how do ofcom take considerations on policy?

If I am not mistaken ofcom is setup to only accept input either from government or service providers, the general public have access to the website in that they follow a wizard which tries hard to discourage them from filling in a form and even then you can only fill it in for a complaint (not to provide feedback on regulation) and also limited to 1500 characters meaning no comment can be detailed.

am I missing something? is ofcom really setup to not have the public contribute to policy.

I am aware of postal and phone submission I am talking about online electronic submission.

Edited by Chrysalis (Thu 17-Jan-13 12:38:24)

In my experience the best way is to speak with people who work with Ofcom, get their more informed point of view and offer your own where you've something to add.

Their submissions as direct stakeholders carry way more impact than a random member of the public. Those of us who don't work in such things really don't have much idea what we're talking about as far as regulatory environments go and can only offer generally uneducated opinions.

Are you thinking of commenting on the issues Dido Harding has mentioned?

Actually while I'm thinking about it Ofcom solicit opinions via consultations. If you want to comment on policy it might be worth speaking with your MP. Politicians write the laws Ofcom's decisions implement.

Edited by deleted (Thu 17-Jan-13 13:02:05)

ok thanks.

the comments by Dido Harding actually were part of it yes, it was a more detailed input but the reducing costs of wholesale was part of which I was objecting to with reasons why.

there was other inputs as well related to min length of contract from openreach and their lack of obligation to loss of performance over the duration of a contract. eg. someone could have estimated speeds of over 60mbit, a day 1 sync of 80mbit and 2 months later be on 20mbit and would not be able to do anything about is as thats within the spervice spec sold by openreach and now under a long contract as well, the MSR been removed in FTTC services.

Edited by Chrysalis (Thu 17-Jan-13 13:43:46)

am I missing something?

Yes. Their consultations are open to anyone.

http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/consultations/how-w...

the MSR been removed in FTTC services

there is a criteria for speed reduction from the initial trained rate to be a fault.....

"What if I need to raise a fault on an 80/20 line?
We are changing the test thresholds within our GEA service test that we use to accept faults. From 19th March 2012 there will be no need to wait until your line speed has dropped below a specific fault threshold rate. Openreach provides a full fault diagnostic process that picks up the major causes of speed issues. Any found on an end user�s line will be picked up by our test systems and we�ll accept a fault for investigation. For further details see Section 3.9 of the GEA over FTTC product description."

found it....

For services initially synching up at 15 Mbit/s or above, if the service falls below 15 Mbit/s at any other time then a fault may be reported to BTW which will be investigated. Additionally,if the line rate drops by more than 25% over a 14 day continuous period then a fault can be reported to BTW.

For services initially synching at downstream speeds below 15 Mbit/s but above 5 Mbit/s, if
the service falls below 5 Mbit/s at any other time a fault may be reported to BTW which will
be investigated

I still want to consult with them, it seems from the options given to me I need to wait for the next consultation whenever that may be.

thank you for those quotes tho as there was a couple of things I wasnt previously aware off.

http://www.ofcom.org.uk/contact-us/ you could write to them

Consultations are the best way to influence policy, or making an input when they do a review of a market sector etc.

You have time to respond to their proposed Work plan, for example, at https://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/consultations/draf...

In reply to a post by Chrysalis:

it was a more detailed input but the reducing costs of wholesale was part of which I was objecting to with reasons why.

there was other inputs as well related to min length of contract from openreach and their lack of obligation to loss of performance over the duration of a contract. eg. someone could have estimated speeds of over 60mbit, a day 1 sync of 80mbit and 2 months later be on 20mbit and would not be able to do anything about is as thats within the spervice spec sold by openreach and now under a long contract as well, the MSR been removed in FTTC services.

This would purely be cathartic for you, you won't get anywhere especially on the wholesale costs. Those are following Ofcom directions and the time for consultancy is long gone.

Contractual periods likewise conform to Ofcom's rules and regulations, the MSR issue has been discussed elsewhere.

In reply to a post by yarwell:

For services initially synching up at 15 Mbit/s or above, if the service falls below 15 Mbit/s at any other time then a fault may be reported to BTW which will be investigated. Additionally,if the line rate drops by more than 25% over a 14 day continuous period then a fault can be reported to BTW.

For services initially synching at downstream speeds below 15 Mbit/s but above 5 Mbit/s, if
the service falls below 5 Mbit/s at any other time a fault may be reported to BTW which will
be investigated

That appears to be a BT Wholesale limit.

And I suspect the wording, particularly "over".

Grammatically that means it can drop by 20% between the start and end of each of two or even more consecutive 14-day periods. (Whether that be by 40% or 36% of the original doesn't matter for the point I am making). So giving a huge drop from the original.

Whereas the wording "for a 14-day continuous period", which in everyday-speak is synonymous with the above, grammatically has a completely different meaning, which in my opinion will be what the writer intended. Writing spoken English is a road to disaster in terms of clarity of meaning.

it is indeed a Wholesale limit.

Do you have the Openreach one ? it's similar IIRC.

My issue is with ofcom's regulations themselves. I am not reporting breach's of regulation but rather want to be discussing the regulation itself with them.

The contractual length has many MP's attention already, its been seen as a barrier to takeup.

I thought the OR latest was what you quoted earlier? There is or was one around with specific figures but I assumed that one replaced it.

I quote a BTW document, while I expect it reflects Openreach I don't know that for a fact.

In reply to a post by Chrysalis:

My issue is with ofcom's regulations themselves. I am not reporting breach's of regulation but rather want to be discussing the regulation itself with them.

The contractual length has many MP's attention already, its been seen as a barrier to takeup.

That's because it is a barrier for many,and why take up of their FTTC in a lot of areas is low, non existant even
Then you have the lack of options available re your comments regarding loss of performance Isp's have no real control of the connection that they sell,
But anything over 12mths should be banned in my book, I always thought that longer contracts where only allowed for buisnesses , and for the domestic comsumers it was 12mths min term max ?
Open reach are inststant on a 12mth min term, but for some this doesn't appeal because it's entering unknown teritory , domestic customers should be given a trial period of a month, if FTTC doesn't work on their line properly they should be able to leave penalty free, or openreach should be duty bound to fix it where possbile( where economically viable)
One big problem with ofcom, is they are, pretty much all bark and no bite, and thus just another quango

Edited by tommy45 (Sat 19-Jan-13 13:19:36)

Would an upfront £150-200 fee be more acceptable than a minimum contract length ?

In reply to a post by Chrysalis:

My issue is with ofcom's regulations themselves. I am not reporting breach's of regulation but rather want to be discussing the regulation itself with them.

You need to discuss this with parliament, not Ofcom.

In reply to a post by yarwell:

Would an upfront £150-200 fee be more acceptable than a minimum contract length ?

I agree with this point. The type of submissions the OP wishes to make really need to be thought about quite carefully. Regulation can't ignore economics. There is a trade off, I would anticipate, between a higher installation fee and a shorter minimum contract period, to achieve the same financial return. So is the point really that people would prefer to pay a higher initial fee, even the "full" installation cost whatever that might be - and that would encourage a greater take-up? (And ISPs might choose to retain their own minimum periods- what about LLU/"virtual" unbundling on VDSL?). So I'm not so sure about that one! BT might appreciate an earlier boost to their cash flow though.

When Ofcom set price limits they have access to a lot of financial information that is not in the public domain. We may feel quite free to tell them they should ignore all that, but shouldn't expect to get very far. Ignore it at their peril or judicial review will step in.

BTOR currently only charge isp's £96 including vat install fee which is being increased soon if not already,they also insist on a 12mths min term , infact if the ISP /SP requested both new line & fttc for no install fee as there is /was an BT offer on
The smaller isp's pass on the install fee (which i have no issue with paying) & the 12mths min term, but none are able to offer "unlimited"
Not sure about SKY &TT 's min term,
But yes for the option of a rolling monthly contract i would be prepared to pay upto £150 for the privilege

But what i do find out of order is 18/24mth min term contracts to residential customers

Edited by tommy45 (Sat 19-Jan-13 18:29:30)

I dont see the problem of simply lowering min terms without a penalty on the wires only install when its available.

aside from the barrier issue there is also the matter its a hinderence to competition which I would have thought would concern ofcom, there is little point in having competition if people cant move for 12 months without penalty.

and on the 12 months products I would expect free install, with a monthly service available with £100-150 install. (engineer install). and maybe 6 months with subsidised install maybe £50. and an engineer no show to yield a regulated full install refund to the end user to drive up standards.

actually I wouldnt really object to the install fees you quoted, but really there shouldnt be repeat install fees on migration. so £150 new install, no long term commitment, then ability to migrate free to new isp.

Edited by Chrysalis (Sat 19-Jan-13 19:45:09)

do isps have to go via parliament as well?

incidently my MP first told me go direct to ofcom, when I told her last week I cant do that she wasnt impressed and said would chase why ofcom have no direct channel available.

ISPs respond to consultations and complain to Ofcom about what they think are breaches of Ofcom's regulations and decisions.

If they don't respond to consultations they're stuffed.

Complaints about Ofcom's policies can be forwarded to the appropriate team in Ofcom. I would assume you want to speak with Next Generation Access.

To help you frame it have a look at:

http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/telecoms/p...
http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/consultati...
http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/consultati...

Do be aware that these consultations were completed and the policy statements published in March 2009 in the case of NGA and FTTC and April 2010 in the case of FTTP so the policy has been there for a while.

In reply to a post by Chrysalis:

I dont see the problem of simply lowering min terms without a penalty on the wires only install when its available.

aside from the barrier issue there is also the matter its a hinderence to competition which I would have thought would concern ofcom, there is little point in having competition if people cant move for 12 months without penalty.

and on the 12 months products I would expect free install, with a monthly service available with £100-150 install. (engineer install). and maybe 6 months with subsidised install maybe £50. and an engineer no show to yield a regulated full install refund to the end user to drive up standards.

There is nothing stopping retail operators from offering this. For instance Be offer a 3 month contract at a higher monthly price than the 12 month.

In reply to a post by Chrysalis:

actually I wouldnt really object to the install fees you quoted, but really there shouldnt be repeat install fees on migration. so £150 new install, no long term commitment, then ability to migrate free to new isp.

There's nothing stopping retail operators from offering this either. Openreach aren't going to do migrations for free when they have to be involved as the engineer doing the framing work needs to get paid. BT Wholesale charge their customers 11GBP + VAT for a migration. Trivial to incorporate this into a pricing package.

This is a far more relevant issue to be discussing with Ofcom - that BT pay themselves then pay themselves again, so BT PLC as a whole takes no risks when one part takes out a contract with another and breaks it to gain market share.

do you think they will do any new consultations on this or do they just do one and is set in stone forever until parliament intervenes?

what happens if an isp offers 3 month contract and the end user cancels? there is an underlying 12 month openreach contract, and any idea why isp's still charge full fees for migration's they just profiteering? thats not nice when they dont do the same on adsl.

regardless, if they can do it or not they not doing it. BE dont offer 3 month contracts because they dont sell vdsl. They sell adsl.

Edited by Chrysalis (Sat 19-Jan-13 21:59:44)

Sorry Chrysalis but I think this whole thread is based on false premises, with yarwell, smurf and IgnitionNet the only ones talking sense.

It has long been the case that some ISPs have implemented OfCom's recommendations wrt the customer terminating the contract within the minimum term.

For example I am on an 18-month minimum term contract with Plusnet. My monthly charge is £19.99. if I decided to migrate out I would have to pay £5.75 per outstanding month.

With any ISP playing fair like that, and given that only a small minority are likely to want early termination, then yes I agree with the sentiment expressed throughout the thread that a much lower one-off initial charge calculated from that sort of figure is both feasible and desirable.

For example O2 LLU is a 12-month term, but an upfront payment of £30 makes it simple monthly at no increased monthly fee. Any ISP is able to do similarly on FTTC.

Once sufficient people are aware of this then voting with wallets comes into play. There is nothing wrong with contractual minimum terms as such, but caveat emptor applies. Buyers have to choose their supplier wisely, and ISPs who screw their customers in this particular regard would soon change their tune.

BT in particular have such a system for phone contracts, but the last I heard not for broadband.

Edited by RobertoS (Sat 19-Jan-13 22:36:15)

are you saying I have misunderstood the situation and isp's do not expect install fees for FTTC migrations? when you migrated from idnet to plusnet did you pay a install fee?

Edited by Chrysalis (Sun 20-Jan-13 14:16:47)

In reply to a post by Chrysalis:

are you saying I have misunderstood the situation

Yes.

... and isp's do not expect install fees for FTTC migrations?

I am not saying that. I am saying it is up to them what they do about the £50+vat that Openreach charge the gaining ISP for an FTTC migration and what they do about 12-month contracts and release from them.

when you migrated from idnet to plusnet did you pay a install fee?

As it happens, no. But I should have done. There was a mixup.

isp's do not expect install fees for FTTC migrations

Are we talking about migrations between FTTC ISPs, or switching from ADSL to FTTC (which isn't "migration" in the true sense of the word at all).

so I misunderstood the situation but you should have paid the fee, that means I have not misunderstood it.

can an isp freely eg. charge nothing for migration have a monthly contract with no penalty and make profit in the process whilst charging the same as what plusnet do eg. on 18 month contracts.

between FTTC isp's.

In reply to a post by Chrysalis:

so I misunderstood the situation but you should have paid the fee, that means I have not misunderstood it.

?
You almost seem to be wilfully trying to misunderstand things that are posted, not just by me!

Let's just re-run the exchange.

So far as I can see, you replied to a post of mine with two questions that had nothing whatsoever to do with what I had posted earlier. Let's leave that aside, I did my best to answer the questions.

To wit "are you saying I have misunderstood the situation and isp's do not expect install fees for FTTC migrations? when you migrated from idnet to plusnet did you pay a install fee?"

To the "are you saying I have misunderstood the situation" I replied "Yes".

To "and isp's do not expect install fees for FTTC migrations?" I replied that I was not saying that. Surely that means I believe ISPs do expect to charge install fees for FTTC migrations? Or have I completely lost my control of the English language?

I then clarified it by in effect saying ISPs can charge the end user anything they darn well like, with any contractual terms they like, in order to recoup their costs - in particular Openreach migration and other charges.

Their only problem is drawing up a business plan that succeeds in pulling in the punters and continuing to make a profit.

Then we come to "when you migrated from idnet to plusnet did you pay a install fee?" How on earth you construe my answer to that to mean that ISPs do not expect to charge install fees for FTTC migrations is completely baffling and beyond me. The fact that I was involved in a mixup and the charge was waived in my case does not in any way run counter to my reply that they do expect so to do.

can an isp freely eg. charge nothing for migration have a monthly contract with no penalty and make profit in the process whilst charging the same as what plusnet do eg. on 18 month contracts.

How the heck do you expect me to know that? I don't have access to any ISP's business plans, marketing strategy planning, or detailed accounts. What's the purpose of the question?

Openreach charge the equivalent of £60 inc VAT
CP-CP GEA Migration - same product/premise 01/07/2009 50.00

haven't researched the ISP offers as no FTTC here. If an ISP made a fiver a month profit on a connection then it would take >10 months to get into profit if they swallowed the migration charge.

lets just drop it, dont want people pulling hairs out over this.

just an update not to further debate the merits of what I asked.

since ofcom are doing a consultation right now on contracts (but on price increases mid contract), I filled in the form for that and put my thoughts I wanted to raise on the contract length in the other notes box on that form.

Also seems I am not the only one to notice the anti competitiveness of this.

revk's blog has some info on it here.

http://revk.www.me.uk/2012/12/a-new-con-from-bt.html