Topic: Regulatory

The House of Lords Science and Technology Committee has announced that it will carry out a follow-up inquiry to it's infamous Personal Internet Security report.

It seems that most of it's recommendations were rejected by the government last August when it claimed the internet was like the "Wild West". Some of the suggestions which were rejected including calls for increased resources for police to deal with internet-based crime like identity theft and a reversal of the requirement that victims of online card fraud report the crime to their banks rather than the police.

Chair of the Committee, Lord Sutherland said: "The Committee was disappointed with the government's response to its report. We felt they had failed to address some of our key concerns about people's security on the internet."

It has written to those who originally gave evidence to its initial inquiry to ask them for their views on the government's response and plans to publish a short follow-up report early in the summer.

TalkTalk has complained about a number of Virgin Media adverts which it has shown in the press recently.

One of the Virgin ads which they took exception with was one titled "Truth, Lies and Broadband"

TalkTalk took the matter to the Advertising Standards Authority, but they ruled against them stating that the advert didn't mean to imply that other broadband companies deceitful.

A Downing Street petition has received over 10,000 signatures from small businesses and consumers asking ISPs to advertise a standard rate for broadband subscriptions rather than an estimated maximum rate.

Many of the small firms named in the petition have complained that they are paying for misleading advertised speeds they do not receive.

Ofcom’s Consumer Panel recently recommended introducing a code of practice for ISPs selling broadband to business to solve these issues. It has been suggested that the code should require ISPs to explain any conditions which may reduce speeds and allow companies a longer “cooling off� period to trial the service, Ofcom of course has rejected the calls.
Ian Fogg from Jupiter Research says that even the cooling off period would not be of benefit to small businesses anyway.

To solve this problem Fogg has suggested that ISPs should be forced to make minimum investments in their broadband networks as the number of customers rise, although this may also get the cold shoulder from Ofcom.

Ofcom is to clamp down on 'hidden' charges which are being passed on to customers by ISPs.

The industry watchdog said that it had recorded a surge in complaints from customers who were angry about extra hidden charges for services such as non-direct-debit payment and premium-rate technical helplines.

For example last June Virgin Media switched its broadband technical helpline to a premium-rate number charging 25p a minute. The justification for this was that it claimed that this was necessary to deter customers from calling about non-broadband issues, but the move penalised those with legitimate problems.
Other examples are Orange who charge an administration fee of £3.50 a month for not paying by direct debit,  while Virgin Media charges £5 a month and BT has a fee of £4.50 per quarter.

As the broadband market in the UK is so competitive with margins constantly being slashed, and more competitive bundles trying to attract customers it's not surprising that companies try to use 'stealth charges'. Hopefully Ofcom can bring these to the attention of customers before they find out of the charges the hard way.

Ofcom boss, Ed Richards, said in a letter to the panel that although he would promise to implement a number of their suggestions, he wasn't going to introduce and penalties for providing poor speeds.

Ofcom has been called on to take action over the concerns of customers on broadband connection speeds.

The Ofcom Consumer Panel has said that a code of practice needs to be put in place so customers can get reliable information on broadband speeds as well as the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) looking at the was these speeds are advertised. In reality the latter point is starting to be addressed, as the ASA seems to take a tough line on providers who promise speeds and conditions which they cannot provide.

The panel has said that customers should be able to walk out of contracts if speeds are a lot lower than they were promised, although this could be a consumer minefield as many different conditions can affect broadband speeds. Even so the panel said that ISPs should provide clear information on what can affect speeds, and inform customers of the actual speed after installation,

One point is that the panel doesn't actually have any power to enforce changes and was set up to advise the communications watchdog about issues affecting consumers.

Ofcom plans to fine BT if it fails to provide or repair broadband services in a timely manner.

Although the regulator admits that BT had made "good progress" there was still room for further improvement. ISP's have complained that Openreach fails badly when it comes to repairing faults on broadband lines.
Under the new proposals failure to reach performance targets will mean proactive fines on the telco, with the money being paid to ISPs. As there is no upper limit to the fines it's hoped that problems will be sorted rather than BT paying up and forgetting the problem.

What could be of interest to customers with speed problems is the suggestion that Openreach will have to "pay out every time service or quality falls below the contractual threshold instead of paying out against performance stated as an average over time."  so a line with varying performance won't be classed on it's average speed, which could hide the problem.

In her speech in London, EU Telecoms Commissioner Viviane Reding said that failure by regulators had left 10 per cent of EU citizens still without broadband access.

She did however say that the UK (and Ofcom) were well placed to deal with the EU’s proposals in terms of competition and broadband availability, but were still a way behind EU leader Denmark which has 37.2 per cent broadband penetration compared to 23.8 per cent in the UK.

She also criticised the industry regulators for not being partial, and too close to the firms they are meant to be regulating.

She also set out her ideas for a EU wide broadband policy, with ideas such as:_

• Broadband customers to be able to switch between suppliers cheaply, and on the same dayy
• A broadband service for all, regardless of local geography
• Greater unbundling of local telephone exchanges to allow more providers to enter the market
• An end to national protection of the incumbent telecoms provider to allow firms from other EU states to compete “on a level playing fieldâ€�
• Clear service standards and penalties for telecoms firms that fail to provide a reasonable service

It's a bit unclear if these are just her 'wish list' or there will be moves to try to implement these across European telcos.

Almost half of all broadband users are being ripped off by service providers according to a survey by The Money Supermarket.

The phrase 'up to' has been a source of great controversy over the last few months with potential broadband speeds rising ever higher and higher, but for most users these are just a dream. The problem is that advertisers still feature the maximum speed in their advertisements.

The survey reveals 44 per cent actually get the half of the speed that they signed up for or less, and have called on regulator, Ofcom, to try to make adverts realistic. It has already made ISP's include the 'up to' phrase in advertisements, but there seems a need to make things more obvious.

Ofcom though say that they are in discussions with six broadband providers are "already looking closely at this issue" and say that they also have "expressed our concern to the Advertising Standards Authority and we're talking to the industry".

Prodigy Internet has been fined a whopping £30k for not providing complaint information regarding it's implementation Ofcom's broadband migration policy.

Ofcom fined the ISP under section 135 of the Communications Act 2003 for failing to comply with GC22, which relates to the issue of Migration Authorisation Code's (MAC), which customers need to be able to switch provider without disruption of service. Failure to provide a customer with a MAC code within five days is considered a breach of the code.

Is this a case of Ofcom finally starting to show it's teeth? Hopefully so.