| |
REPORT
OF THE PUBLIC INQUIRY ON NUMBERING REGULATIONS
INTRODUCTION
The Nigerian Communications Commission [“the
Commission”] pursuant to the powers conferred on it by
Sections 3 and 70 of the Nigerian Communications Act,
2003 [“the Act”] developed and issued the draft
Numbering Regulations with the stakeholders and members
of the public.
The draft regulations was published on the Commission’s
website for comments from operators, stakeholders and
members of the general public.
The notice of the public inquiry was advertised in two
National Daily Newspapers i.e. Thisday Newspaper,
Monday, December 31, 2007 and the Guardian, Thursday
January 3, 2008.
The notice required interested stakeholders and members
of the public to submit their comments and observations
on the draft Guidelines to the Commission before the
close of business on January 24, 2008.
By the close of business on the 24th of January 2008,
the Commission received submissions and comments from:
• CELTEL Nigeria Limited
• MTN Nigeria Communications Limited
The Commission later received comments from Starcomms
Nigeria Limited after the expiration of the deadline for
the submission of comments. Also, comments were received
from two other operators but these comments failed to
address the specific issues set out in the Regulations.
THE INQUIRY
The Inquiry took place on the 29th of January 2008 at
the Conference Hall, Nigerian Communications Commission,
Abuja at 11: 00am.
The EVC, Engr. Ernest Ndukwe welcomed stakeholders to
the Inquiry and stated that the general objective of the
Regulations is in line with the Commission’s function of
making and enforcing necessary regulations and
Guidelines under the Act to give full force and effect
to the provisions of the Act. He also mentioned that due
to the fast growing nature of the Telecommunications
sector in Nigeria, there is the need to provide the
necessary regulatory regime to ensure the continuous
growth and development of all sectors of the Nigerian
economy.
He stressed on the importance of the public inquiry
process as it enables stakeholders to make an input in
the rule making process of the Commission. Participants
were further encouraged to make any comments as maybe
deemed necessary.
The Director of Legal Services, Steven Andzenge analyzed
the draft Guidelines and answered questions raised by
the stakeholders. Stakeholders were assured that
submissions and comments made at the inquiry would be
incorporated into the report of the public inquiry and
published in accordance with the Act.
CONSIDERATION OF COMMENTS
The Commission hereby summarizes all the comments
received and the Commission’s responses. All the
comments received were duly considered.
REVIEW OF COMMENTS ON NUMBERING REGULATIONS
Regulation 1
Operators’ comment
The Commission was urged to promote the harmonisation of
Commercial short codes currently in use across the
respective networks in the proposed new numbering regime
and the Regulations as well as encourage the current
cross network cooperation amongst mobile operators with
respect to the adoption of a common Commercial short
code regime.
NCC’S RESPONSE
The Commission in line with its regulatory functions
will continue to promote the harmonization of commercial
short codes across networks in Nigeria. To accord with
the cardinal objective of ensuring the effective and
efficient utilization of number resource which are
scarce, the Commission intends to amend the National
Numbering Plan with a view to ensuring optimum
utilization of numbers including short codes.
Regulation 4
Operators’ comment
Clarification is required regarding what a “defined
number” means.
NCC’S RESPONSE
The word “defined” will be deleted to ensure clarity and
better understanding of draft Regulation 4. More so, the
National Numbering Plan identifies the Numbers.
Regulation 5
Operators’ comment
It remains unclear exactly what the actual difference
between a block which is classified as “expected to
become assignable” and one classified as “retained”
should be. It is proposed that since both classes are
for blocks of numbers whose usage conditions may not
have been clearly identified and are reserved to address
future requirements, then the Commission may wish to
consider one general classification for such numbers
which may be “reserved” or retained” for future use.
NCC’S RESPONSE
The Commission appreciates the need to simplify the
provisions of the Regulations in line with its practice.
However, in this case, there are distinctions between a
block which is classified as “expected to become
assignable” and one that is classified as “retained”.
The distinction is explained in Regulation 5. Number
being scarce resource has to be efficiently managed. The
categorization does not diminish this objective; rather,
it will assist in ensuring proper management of number
resources.
Regulation 6
Operators’ comment
“Usage Conditions” should be specified and explained in
the Draft Regulation in order to ensure greater clarity.
Operators also want clarification as to the word
“charges” and the phrase “if the numbers are not
telephone numbers” within the context of regulation 6.
NCC’S RESPONSE
The comments and observations are noted. The phrase
‘Usage Condition’ is defined in Regulation 52 of the
draft Numbering Regulations. However, to ensure a better
sense of clarity and avoid ambiguities, clause 6 ( c) &
(d) will be deleted so as to make the possible changes
in Usage Conditions much more precise.
In order to ensure the desired clarity, the word
“charge” will be defined to include fees or tariff rates
applied to Numbers;
In other respects, Regulation 6 seems to specify Usage
Conditions adequately.
Regulation 7
Operators’ Comment
The second paragraph of Regulation 7 seems to suggest
that “Usage Condition of Numbers” may not come at the
time of the Assignment, but at a later stage.
Retrospective applicability of “Usage Conditions” as
suggested here creates a great potential for substantial
usage contrary to such “Usage Conditions” that will be
known later.
For regulatory certainty and the avoidance of
undesirable consequences of possible massive use of
numbers contrary to the “Usage Conditions”, it is
strongly suggested that the second paragraph of this
Regulation be expunged and that “Usage Conditions”
should be stipulated at the time of the Assignment.
It was also observed that the change of usage conditions
of numbers may work hardship on a lawful assignee if the
usage conditions applicable at the time of grant of the
assignment have changed between the point of use.
It is necessary for the Regulations to define clear
modalities for the change of the usage conditions for
blocks previously allocated to specified licensees.
These modalities will equally need to define a
compensation scheme to replace numbers/blocks duly
allocated to a licensee but which no longer satisfies
the usage conditions for the proposed service.
NCC’S RESPONSE
The Commission appreciates the need for ensuring
regulatory certainty and it has at all times
conscientiously strived towards this because it is only
when regulations are certain that the compliance regime
will be high. However, the Commission notes that since
the telecommunications sector is dynamic, conditions of
use may change. For example, the general level of
charges for a service might fall significantly, in which
case it would be unfair on other service providers, as
well as on customers, if one service provider were able
to use Numbers appropriate to the new lower level of
charge while charging significantly more. Also, with
premium rate services, new scams are frequently
invented; the Commission should have powers to change
the conditions of use to prevent such scams.
Usage Conditions (and therefore changes in Usage
Conditions) are circumscribed by Regulation 6; on the
whole the Commission strongly feels that this provides
the best match between regulatory certainty and
flexibility. It should be noted that the two (2)
paragraphs of Regulation 7 are not contradictory but
complimentary.
In the circumstances, no compensation is feasible or
likely to be needed. An assignee is sufficiently put on
notice by the provision of the Regulation.
Regulation 8
Operators’ Comment
The need for stakeholder consultation in the regulatory
process is not a discretionary one as suggested by the
inclusion of the word, “may”. The prevailing
telecommunications regulatory framework, has entrenched
and encourages the need for constant stakeholder
consultation with all relevant stakeholders in the
industry and this is enshrined in the NCA 2003 (see also
regulation 34)
In order to safeguard the interest of all parties and in
keeping with the need for regulatory transparency and
objectivity, it is necessary to ensure that the review
process is conducted in a clear and transparent manner.
Accordingly, it was recommended that regulation 8 be
amended to state that the Commission “shall consult with
all licensees and relevant stakeholders.”
NCC’S RESPONSE
The Regulation is appropriate as it is because the
Commission has at all times consulted with stakeholders.
The Commission is usually guided by the provisions of
the Act, particularly Section 72 thereof on issues of
consultation. The word “shall” is used in the relevant
part of the section that requires consultation. It is a
fundamental understanding that the Commission is not
bound by advices received from external advisory groups
hence the use of the word “may”.
Regulation 11
Operators Comment
The time-lines stipulated for the notifications are
inadequate given the scale of the planning required in
assuring effective communication and implementation of
the plans among partners in the entire value chain
required to guard against undesirable effects.
For greater clarity, the time-lines (notification
period) need to be appropriately qualified as “calendar
months”.
The Regulation (11) does not indicate clearly what role
different stakeholders will play, who will be
responsible for what, and who will bear the cost of the
advertisements to be undertaken. These issues will need
to be clearly established in the regulations so that
each party is aware of its obligations thereunder.
NCC’S RESPONSE
The observation on the time lines stated in Regulation
11 is noted. However, it needs to be mentioned that
residential customers typically need a much shorter
period of notice than business ones. Also, the work
needed by foreign administrations should generally be
very small. However, as the planning period needed by
service providers could be twelve months in some
circumstances there should be no difficulty in providing
six months for customers and foreign administrations.
The suggested time frame will be looked into.
By virtue of the provisions of Section 123 of the
Interpretation Act, 1990 “month” means “calendar month”.
The responsibilities or cost allocations, are
operational issues for all stakeholders and would be
based on varying rational extent of involvement. It
should be recognised that the benefits of the
modifications should accrue to service providers and all
stakeholders in general.
Regulation 15
Operators’ Comments
Clarification was sought about the meaning of the phrase
“…an End User was taking service through the Number
within the previous three (3) months or some longer
period..” in Regulation 15 ( C ).
NCC’S RESPONSE
The period of quarantine is intended to ensure that
numbers are not passed on to new End Users when the
former End Users may still want them. A period of three
months or more should suffice for this. However, draft
regulations omitted to say that usually Numbers had to
be Available before End Users were allowed to take
service from them; this will however be clarified in the
Regulations.
Regulation 16
Operators’ Comment
It was suggested that the subsisting application forms
may be amended to incorporate some of the requirements
of this Regulation.
NCC’S RESPONSE
Agreed.
Regulation 17
Operators’ Comment
In order to assure transparency and regulatory
certainty, the regulation should specify eligibility
criteria for grant of Assignment.
The grant or refusal of an application for Assignment
should be based on the eligibility criteria. Reasons for
the grant or refusal should be conveyed in the response
to the applicant.
NCC’S RESPONSE
Regulation 18 highlights some of the factors the
Commission should take into consideration in arriving at
a decision on an application for an Assignment. These
factors are no doubt sufficient guide. It is not good
regulatory practice for the Regulation to state all such
factors as some factors are unforeseen and therefore can
not be immediately known until events unfold. Further
more, Regulation 19 sufficiently deals with the
mandatory requirement for the Commission to communicate
its decision including the reasons for any refusal of an
application within one (1) month of receiving the
application.
Regulation 25
Operators’ Comment
It is considered that the time-line in Regulation 25(b)
allowed for the withdrawal of a number is excessive and
would not encourage rational use of number. Also the
timing of withdrawal should be tied to the date of
assignment rather than the date of the application.
Where blocks are withdrawn further to Regulation 25 ( C
), it may be necessary for the Commission to ensure that
licensees’ interest are duly safeguarded by creating an
appropriate compensation mechanism, by which costs may
be refunded to licensees or alternate assignments made
to the affected licensees.
NCC’S RESPONSE
The suggestion on Regulation 25(b) is adopted. However,
for the purpose of consistency similar changes will be
made to Regulations 16 and 18. Together these changes
oblige service providers to plan their numbering one
year ahead, instead of three years.
The Commission will always carry out its regulatory
functions in an effective and transparent manner. Thus,
where the Commission withdraws a Block for the purpose
of advancing a clearly identified national interest as
provided in Regulation 25 ( c), by the provision of
Section 126(2) of the Act, the Commission may pay a
reasonable amount of compensation to the holder of the
assignment.
Regulation 26
Operators’ Comment
It was suggested that the timing of the notification to
a licensee of a proposal to withdraw a block be revised
to a minimum of six (6) months instead of the three (3)
months in the draft Regulation.
NCC’S RESPONSE
This is noted for consideration.
Regulation 27
Operators’ Comments
The need for a precise compensation policy for the
replacement of numbers, or the provision of alternates
where deemed necessary; and an assigned block is either
withdrawn or where by reason of a change in its usage
conditions a licensee can no longer take advantage of
the said numbers was reiterated.
NCC’S RESPONSE
The Commission adopts its earlier comments on this
issue.
Regulations 28 and 29
Operators’ Comments
It is unclear what the “contact points” here refer to
and the intent of this Regulation.
NCC’S RESPONSE
The observation is noted and necessary steps will be
taken to ensure better clarity.
The intention is that the Commission will pass on the
contact details when requested but will not be
responsible for routing.
Regulation 30
Operators’ Comments
Additional timelines be imposed on operators to comply
with the request for programming in negation of which
the NCC may wade into and sanction the non-complying
network to whom the numbers have been notified.
NCC’S RESPONSE
The period of at least one (1) month specified is deemed
reasonable in the circumstance. One (1) month is the
basic time frame required but an operator could choose
to give the required notification earlier.
Part IX
Operators’ Comments
No definition of Number Portability provided, it was
suggested that this be added.
NCC’S RESPONSE
This is noted.
Regulation 34
Operators’ Comments
It is notable that a Direction under the NCA is a
mandate issued by the NCC to a licensee to remedy the
breach of a provision(s) of the NCA or license condition
or subsidiary legislation.
It was respectfully submitted that the NCA does not
contemplate the issuance of a Direction to licensee to
provide Service Provider Number Portability or any other
service or undertaking as such amounts to an undue
administrative action.
NCC’S RESPONSE
It is submitted that for the purpose of an effective and
efficient Number Portability system in Nigeria, the
issuance of Direction to licensees is within the
contemplation of the Act. The exercise of that power, if
and when it becomes necessary is legally justifiable and
in the interest of the industry. It will therefore not
amount to an undue administrative action. To cover the
field, it may be important to add “regulations” to
“decisions” or “directions”.
Furthermore, it should be appreciated that number
portability will be introduced only after consultation.
Regulation 35
Operators’ Comment
Regulation 35 is clear within the context of sub-section
(b), Number Portability, but unclear within the context
of sub-section (a). Clarification is therefore required
as to the circumstances, context and applicability of
Regulation 35(a).
A porting solution that requires the routing of traffic
to the ported number through the donor network, may not
be the most effective option for both licensees and
their customers and may lead to an additional layer of
switching to the detriment of the subscriber and the
overall network call quality. Accordingly, it is
proposed that the Commission reviews its position and
amend the regulation on routing of traffic.
The Commission in arriving at any decision on number
portability should note that the industry committee it
established on numbering plan and number portability is
in the process of deliberation and has not submitted its
final resolutions.
NCC’S RESPONSE
Necessary clarifications will be provided on Regulation
35(a) in order to bring out the issues and ensure
clarity.
The comment on the routing of traffic is noted. Indeed,
the routing of traffic through the donor network may not
be the most appropriate way of implementing number
portability.
The Commission will in taking decisions or steps on the
issue of number portability be guided by the report of
the Committee set up. But it must be appreciated that
the report of the Committee will only be advisory and
not binding.
Regulation 36
Operators’ Comment
With the exception of sub-section (c) of Regulation 36
which appears to apply to a ported number, it is unclear
under what circumstance or context a licensee would
undertake to provide service to a number assigned to
another licensee.
Clarification was therefore required regarding the
context, intent and applicability of Regulation 36(a),
(b) and (d).
NCC’S RESPONSE
The intention is to ensure that service providers do not
use numbers assigned to others except in very specific
circumstances. A service provider might seek to do so
if, for example, its own application for an Assignment
had been refused and it wanted the numbers.
Regulation 38
Operators’ Comment
It was suggested that this Regulation be re-drafted
thus:
Numbers may only be transferred by one licensee to
another upon the transfer of the operating license from
the benefactor to the beneficiary.
NCC’S RESPONSE
The Regulation in issue will be re-considered against
the background of the comments made with a view to
ensuring the desired clarity.
Regulation 40
Operators’ Comment
Clarification was required regarding the circumstance,
context, intent or applicability of the statement “Every
Licensee shall change the End User taking service
through a Number.
NCC’S RESPONSE
Though, the practice of moving a number between End
Users may be unusual in mobile networks it is widespread
in fixed networks. For example, a shop or a house may be
sold, and the new owner may wish to retain the old
Number.
Regulation 42
Operators’ Comment
It is unclear what “removal” (of a number from service)
means as this term is not defined or specified in the
“Utilisation Status” of numbers under Regulation 15.
More over, Regulation 42 appears too wide in view of the
fact that there are several reasons that could be
responsible for removal by a licensee of a Number from
service.
Furthermore it was observed that for the Commission to
require Licensees to offer compensation to End Users
whose Numbers are removed from service, there equally
needs to be a similar mechanism put in place by the
Commission for the compensation of Licensees whose
numbers are withdrawn from service. This will also
ensure that Licensees are not unduly burdened and that
the general compensation framework is fair and equitable
to all parties.
NCC’S RESPONSE
This will be reviewed and the variant of “provide a
service to an End User through a Number” instead of
“remove service”, “take service”, and “use Numbers” will
be adopted. Though this is more verbose it should reduce
any problems with understanding.
Also, a new clause will be added to Regulation 42 to
indicate how long inactive users will keep their Numbers
in order to make the provisions of the said Regulation
clearer.
On the agitation for compensation to licenses upon the
withdrawal of numbers, the Commission refers to its
earlier response under Regulation 25.
Regulation 43
Operators’ Comment
‘Person authorized’ by the Commission should be defined
and should include Law enforcement agencies.
NCC’S RESPONSE
The suggestion that ‘Persons authorized’ should be
defined is noted but the problem associated with this is
that the enumeration of Persons authorized can not be
exhaustive. Therefore, every case or situation will have
to be decided on its merits.
Regulations 46
Operators’ Comment
Regulation [46] appears to be self contradictory. For
greater clarity, it was recommended that the latter part
of the Regulation be re-phrased.
NCC’S RESPONSE
There is no contradiction between the first part of
Regulation 46 and the later part of that same Regulation
as alleged. The provisions of both parts are
complimentary; while the first part makes it mandatory
for the Commission from time to time to publish the
schedule of fees, the later part makes it incumbent for
the Commission to supply such schedule on request.
Regulation 47
Operators’ Comment
As a national resource, numbers are managed and
administered in the national interest. Numbering fees
may be imposed as tax or administrative fees.
The regime in Nigeria is not one of a tax imposed by the
Government, but one of an administrative charge for the
service of number administration provided by the NCC.
It is therefore covered within the Annual Operating Levy
(AOL) paid by operators (at 2.5% of a Licensee’s Net
Turnover), representing a general charge for regulatory
(administrative) services provided by the NCC.
Charging separately for the service of number
administration with a subsisting AOL charge amounts to
duplication of charges. Should the regime of charging
separately for numbers subsist, then the NCC would be
required to ensure accounting separation for this
distinct service.
Where imposed, numbering fees are administrative in
nature, accordingly, the Commission was urged to review
any fees in this regard. In imposing administrative
fees, the quantum of the fee payable should be computed
with a view to recovering the cost of providing the
service.
Since the fees are administrative fees are of general
application, the Commission is urged to engage with
operators prior to formalization of the fees as was done
for the spectrum pricing regulations. This will allow
for a clear, concise and transparent process where the
indices employed in determining the numbering fees are
apparent and acceptable all stakeholders.
NCC’S RESPONSE
Fees payable for Assignments are separate and distinct
from the Annual Operating Levies charged. The two are
not the same either in meaning and application; while
one is a fee, the other is a levy and the two are
governed by different legislations or laws and
regulations.
Further more, the Act does not require that the fees for
Assignment cover only the administrative expenses of the
Commission nor did it demand for separate accounting.
Regulation 47 indicates what the fees will be based on.
The comments on the need for the fees to be reasonable
are noted. The Commission assures that the fees will be
reasonable in the circumstances. The factors to be taken
into account in determining the fees payable are already
enunciated in Regulation 47 considered earlier on. It is
to be noted that clear and transparent parameters have
been provided.
Regulation 48
Operators’ Comments
It was noted that the payment of renewal fees would be
incompatible with:
(i) The impending regime of Number Portability as
operators would be paying for Numbers that are no longer
on its network; and
(ii) The requirements of the NCC to have subscribers
retained indefinitely on the network. It is noted that
many of these subscribers are highly inactive and do not
generate revenue to cover the number renewal charges.
NCC’S RESPONSE
In response to the first point above, the Commission
states that the Numbers would still be in an Assignment
to operators. Presumably it is expected that successful
service providers, would gain and lose roughly equal
quantities of Numbers through Number Portability.
The Commission notes the second comments and will
re-evaluate the matter.
Conclusion
The Commission, in its principle of participatory
regulation will align the final regulation with the
findings of the Public Inquiry in order to achieve the
goal of the Commission.
The report of the inquiry is hereby published in
accordance with the provisions of Section 60 of the
Nigerian Communications Act, 2003.
Dated this 14th day of March, 2008
ENGR. ERNEST C. A. NDUKWE (OFR)
EXECUTIVE VICE-CHAIRMAN/CEO
To subscribe to Cyberschuulnews,
admit
cyberschuulnews-request@cyberschuulnews.com
and
cyberschuulnews@cyberschuulnews.com into
your address book. Then send subscription request to
subscribe@cyberschuulnews.com
>>previous
|
|
