Andrew Wileman (Virgin Media),
Andy May (CW)
Andy Rawnsley ( Gamma Telecom)
Ann Francis (Colt)
David Halliday (OTA)
Gideon Senensieb (Ofcom)
Lee Jones (Orange)
Mark Dalziel (OTA)
Martin Whewell (Openreach),
Neil McArthur (Talk Talk)
Paul Beaumont
Peter Ryde (NGNuk)
Rod Smith (NGNuk)
Steve Best (BT Wholesale)
Apologies - Greg Mook (BT Retail), Thomas Gransalke (Orange) , Gareth Davies (Ofcom), Robyn Durie ( T-Mobile), Marcus Webb ( Vodafone)
a) Introductions
b) Minutes and Actions
c) NGN Minimum Standard
d) Update on Ofcom Consultation
e) Scope of NGNuk activity in 2010
f) AOB
The November minutes had been agreed via email and published on the NGNuk web site. An update on the actions is appended at the end of this document.
NICC Standard (ND1643)
Issue 1 of ND1643 ( Minimum Security Standard) has been published by NICC. A draft Issue 2 will be circulated within the NICC Security Working Group shortly which:
Areas which may need to be addressed in a future update include better reflecting the relationship of ND1643 with other assured services ( such as 2.2.4 ) and restructuring of the standard to allow for Supplier certification,
Implementation Plans
The following has been agreed with CPs regarding implementation for “endorsement” by TISAC;
All CPs [who have signed the CoP] intend to have gained certification by end 2010 and that where any non compliances are identified , to have an agreed plan to address these. This is subject to the general provisos that relate to any changes introduced within Issue 2 of ND1643, its publication date and the timely availability/cost/complexity of the certification scheme.
Feedback from TISAC acknowledged the progress made to date but expressed some doubt over whether the standard might be enforceable through contracts. Some concerns were also expressed by LINX/CESG regarding assessor competence, which need to be addressed by NGNuk. Peter Ryde and Rod Smith have subsequently met with LINX to better understand these concerns. TISAC will review progress in July 2010.
Certification
NGNuk has approached the UK Accreditation Service for support in establishing a certification scheme. As ND1643 does not mandate ISO27001, the certification scheme cannot be an extension to ISO certification. An inspection scheme is therefore being pursued, however where controls are common, and already assessed under ISO27001, these will count towards ND1643 certification
A “kick off” meeting has been arranged with UKAS for 26th February covering a review of the specification, the choice of CPs for the pilot , linkage to CESG and the quotation/agreement for the work.
A certification body has also volunteered to undertake “free of charge” assessments of smaller CPs to better understand the impact of the standard to allow any necessary changes to be made to Issue 2 of the specification and for NGNuk to consider any necessary support for smaller CPs. It is hoped to complete this work during February.
Code of Practice
The list of signatories to the Code of Practice remains unchanged and is; BT Group, Talk Talk , Colt, C&W, Gamma, KCom, Orange, O2, Sky and Virgin Media.
T-Mobile had also signed the CoP subject to:
Action 1 – 28/01/2010 - Peter Ryde was asked to highlight to the signatories of the CoP not present , that the Exec agreed that it would accept any decision by NICC that T-Mobile’s interconnects were out of scope so as to allow them the opportunity to comment .
Wider adoption of ND1643
Peter Ryde reported that briefings continue on an adhoc basis with smaller CPs and updates to industry fora.
As requested at the last Executive , NGNuk had sought legal advice regarding NGNuk discussions to date regarding the inclusion of standard within interconnect contracts and whether this breached competition law and whether / how the Minimum Security Standards can be introduced into interconnect contracts (assuming the advice is that this is not anti competitive). Rod Smith had written to Ofcom regarding an introduction to the counsel used by Ofcom, however Ofcom had felt this to be inappropriate. Legal Advice was had therefore been sought from Wragge & Co which is expected shortly. This advice will be shared with the Executive once received.
Action 2 – 28/01/2010 - Peter Ryde to distribute the legal advice from Wragge and Co , once received by NGNuk.
Statement
Gideon Senensieb confirmed that the statement relating to the NGN consultation had been published by Ofcom on 28th January. It was broadly in line with the issues and approach detailed at the last NGNuk Exec.
NGN Terminal Equipment Compatibility
Ofcom had written to NGNuk on 26th January regarding a proposal that NGNUK lead the development of a common industry approach to mitigate the risks of the limitations in compatibility of alarm terminal equipment with NGNs, establishing constructive engagement between its members and alarm industry associations for this purpose.
In Ofcom’s NGN consultation they discussed the risk that existing terminals in consumer premises may not be compatible with services provided using NGNs. The consultation had noted that BT’s testing for 21CN indicated that, while most types of terminal equipment are fully compatible with 21CN, a significant proportion of security, fire and telecare alarms may be sensitive to the increased transmission delay encountered in NGNs. There is clearly a risk to consumers from alarm failure and Ofcom are particularly concerned about telecare alarm services which are generally used by vulnerable persons.
In the NGN consultation Ofcom proposed that organisations involved in the provision of alarm services should take the lead in identifying and either replacing or adjusting incompatible equipment where this is necessary. Ofcom were however mindful that these organisations and equipment manufacturers may not have good visibility of CPs’ NGN migration plans (other than BT’s) or of the revised network interface specifications, making it difficult for them to prepare for NGN migration. Gideon also stated that Ofcom have also received some reports of alarm systems failing when telephone services are migrated to NGNs and some consumer complaints about a lack of support from CPs in instances where queries or problems triggered by such migrations arise with alarm systems. Ofcom therefore proposed that CPs could assist the alarm community and the CPE manufacturing community more generally during the migration to NGNs. In particular, Ofcom identified the need for CPs to give as much notice as possible of changes to interface specifications and to major network changes, such as NGN migration, that could have a significant impact on transmission parameters that could affect terminal equipment, including delay, jitter and echo cancellation.
Ofcom had previously identified a need to provide the alarms communities and terminal equipment manufacturers with guidance about NGN transmission characteristics so they can assess the risk to their services and take steps to mitigate them. To this end, in September 2008 Ofcom asked NICC to develop appropriate guidance. Ofcom understand this work was shelved earlier this year due to lack of engineering resources at the QoS Working Group. In its response to the consultation NICC suggested that it would be useful for the industry to agree a common set of terminal equipment compatibility tests or alternatively to produce testing guidance that manufacturers could use to assess their equipment. Consultation responses were broadly supportive of the approach Ofcom proposed, however there were also calls for Ofcom and the industry to be more proactive in communicating with the affected stakeholder communities.
In Ofcom’s view, the key problem is that, beyond BT’s 21CN programme, there is limited visibility of NGN deployment and migration activity and its implications for terminal equipment compatibility. Ofcom believes that it is the interests of all CPs to minimise disruption to consumers and Ofcom therefore think there would be value in developing a common approach with the alarm industry. Ofcom consider that NGNUK is well placed to take the lead in developing this.
As discussed at the last Executive meeting, BT and Consult21 participants have built up a great deal of knowledge of these issues, much of which should be relevant in the wider industry context. The meeting also highlighted that network operators have already addressed many compatibility problems that have arisen by making software changes in their networks.
Therefore Ofcom considers the activity required from the industry is likely to involve knowledge dissemination to a greater extent than any new engineering work. Ofcom suggested that it would be beneficial for the NGNUK members to engage collectively with industry associations in the alarms sector (the British Security Industry Association (“BSIA”) and the Telecare Services Association (“TSA”)) to agree a common approach that would:
a) improve the visibility of information about the technical characteristics of NGNs and about migration to these communities so that they can mitigate effectively the risk to alarm services;
b) provide consumers with support and assistance about alarm systems compatibility.
Ofcom therefore proposed that NGNUK takes the lead in this engagement and in the following tasks:
a) Ensuring that the alarm communities get as much advance notice as possible of changes in technical characteristics of networks that would be likely to affect alarm services;
b) Providing technical guidance on terminal equipment compatibility
c) Making timetables for NGN deployment and migration more visible to the alarms industries;
d) Ensuring that NGNUK members provide general advice about alarm compatibility to consumers migrating to NGN telephony services in an appropriate and timely manner;
e) Ensuring that consumers receive appropriate reactive advice in response to queries or issues concerning alarms; and
f) Ensuring that detailed queries about alarm compatibility are directed to alarm providers.
Ofcom considers that there may also be scope to adopt a common industry approach for publication and dissemination of notifications of forthcoming changes to interface specifications that are likely to have a significant effect on key transmission parameters affecting terminal equipment.
During a discussion on the Ofcom request a number of issues were raised that highlighted the complexity of the situation these included a) that for wholesale providers whose wholesale customers were using WLR, there would be no direct relationship with the telecare user b) that as multiple NGN/IP islands develop connected by TDM it was highly unlikely that line performance would meet NGN specifications and c) that some equipment used by telecare was outside of the TDM specification and also used proprietary standards but that the TDM networks had been more tolerant to this.
The Executive agreed to the request but postponed a more detailed discussion on how best to facilitate this until the wider debate of NGNuk’s programme of activity in 2010 had been completed.
Scope of NGNuk activity in 2010
The NGNuk financial year ends in March 2010 , it was therefore felt appropriate to consider both whether NGNuk continues into the next financial year and if so, its areas of focus.
A number of topics were proposed to illustrate where NGNuk might focus, however it was stressed that NGNuk was there principally to facilitate resolution of issues raised by members. Whilst it was accepted that the Minimum Security Standard activity needed to continue and that the Ofcom request on terminal equipment capability needed to be picked up, there was some reservations expressed regarding whether NGNuk should continue in its present form and level of representation. 5 members of the Exec confirmed that they were comfortable with NGNuk continuing as is. The remainder wished to consider the matter further and would meet with Rod Smith over the next month to review the options. A conference call would be arranged in early March to make a collective decision on how to proceed.
Budget Update
Rod Smith presented the year to date budget position. If NGNuk continue throughout 2010 he proposed that fees would be reduced on 2009/10, from £9000 to £7500 and that BT members would pay the equivalent rate to other CPs.
Supporting Documentation
Steve Best requested that where supporting documentation is circulated to the Exec ( such as a problem statement) , that this is attributable
Next Meeting
The next scheduled meeting was 10.00 to 13.00 on 25th March at Riverside House.
Peter Ryde
NGNuk Office
07771 555 048
020 7783 4688
peter.ryde@ngnuk.org.uk
| 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. Awaiting NICC output | 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. Presented at the January Exec but held pending decision on NGNuk position in 20010/11 | Peter Ryde Ongoing |
| Action 1 -23/07/2009 – Work with CP nominees to consider how NGNuk members might seek to proactively widen adoption of the NICC Minimum Security Standard across industry. Activity on hold awaiting legal advice. | Peter Ryde Ongoing |
| Action 6 – 23/7/2009 – Work with NGNuk members to review in greater detail a policy or CoP is required by industry covering the legitimate uses of the inspection of NGN media and content by other CPs. Awaiting discussion with GSMA | Peter Ryde Ongoing |
| Action 7 – 23/7/2009 – Contact the GSMA to identify what work they might be undertaking regarding policing of signalling and media over NGN interconnects. The appropriate contact has been identified at GSMA however no date for a meeting has yet been agreed. | Peter Ryde Ongoing |
| Action 8 – 23/07/2009 - Represent the problem statement for “Use of 3rd Party Elements within a Session “ at the March 2010 for the Exec to consider whether the situation remains unchanged. Presented at the January Exec but held pending decision on NGNuk position in 20010/11 | Peter Ryde Ongoing |
| Action 9 – 23/7/2009 – Work with NGNuk members to consider whether there is scope for constructive NGNuk activity in the areas of Quality of Service Principles , Presence and Location , Security and Authentication and Numbering and Addressing Presented at the January Exec but held pending decision on NGNuk position in 20010/11 | Peter Ryde Ongoing |
| Action 2- 24/09/2009 – Document and agree within NGNuk, any requirements that are in addition to the existing NICC work study on un-trusted sources, to send this agreed statement to NICC and then to jointly review with NICC. | Peter Ryde Ongoing |
| Action 1 – 26/11/2009 - Ofcom to write to NGNuk to clarify what support they require from NGNuk with respect to terminal incompatibility and voice quality concerns. Ofcom letter of 26th January 2010 refers. | Ofcom Completed |
| Action 2 – 26/11/2009 - Ofcom to write to NGNuk to clarify where they feel that network operators are not complying with their obligations to publish interface specifications in compliance with GC2 and R&TTE. Superseded by Ofcom letter of 26th January | Ofcom Completed |
| Action 3 – 26/11/2009 - Clarify with CESG how 2.2.4 would be assessed, with respect to the impact of sharing/interconnection with none ND1643 CPs | Peter Ryde Ongoing |
| Action 4 -26/11/2009 – Rod Smith to write to Ofcom seeking an introduction to Counsel , with a view to NGNuk requesting them to undertake a review of whether discussions regarding including ND1643 within interconnect contracts might be deemed as anti competitive. Ofcom letter sent however Ofcom felt it would be inappropriate to use the same Counsel. Work has been briefed to Wragge and Co. | Rod Smith Completed |
| Action 5 – 26/11/2009 - Schedule a discussion at the January Executive of whether it is appropriate for NGNuk continue next year and if so what should NGNuk be seeking to achieve | Peter Ryde Completed |
| Action 6 – 26/11/2009 - Ofcom to provide its views on what areas of focus /outputs it would wish to see from NGNuk in 2010/11 , should members vote for its continuation. Ofcom stated they had no immediate comments beyond that detailed in their request to NGNuk dated 26th January. | Ofcom Completed |
| New Actions | |
| Action 1 – 28/01/2010 - Peter Ryde was asked to highlight to the signatories of the CoP not present , that the Exec agreed that it would accept any decision by NICC that T-Mobile’s interconnects were out of scope so as to allow them the opportunity to comment | Peter Ryde |
| Action 2 – 28/01/2010 - Peter Ryde to distribute the legal advice from Wragge and Co , once received by NGNuk. | Peter Ryde |