BT's response to Ofcom's consultation regarding Number Portability and Technology Neutrality

BT's response to Ofcom's consultation regarding Number Portability and Technology Neutrality

Issued December 22, 2005

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

ES1. Ofcom wishes to extend Geographic Number Portability (GNP) to all services that use Geographic Numbers, and which provide the required level of functionality for a voice telephone service compliant with PATS. BT supports this objective and wishes to work with all stakeholders to achieve it as soon as it is practicable, in the best interests of customers, and citizen/consumers. 

ES2. BT shares many of the same views as Ofcom regarding technological neutrality in regulation and inter-platform competition. There is now clear tangible evidence that mobile operators are competing for fixed calls. BT trusts that Ofcom will recognise this, and that end customers do substitute between fixed and mobile services, and vice versa, indicating that a single market for voice services is very clearly close at hand in the UK.

ES3. It is worth noting that at this time, outside of major consolidation, most of the industry's efforts and investment are focussed on Next Generation Networks (NGNs).  Amongst other things, these are being predominantly designed to support technology neutrality, and it will only be once these new platforms are fully operational that the Ofcom and BT shared direction will be realisable.  In the meantime, the further development of systems to properly support the proposed changes on legacy networks is neither trivial nor cost effective, if indeed it could be done at all.

ES4. Nonetheless, BT believes that further flexibility can be introduced into the current regime.  This will facilitate the already apparent need to support inter-platform portability, without the disadvantages of losing all of the clear benefits of the Functional Specification (FS) (see page 14 et seq). This can be achieved through a formal review of the FS as the market and technology continue to evolve.  A further benefit is that this would support any future transition from an onward routing solution to a database solution for Number Portability. In our view downgrading the FS would be likely to lead to micro-regulation through dispute and significantly reduced clarity for the end user. At this time, at best this risks overburdening the industry with a complex need for bilateral negotiation which is better avoided, while at worst it could significantly delay the very benefits which this consultation seeks to encourage.

ES5. Taking this Ofcom consultation as implied support for such a move, it would be our intention to explore with Vodafone, as the initial driver for this capability, ways in which the existing rules can be interpreted to support those requirements without losing the current benefits of stability.  Any such opportunities would be discussed with industry fora and would be expected to be available to any other service providers with analogous Number Portability requirements. Such discussions would be firmly founded on:

a) Ofcom's proposals that customers only pay the geographic rate when calling a ported geographic number;
b) Service providers would only raise a fixed geographic termination rate on any calls to a ported geographic number;
c) If a customer wishes to subsequently port, and the number has moved out of the exchange area, then the Service Providers responsible for permitting and/or triggering the move out of area would pay all initial and ongoing costs additionally arising as a result of this;

It may be necessary to consider some changes to the wording of various elements of the current regulation to remove any ambiguity in this regard.

ES6. In our view the FS is the mechanism which, while providing stability is also the platform from which the desired change can best be delivered. Therefore we have a particular concern that high on Ofcom's list of proposals is one to downgrade the FS to the status of guidance only. The existence of the FS is a major benefit, in that it provides all parties with a common, agreed baseline, to ensure that, throughout the transition to NGNs, the greatest degree of interoperability will be achieved. We would re-emphasise that we believe it remains sound practice to retain an industry wide procedure rather than move to bi-lateral negotiation.

ES7. As a result, it is BT's firm belief that Ofcom should select Option 2 to await the outcome of its strategic Numbering Policy Review before making changes to the portability rules.  This is so that Ofcom can consider potential changes to the Number Portability rules more holistically, and reflect citizen/consumer and business market research findings.  It may be that Ofcom will identify a need to revisit the definitions of all number ranges based on common criteria, given the clear mis-match between what customers understand and want, and what current numbering regulation permits.  In our view, Ofcom's alternative proposals entail potentially unnecessary disadvantages to consumers including:

• the loss of the geographic nature of the UK fixed numbering scheme, which consumers have indicated they value;

• a lack of certainty as to when they could retain  their number upon moving premises or changing service provider, and could thus in effect 'lock them in' to a particular provider;

• in the short term, limitations in subsequently changing service providers which may be alleviated through a wider and more considered approach.

ES8. Furthermore, we believe that a more holistic approach could address our current concerns that this consultation is in fact not entirely technology neutral and is somewhat asymmetric in its effect whilst also addressing the need for objective justification, proportionality and transparency.

ES9. In conclusion therefore, we believe we share the same strategic direction as Ofcom. We also believe that the forthcoming Numbering Policy Review is both timely and well placed to put down a marker and develop a smooth transition path to an outcome that best meets the needs of businesses and consumers, and increases competitive options for industry participants, recognising appropriate milestones where evolution could be necessary along the way. We believe that, by putting in train the actions noted above, we have demonstrated active support for change and would expect to see similar movement elsewhere in the wider telephony market, in particular where other bottlenecks are identified.

Download response as PDF document