Rod Smith NGNuk
Peter Ryde NGNuk
Andy May (CW)
Steve Best (BT Wholesale)
Gareth Davies (Ofcom)
Mark Dalziel (NGNuk)
Neil McArthur (Talk Talk)
Ed Rushton (Ofcom)
Robyn Durie ( T-Mobile)
Keith Greenfield (Orange)
Ann Francis (Colt)
Marcus Webb (Vodafone)
Andrew Heaney ( Talk Talk)
Nigel Scott ( BT Wholesale)
David Halliday (Tiscali)
Andy Rawnsley ( Gamma Telecom)
Alison Mitchell (BT Retail)
M C Chew (Sky)
Martin Whewell (Openreach)
Paul Risby (Orange)
Apologies: Huw Saunders (KCOM), Andrew Wileman (Virgin Media), Paul Beaumont (Sky)
The minutes of the previous were agreed. An update on Actions is appended at the end of these minutes
Gareth Davies and Ed Rushton, provided an update on the timing and content of the proposed Ofcom consultation
In preparing the planned consultation, Ofcom stated that much was predicated on the BT 21CN plans. As these had changed substantially over recent months, they were considering these and how they need to be addressed within the proposed consultation. Ofcom's revised plans are now to issue the Condoc before the summer break.
The Condoc will therefore seek to better understand CP views on any revised priorities and investment incentives given the BT re-plan. In addition the re-plan creates new issues, such as geographic number exhaustion, that may need to be consulted on.
The non BT members of the Exec expressed the view that as BT plans may well keep changing that Ofcom should at least articulate some high level objectives within the Condoc, since to say nothing would create a vacuum which would be problematic for CPs.
Nigel Scott of BT, Consult 21 attended the Executive to provide an update on the 21CN strategy and plan.
An update on the 21CN strategic priorities for 2009/10 briefing was issued to CPs in March 09. This seeks to acknowledge the changed global economic outlook , sets priorities for the period which are operationally simpler to deliver and recognises that BT will sustain 20C longer than previously envisaged .The plan also aims to make the programme more customer, demand and market-led.
The strategy also reflects BT's view that the future economy will be fibre-led - enabled with the successful delivery of the 21CN core infrastructure. This fibre-led future will allow BT to consider leapfrogging technologies as well as looking to extend fibre network as far as possible to cater for the huge amount of telecoms traffic driven by current & future technologies. In view of the greater longevity of 20CN, voice plans are being developed based primarily on the local condition of 20CN.
A review of 2008/09 was providing highlighting the progress that had been made. This included:
Plans for WBC include a continued extension of coverage, with the aim to reach 55% of the addressable market by the end of 2009/10. In parallel to this broadband deployment BT plans to ensure that 21CN products are optimised with NGA. In this context a WBC-FTTC customer trial commenced in April 09 with a pilot scheme of some 2200 customers scheduled to start in July 09.
The intention is to continue to expand the existing 614 nodes by a further 100, to 714 by the end of 2009/10 subject to demand. An accelerated migration of customers to the new Ethernet services is also planned.
The revised strategy and plan has affected voice significantly. Wholesale Voice Connect (WVC) and Wholesale Broadband Connect Converged (WBCC) will not be introduced and development of these products will not proceed. The Pathfinder trial will continue and expand to prove high volume capability. The migration drive beyond Pathfinder will largely result from QoS issues on the 20CN through the obsolescence and maintainability of older local exchanges. Voice and Data will therefore be on separate MSANs for some time. The current best estimate is that over the next couple of years "several million" customer lines will need to migrate as a result of local exchange obsolescence. Consult21 is currently working with CPs to understand how and if such migrations can be regionalised. The WLR voice migration to 21CN will continue in 2010.
BT plans to retain the majority of existing 2Mbit/s (and above) 20C Partial Private Circuit (PPC) products. On the sub 2 Mbit/s services BT is currently awaiting the outcome of a feasibility study before it determines its plans
BT remains committed to launching Next Generation Call Conveyance (NGNCC) but this will be deferred from the planned launch date of April 2010 since the revised plans significantly reduce the level of IP voice traffic and therefore the priority for IP handover. Consult21 is currently soliciting the views of CPs as to when this will be required but it is recognised that some CPs will be keener to undertake this given the deployment of their own NGNs.
Nigel was asked whether the longer time plan for deployment and reduced traffic levels indicated that the discussion on the '27+2' points of interconnect should be revisited. Nigel indicated that there had been no internal discussion of this and felt this would not be the case.
Openreach plans to build upon its Fibre to the Premises ( FTTP) capability in Ebbsfleet and plans for FTTP deployment will be announced later this year , but may be limited to selected Greenfield housing developments.
Openreach has launched its Fibre to the Cabinet (FTTC) capability with pilot deployments in Muswell Hill (London) and Whitchurch (Wales)
The supporting voice product for these fibre based broadband deployments are based on MPF/WLR.
TT expressed the view that they had been working with BT for years seeking to maximise the efficiency of their NGN deployment. The revised plans have effectively rewritten the 'rules' that industry has worked to for the last few years and fundamentally changed the basis upon which CPW/TT entered upon their NGN investment. The removal of the converged MSAN and converged Voice/BB product would have a big impact on CPs. It would now mean that CPs would have to cope with a hybrid world of 20CN and 21CN for far longer than anticipated and deal with new constraints introduced by BT. This would affect the industries cost base as a whole, which would in turn affect consumers. The delayed implementation of NGNs would also incur an 'opportunity cost' for the nation as a whole since it would be at least a decade before there would be a truly converged world within the UK. Whilst some of the Exec understood the point of view expressed by TT the observation was made that where CPs had fully depreciated and supportable 20CN assets, the BT re plan was less onerous.
TT also expressed the view that the abandonment of the previous voice strategy and the more limited deployment of WBC will create an issue within the local exchanges associated with wiring on the frames. They felt this would become increasingly inefficient and create an increasing legacy of cost for industry. Even BT's plans to leapfrog technology with fibre would still necessitate the need to support POTS for years to come. TT felt that BT's NGA plans should compliment not replace copper. NGA based on SMPF/VDSL and WLR would prove uneconomic
Whilst understanding the points made by TT , BT believed it had not changed the underlying principles for its 21CN deployment but was simply reflecting the demand from CPs and the changed economic situation. Some members of the Exec expressed that they could understand the financial merits of the re-plan given the cash drain of the original. If one starts talking of a 5 to 10 year migration for 21CN/MSANs , a migration to fibre makes good sense.
The session ended with a discussion of how BT's approach compares with others across Europe. It was observed that BT had been unique amongst European operators in attempting a "big bang" approach to deployment. Whilst the Exec did not feel there was sufficient comparability between regulatory, governmental and market structures to warrant further discussion it was felt the move brings them more into line with the majority of other European incumbents.
A joint session between the OTA2/NGNuk Executives was held on NGN WLR held on 9th March. At this meeting it had been agreed that any further work or debate would be more appropriate to be undertaken within NGNuk rather than the OTA.
TT requested a further discussion on the issue. In view of this attendance at the NGNuk Exec was opened up to Participating members and to OTA members who wished to attend.
Neil McArthur reprised the TT position:
When BT provide IPStream (on 20CN and 21CN) they use SMPF as an input. Given SMPF is available to all CPs, there is 'equivalence' and a level playing field for operators wanting to use their own network to provide broadband
However, currently when BT provide a line rental service (WLR) on 20CN they do not use any wholesale product input that can be used by other CPs - therefore Neil believes there is no equivalence.
If CPs want to provide a voice service using their own network (i.e. NGN) their only option is to use MPF. However, the problem with MPF is that the customer cannot then take broadband from another CP (you cannot provide shared access on an MPF). This limits a CP's ability to fully exploit their NGN across the full range of potential customers including those wanting voice-only services so as to obtain an efficient return on their investment. BT can though use their (20CN) network to offer a voice-only service. TT have been requesting for about three years a new version of MPF that would allow a different CP to provide broadband. This new product was called 'xMPF'. Openreach have declined to develop the service.
Thus in the current 20CN environment there two problems: no equivalence for operators wishing to use their own networks to provide a voice service and the inability to use MPF to serve voice-only customers.
TT stated that they cannot currently ,in the 20C network, compete at a wholesale level for calls packages or within the WLR market but that they had accepted this in anticipation of a 'level playing' field in the future. It was anticipated that when BT rolled out its NGN (21CN) that BT would use MPF (and possibly xMPF) as inputs to provide equivalence between its NGN and other operators NGNs. However, BT recently announced that they have abandoned plans to use MPF and xMPF. This combined with the lack of xMPF creates a number of problems:
TT believe that this lack of equivalence or a level playing field will weaken and undermine competitive NGNs and competition in general. Thus TT are seeking for two linked changes:
Following the TT introduction a number of points were discussed:
The BT/Openreach view on xMPF, following the recent consultation on Openreach developments, is that the economics of development do not work given the limited demand that has been expressed and the increasing investment in fibre. Paul Brisby stated that Orange also supported the development of xMPF, as an enabler for 'naked DSL' . They had sought independent technical advice on the development which indicated it was neither difficult or costly.
The Exec considered that many of the current issues related to the decision by Ofcom in 2004 to put WLR into Openreach. A move to xMPF would therefore be dependent upon the benefits or otherwise of generating competition in this area. Clearly since 2004 there had been significant and sizeable growth in BB lines plus NGNs provided greater technical capability that could be exploited. It was recognised by the Exec that unwinding this position might reduce BT shareholder value, and therefore not something that BT might want to undertake voluntarily so as such must be an Ofcom decision.
Ofcom stated that they had planned to review this subject as part of the proposed NGN consultation, however the economics were the most challenging issue along with the underlying margins for the input products. This required them to consider whether the benefits could be worth the change. TT responded that, in their view, Ofcom had locked itself into a poor position within the Financial Framework output since it was deciding upon a price in advance of deciding upon the mode and nature of competition. TT believe they have driven down the price of BB in the UK for the benefit of all consumers but are being prevented from doing the same for voice. The natural end point of limiting competition in this way was one NGN, BT's, due to a CP's inability to recover its investment efficiently. TT and other CPs therefore need direction from Ofcom so that they can decide upon their network investments.
Overall there was no consensus across the Executive. Ofcom stated that CPs would have a variety of opportunities to express their views either through the WLR statement on the Financial Framework ( due in June ) or the NGN consultation in July. It was agreed that NGNuk could take the matter no further and that the decision rests with Ofcom. It was however agreed that Ofcom needs to decide on the matter with a degree of urgency, one way or the other.
Orange had suggested that one area which NGNuk might consider as a potential work stream was related to the policing of signalling messages. They suggested that NGNuk should consider whether a a policy or CoP is required by industry covering the legitimate uses of the inspection of NGN signalling messages and whether NGNuk initiate the development of such a policy.
It was suggested that NGN operators will need to inspect SIP messages relating to communication sessions, established across their interconnects, for a variety of legitimate purposes. Some of these will relate to providing "a duty of care" to customers.
Existing 20CN fixed and mobile customers experience a resilient service and operator ( and customer) expectation should be that this customer experience should safeguarded and maintained as new services are introduced onto NGNs. To facilitate this, it may become necessary to use inspect proactively review signalling messages to minimise fraud, unwanted calls, transmission of viruses, downloads etc that would adversely affect users.
NGNuk believes that NICC would provide the necessary specifications surrounding the technical capability to undertake such inspection of the signalling messages. It would however also be necessary to define an industry policy / Code of Practice under which such inspection is exercised. This Code will need to define the limits of user freedoms, of 3rd parties trying to "push" services towards users and of network operators seeking to exercise their duty of care.
The principles surrounding inspection would need to be agreed to ensure a consistent approach across industry and that communications are only blocked for clear legitimate reasons.
Gamma related some practical experiences of denial of services attacks on their network but also of unscrupulous users spoofing CLI. Gamma currently look at such instances on a responsive basis rather than inspecting all traffic. Gamma felt that a widening of the scope should be considered from interconnects to include a customer's SIP trunking. The Exec also discussed whether policing of 3rd party advertising directed at users would require the scope to be widened also inspect the media stream.
The Exec agreed that the policing of signalling messages was an area warranting consideration by NGNuk as a potential work stream however greater clarity regarding the work item, its legitimacy and the respective roles of NICC vs. NGNuk was required. It was agreed that the "problem statement" would be updated ad re-circulated for further comment. This would then form the basis of a work shop to refine the requirements and how they might be addressed.
Action 1 - 21/05/2009 - Peter Ryde to update problem statement on "Signalling message inspection" and circulate to the Executive and Participating members for further comment
Action 2 - 21/05/2009 - Peter Ryde to arrange An NGNuk work shop to review the problem statement on "the policing of signalling messaging", seek consensus on the scope of activity and define NGNuk/NICC responsibilities within this.
Orange had suggested that a further area which NGNuk might consider as a potential work stream was related to the use of 3rd party elements within a session. Future NGN services will involved multiple sessions with multiple operator and supplier relationships within these. Thought therefore needs to be given to the safeguards/principles that may be needed for customers and operators where a user seeks to involve multiple parties within a session
New NGN services will involved multiple sessions and potentially multiple operator and supplier relationships within these.
Where in future an NGN user wishes to take advantage of new service elements from a third party (other than the originating, transit or terminating operators) should this right be acknowledged by those operators involved but with the obligation on the third party that it must deliver its service in a way which does not attract unreasonable additional interconnect costs for the call / session? The example cited was of an identity -presence management provider.
A further example was cited as the situation where two individuals might wish to share content during a conversation and therefore add in a media stream to the conversation. The questions was raised as to what would occur if one customer's operator's policy is to blocks this content whereas the other allows its transmission.
At some point the obligations of service providers and network operators will need to be defined and common approaches agreed to address such issues as:
It was felt inappropriate at this time to seek to establish hard and fast rules given the lack of clarity regarding the way in which future products and services might develop. Proscribing rules for an unknown future would be inappropriate and most probably overly restricting.
This suggestion was whether NGNuk should urge Ofcom to start to consider the type and nature of obligations it might place on service providers and network operators in this area.
During the Executive discussion it was recognised that this was not a current issue but one which might have a significant future impact. A concern was voiced however, that NGNuk had proved more successful in dealing with substantive current issues rather than less well defined concerns regarding future policy. It was suggested that some of these issues may have been addressed by the Mobile Broadband Group. Given a workshop was to be run for "signalling inspection" and as it was felt that the personnel to consider this issue in more depth would be similar, it was agreed to consider the matter in more depth as part of this work shop.
Action 3 - 21/05/2009 - Peter Ryde to update the problem statement on " 3rd Party elements" and circulate to the Executive and Participating members for further comment
Action 4 - 21/05/2009 - Peter Ryde to combine with the work shop ( from action 2 above) to review the problem statement on "3rd party elements"", seek consensus on the scope of activity and how this might be undertaken to represent to the Exec.
It had been suggested that by exploiting SMP through technology selection an operator might raise the cost base of its competitors. The question was raised as to how significant a threat this constitutes and how might the opportunity to exploit this be mitigated?
NICC will deliver standards which aim to facilitate interoperability of NGN within the UK and internationally. Operators are not compelled to comply and most activities are voice centric. This could create the potential, especially with new NGN services that the technology selection of one operator could adversely affect the cost base of another.
Where an operator has SMP or is best placed to rapidly develop SMP, might they be able to act through technology selection in such a way that it imposes costs on others?
An example might be where an operator deploys a non standard codec, perhaps where they hold IPR. Generally such intellectual property can be accessed on fair and reasonable terms in the context of internationally standardised components. However, by favouring components which do not have a broad-based intellectual property or which will impose additional cost to trans-code the SMP operator could impose additional costs on their competitors.
The matter was discussed by the Executive. It was considered that there would be a variety of means operators might mean to block traffic both legitimate and illegitimate but that exploiting standards was not the most likely. The need for transparency was agreed. It was felt that some elements of what had been discussed would be covered within the EU framework. It was agreed that no action was required by NGNuk but that the work item should be revisited at some future date.
Action 5 - 21/05/2009 - Peter Ryde to represent the problem statement for "Fair access to new services " at the January 2010 for the Exec to consider whether the situation remained unchanged.
A number of work items previously discussed by the Exec, had been tabled for review with a view to considering whether action from NGNuk was merited. These were not discussed due to time availability. They will be carried forward to the July meeting. Action 1 - 25/09/08 refers ( see update below)
Standard
The standard was reissued to NICC members on 28 day approval on 13th May. Providing no comments are received, the document will be approved on 11th June.
It became apparent earlier this month that BSI clearance had not been obtained to allow NICC to replicate the controls copied from ISO 27001. OTA is currently awaiting a quotation from BSI to enable this
Code of Practice
BT, CPW, Kingston , Orange, O2 , Sky and Virgin have all signed
Colt have committed to analysing their position following the standard having been circulated on 28 day approval
CW indicated that it is their intention to sign the Code of Practice but this is dependent upon internal business case approval to cover the costs of compliance.
Wider adoption
A number of LLUOs indicated that they were only willing to sign the CoP provided efforts were made to promote wider adoption of the standard. OTA has been undertaking this activity. Virgin Media have signed and Gamma have indicated they are planning to sign the CoP.
NGNuk presented to the Communications Crime Strategy Group (CCSG) on 31st March. This group includes all MNO and some fixed operators and was seen as a useful forum for encouraging wider adoption.
OTA has also written to Entanet, Lancaster University, Synetrix, Rutland and Updatanet who either attended the initial 12th May meeting for LLUOs or are members of the PCG. Finally, NGNuk presented to the Openreach Ethernet Forum on 20th May
There is a TISAC meeting on 18th June which will review progress. Although not LLUOs , and therefore outside of the target group established by BERR/Ofcom/TISAC it was felt that as members of TISAC, Vodafone and T-Mobile might be questioned regarding their position on the standard. OTA/NGNuk had been unsuccessful in obtaining feedback and it was suggested that the Exec members should ensure that their TISAC representative was briefed and also contact made with OTA/NGNuk.
Certification
NGNuk approached the UK Accreditation Service to incorporate the Minimum Security Standard, within the accreditation of ISO 27001 and 27011. The one off set up cost of this activity is circa £10,000
CESG are developing the higher level 2.2.4 Security Standard, also based on the ISO 27001 controls. UKAS believe that the certification bodies could be briefed and accredited for both standards at the same time. This would also help ensure consistency At present CESG are clarifying where they can use UKAS or whether public procurement policy dictates they need to go to tender.
Not all CPs will be aiming for ISO 27001 approval. NGNuk has proposed that it will agree a package of work with one or more organisations where only certification to the minimum standard is provided.
Both approaches were briefed out to the NICC security working group. All feedback received was positive
Budget Update
Rod Smith stated that NGNuk was on track against the budget agreed at the March Executive. All invoices had been despatched by Ofcom.
Membership
Peter Ryde reported that all Participating members had reconfirmed their intention to remain members.
Rod Smith informed the Executive that whereas BT Group had previously been represented by a single representative from BT Wholesale, BT now felt it would be more appropriate to have representation from Wholesale, Openreach and Retail. The Executive agreed that this was appropriate.
NICC Membership
Peter Ryde reported that NGNuk had been accepted as an Associate member of NICC.
Next Meeting
The next scheduled meeting was 10.00 to 13.00 on 23rd July at Riverside House.
Peter Ryde
NGNuk Office
07771 555 048
020 7783 4688
Action 1 - 25/09/08 - Ensure that those items not discussed at the September meeting are included within the agenda for the November meeting and that those noted for future review are included within that for January . Carried forward due to insufficient time for review within the January , March or May Executive meetings. | Peter Ryde Ongoing |
Action 2 - 29/01/2009 - Develop an agreed problem statement for the policing of NGN signalling messages and circulate this to the Exec for subsequent discussion. Reviewed at May Executive | Peter Ryde Completed |
Action 3 - 29/01/2009 - Develop an agreed problem statement for the use of 3rd party elements within sessions, circulate to the Exec then pass to Ofcom to register as an issue requiring consideration during the consultation. . Reviewed at May Executive | Peter Ryde Completed |
Action 4 - 29/01/2009 - Develop an agreed problem statement for the fair access to new services , circulate to the Exec for subsequent discussion. Reviewed at May Executive | Peter Ryde Completed |
Action 5 - 29/01/2009 - Establish a joint session with NICC regarding the Usage of Non-numeric Identifiers with the aim of delivering feedback for debate at the March NGNuk executive. This work shop was held with NICC. Those NGNuk representatives present found that whilst accepting the validity of the debate it was unlikely, based on past evidence , that NGNuk would gain much active support from members to progress this beyond the feedback provided at the workshop. Peter Ryde committed to reviewing with NICC whether there where any specific issues where commercial feedback was preventing NICC developing its internal paper. | Peter Ryde Ongoing |
Action 1 - 19/03/2009 - NGNuk to issue 2009/2010 invoices to Executive members in April and also inform all Participating members that they will not be charged for membership in the next Financial Year. | NGNUK Completed |
New Actions | |
Action 1 - 21/05/2009 - Update problem statement on "Signalling message inspection" and circulate to the Executive and Participating members for further comment | Peter Ryde |
Action 2 - 21/05/2009 - Arrange An NGNuk work shop to review the problem statement on "the policing of signalling messaging", seek consensus on the scope of activity and define NGNuk/NICC responsibilities within this. | Peter Ryde |
Action 3 - 21/05/2009 - Update the problem statement on " 3rd Party elements" and circulate to the Executive and Participating members for further comment | Peter Ryde |
Action 4 - 21/05/2009 - Review the problem statement on "3rd party elements" jointly with the work shop ( from Action 2 - 21/05/2009 above) to review the problem statement on "3rd party elements"", seek consensus on the scope of activity and how this might be undertaken to represent to the Exec. | Peter Ryde |
Action 5 - 21/05/2009 - Represent the problem statement for "Fair access to new services " at the January 2010 for the Exec to consider whether the situation remained unchanged. | Peter Ryde |