Clause 15 - Consumer consultation
Communications Bill
4:45 pm
Mr Andrew Robathan (Blaby, Conservative)
As you will not wish to have a clause stand part debate, Mr. Gale, I would like to make some general comments on this clause dealing with consumer consultation and the consumer panel.
The clause follows on, to some extent, from clause 13 and we find that its remit is considerably wider that it might appear, as the definition of a consumer includes small business customers. We are somewhat concerned about services and facilities that are referred to in clause 15(1)(a). The Minister talked about giving Ofcom a broad remit, but will he provide some examples of what exactly those services and facilities would comprise? Does he think that they are limited?
On amendment No. 39, we think that consumer panel advice should be required only in appropriate cases. The clause requires the consumer panel to provide advice regarding the provision of certain services to domestic customers, but the nature of the service means that it would not be provided at that level. Under the Bill, the consumer panel would give advice regarding the interests of domestic and small business consumers on various matters that could not always apply to domestic consumers. For example, it is difficult to see how an electronic communications network could be provided to a domestic consumer, as is stated in 15(3)(a), line 33. We need clarification on whether the provisions are intended to apply only to business users. There is a lack of clarity in the Bill about what services can be provided to domestic consumers. For example, in the context of digital television, it is clear that associated facilities are not provided at retail level to domestic consumers.
Amendment No. 41 relates to electronic programme guides, which are regulated at the wholesale level. An EPG service is provided to a broadcaster that wishes to list its channel, not to domestic consumers. It is hard to understand how an EPG could be provided to domestic users as a service under the Bill, other than as a broadcast service falling under part 3. In that case, it is a contents service and ought to be excluded from the ambit of the consumer panel by virtue of subsection (5). We ask, therefore, for references to EPGs in paragraph (4)(d) to be deleted.
On amendment no. 42, we are concerned that the panel's remit is wider than was intended and that it may encompass the pricing and packaging of pay TV services that is delivered through satellite and digital terrestrial television, but would exclude those that are provided by cable. It appears that in subsection (4) the consumer panel would cover the retail provision of pay TV services—services provided over an electronic communications network—in terms of a contract between the provider and the consumer. That would, however, exclude the provision of free-to-air services. It is understood by the ITC and Oftel that there is no intention to regulate the retail pricing and packaging
of satellite and DTT pay TV services under part 2 or part 3 of the Bill. That would be similar to the retailing of pay TV services by cable operators, which is not regulated.
The provision of content by a broadcaster is excluded from the scope of the consumer panel by subsection (5), neither would the provision of a broadcast signal to domestic customers fall into the ambit of the consumer panel, since that is not an electronic communications service. I understand that both the ITC and Oftel have confirmed that.