group on ICSTIS’ 0871 work to date and the current status.

July ‘06 Pre-consultation document
April ’07 formal consultation and research by Analysys Research
700 responses. Large number associated to “Say no to 0870” campaign.
Most agree best approach is to use existing ICSTIS code but to disapply sections that are not required.
Code to come into force February 2008 to allow Ofcom to change the CPRS condition. PW stated that ICSTIS are aware of the time Ofcom require to make these changes.
PW noted that the current concerns being voiced over the ICSTIS funding levy had not been raised during either of the consultation periods.
NM supplied more detail on ICSTIS’ current thinking. He identified four key areas of the current 11 th ICSTIS code that would be addressed by employing a Statement of Application:

Network Due Diligence . This is covered under section 2.3.1 of the 11 th Code and ICSTIS propose to waive subsections 2.3.1a, 2.3.1b and 2.3.1c. The affect of not applying these provisions would be monitored over the first year. NS stated that any decision to re-introduce these provisions should only be done with reasonable notice.
Service Provider Customer Services Contact Number . NM confirmed that the requirement for a non-PRS number for complaints can be the same 0871 number as for the main service. ICSTIS will monitor this over the first twelve months.
Undue Delay . For 09 services anything over 15s can be regarded as undue delay. NM said ICSTIS would adopt a more flexible approach for 0871. End-user calls about Undue Delay would in the first instance be regarded as complaints about poor customer service by ICSTIS and redirected to the Service Provider. The consumer will define what is acceptable, not ICSTIS. If the consumer does not receive a response within 30 days then they can refer the complaint back to ICSTIS.
NM stated that if a breach were to occur ICSTIS would look at the facilities in place to deal with consumer issues, for example call queuing procedures. Any sanctions would be mitigated for those organisations with strong customer services.
Pricing . NM stated that this was key to the changes and is of particular importance in how the service was promoted.
The remainder of the code is to apply in full.

WG asked whether ICSTIS were considering pre-call announcements as a requirement. NM confirmed that they were not.

DJ asked if the 50p call cost limit applied to 0871. NM stated that it should not be relied upon as a defence in any adjudication unless the Service Provider can prove that every call cost less than 50p.

CR asked whether the regulation will apply straight away from its introduction in February. NM confirmed that it could not be retrospectively applied although full compliance would be expected as soon as possible and that it was best to start now. NS pointed out that it was already too late for phonebook entries etc.

AM enquired whether it was possible for Service Providers to complete the SP registration now. LG said there was nothing to stop them from doing this.

JL asked whether SP registration was still required and whether it was automatic. NM indicated ICSTIS were open to discussion as to how this was to be done and confirmed it was a requirement.

AM asked whether call centres required prior permission and whether video conferencing counted as a live service. NM clarified that call centres were exempt unless they were a form of entertainment. Video conferencing is also exempt provided it is a genuine business solution. A legal definition exists as to the difference between conferencing and multi-party chat.

Action Sep07_01: ICSTIS to clarify difference between conferencing and multi-party chat

WG asked when the regulation comes into effect. PW confirmed they were working to Ofcom’s timescale with implementation from 1 st February.

WG asked about the necessary changes to vehicle liveries. NM replied that where information wasn’t present they would expect an information message to the customer. He confirmed that this could be a chargeable announcement.

CR raised concerns as to how the levy calculation for 0871 had been reached. NM confirmed that it was 60% of the terminating operators’ revenue that was used as a notional outpayment. He requested that if industry thinks the number is incorrect that they come back to ICSTIS with further information. ICSTIS have looked at information available on the Internet and it is clear that there is no clear standard. CR requested on behalf of COLT that ICSTIS provide more information as to how the calculation has been derived.

Action Sep07_02: ICSTIS to provide more detail on the levy calculation

WG asked ICSTIS when, in the interests of transparent regulation, they would be publishing consultation responses on their website. WG pointed out that ICSTIS were running out of time and that operators were still unable to give their customers any information. This view was challenged by NS and LG who believe guidance is possible subject to a number of implementation issues. WG stated his astonishment at these comments.

Action Sep07_03: ICSTIS to inform Focus group when consultation responses are available on the ICSTIS website

AM asked if there was any form of regulatory forbearance if there were any surprises in the consultation.

...

...

Agenda (8): NTS POLO Offsetting
RD set out details of the August price changes in response to a C&W request and one from IV Response.

0845/70 – cf. BT pricing briefing (Ref. 02407): “ As the “Blended Rates” are calculated based on the pricing of Low User Scheme / Business non-Discounted prices, the change in BT Together pricing does not affect the “Blended Rates”.BT Together pricing can affect the discount percentages whichapply to 0845 and 0870 calls. However, as the increase in set-up fee for BT Together has been offset by the reduction in the daytime and evening rates for 0845 and 0870 calls, the discount percentage in this instance remains unchanged”.

0844/71/09 – RD confirmed BT had made an error and that new OCCN’s would be sent out as the affect of the changes on the discount rate had not been calculated. These would still apply from 1 st August and operators would see an increase in payments.

Action May07_03: Andrew Wileman to hold discussions with the chair of the Mobile Broadband Group with a view to gaining input to NTS debates from the mobile community (to include the prospect of MNO attendance at the NSTFG, or NTSFG member attendance at the Mobile Broadband Group). Ongoing.

Action Au07_06: Laurent Pariat to confirm to BT the type of information that would provide additional reassurance on the NTS POLO offsetting assertions. Discharged – see agenda item 8.

Action Au07_07: BT to provide additional detail on the NTS POLO offsetting at the next NTSFG. Discharged – see agenda item 8.

New Action Sep07_01: ICSTIS to clarify definitions of

New Action Sep07_02: ICSTIS to provide more detail on the levy calculation

New Action Sep07_03: ICSTIS to inform Focus group when consultation responses are available on the ICSTIS website

New Action Sep07_04: JH to update minutes before publication on the Ofcom website.

New Action Sep07_05: All international carriers to confirm their plans for making international access available for 0844 and 0871.

Agenda item (9) – Any Other Business
070 Pre-call announcements
WG raised concerns about the length of pre-call announcements being played on 070. He pointed out that this would have an impact were Flextel to win any future dispute over the ability to play precall announcements on 0870.

WG played announcements from BT and Orange each lasting in the region of 20 seconds.

WG reported failing fax services and medical / security devices as a result of the long call duration of the pre-call announcements and its impact on firmware. WG is concerned that this is a health and safety issue.

WG called for Ofcom to either issue a temporary stop notice and to withdraw the message until a full impact assessment had been carried out or to instruct operators to reduce pre-call announcements to no longer than 5seconds.

Other operators confirmed they had not received any similar reports. KE expressed her shock at Flextel using 070 for emergency services. WG responded that had his proposals on price labelling been adopted, then the consumer would not still be in a situation where it was unclear how much calls cost.

AP: Ofcom to update,

Date of Next Meeting:

The meeting next meeting will take place on Thursday 25 th October 2007 , commencing at 2:15pm , at Riverside House, London .

...

idb wrote on Dec 20^th, 2007 at 6:46pm:
It would seem that it's likely the biggest user of 070 personal numbers for emergency (!!!) type services is FlexTel.

Looking at their website, they actually use 070 for reporting faults and going by the fact that it states faults will be responded to within one working day would seem to indicate that the 070 is just an answering machine service of somekind.

Of course because FlexTel are a CP, then revenue share, which is generally prohibited for end-users, applies so FlexTel get to make a lot of money without, in most cases, their customers (and potential customers) being aware of it.

Basically, FlexTel get to receive possibly more revenue share from that 070 number than an 09x costing around the same amount simply because ICSTIS don't receive their cut.

Notice how FlexTel don't mention call charges to their 'faults' line!!!


Update: If anyone is interested, the initials KE are for Kath Embleton from BT.