Southern Phone Company Ltd Response to the ACMA Consultation Paper Regarding New Rules

Southern Phone Company Ltd response to the ACMA Consultation Paper regarding new rules to protect consumers migrating to the NBN.

Southern Phone supports the intent of the initiatives as outlined in the consultation paper, however believe that there are some commercial and technical limitations that would prevent full implementation.

Our view is that the most optimal solution for consumers and the industry is forNBNCoto play a larger role in providing certainty to consumers in relation to the quality of the service they expect, especially in relation to their portion of the supply chain.

Consumer Information Standard

Issues for comment

1)What is the most useful way to explain data and speed needs to consumers, so they can purchase a service suitable for their online needs?

Data needs vary greatly between consumers households, the current structure to provide consumers with various data limits (e.g. 100Gb, 500Gb Unlimited etc), provides customers with sufficient ability to select data allowances based on individual usage needs as well as individual budgets.

Typical evening speed is a satisfactory approach to explain speeds on the NBN as this is the busiest time for a CSP’s network and therefore most likely the most appropriate measure for customer expectations. However, some CSP’s have little or no ability to provide this information as this is not offered to them from an aggregator thus consideration needs to be provided to how this could be achieved.

The draft Standard requires CSPs to provide a description of the number of connected devices and the kinds of online applications that can be used in a household at the same time. Is this the most useful information to help consumers understand whether a service is suitable?

We think this requirement would confuse the consumer or not provide enough information or scenarios to cover most households, as an example a house with 3 teenagers and 2 adults might have anywhere from 1 device through to 20 or more (e.g. 5 mobiles, 4 Smart Televisions, 3 Tablets, 6 Computers, plus any number of other IoT devices). Thus, it would be difficult to provide true context to aid in the decision making for the consumer.

At the same time the number of factors contribute to the speed of a service from within the consumers property, similar wording has been used in the past for ADSL and was found to be largely irrelevant to the consumer as it was found to be too broad.

Are there other approaches that would better assist consumers to choose a suitable service?

Most consumers are driven by price and quality, therefore if using the peak evening speed and plan inclusions/price the consumers can select what they need.

2)Are there any elements of the draft Consumer Information Standard that cannot be implemented or complied with for technical, operational or other reasons? Please provide details. For example, does the Standard include any obligations that you consider could not be implemented within three months of its commencement? Please provide reasons why.

Typical evening speed would require all wholesale aggregators to implement a system to enable each of their wholesale customer to measure this function. As of today, none of the wholesale aggregators provide this visibility to CSP’s.

At the same time congestion can be within NBNCo’s network, for example wireless services, this information is not provided by NBNCo’s to RSP’s and as such would require NBNCo to make changes. This also often applies to FTTN connections.

3)Would it be preferable to combine the information requirements for NBN retail plans (specified in Chapter 4 of the TCP Code) with the minimum information requirements for NBN services (specified in Part 2 of the Consumer Information Standard) into a single document? If so, what is the best way to achieve this?

Having a combined CIS and Consumer Information Fact sheet makes some sense as the 2 documents would have overlapping information, however it must be done in a way which is standardised across the industry and not allow for individual CSP to create their own version of the same information.

4)Should speed tier information[1] that includes both download and upload information be required information? Is there alternative information that would be more appropriate such as a typical off-peak speed, which some CSPs already provide?

Should the typical evening speed be decided as the measure for these services then there is no reason to provide typical off-peak speed, however is should be noted that there is also no reason not to include the typical evening upload speed at the same time as some consumers require this information.

As an alternative there are now a lot of small business customers using these services, an option for typical business hours speed for small business would be an informative rating for an NBN connection.

5)Does the draft Consumer Information Standard require any information be provided to consumers that is not regarded as important to assist in making informed choices about service offering on the NBN and preparing for migration? Conversely, is there other important information about these matters that should be included?

Many CSP’s do not support and have no relationship with a medical or security alarm services. The CSP can advise the consumer that they must assess their medical or security service provider themselves but to provide advice on the suitability of a supplier of these services would drift outside of the typical CSP’s expertise and could open the CSP to future litigation for inaccurate advice.

Also, if we were to request the consumer to register the alarm with NBN, a process needs to be defined for the consumer that does not have an internet connection, most consumers with medical alarms are elderly and a good percentage don’t use the internet.

There is not a simple process for porting of fixed line telephone number between CSP’s and this can cause delays and outages for consumers of the service, an improved platform of porting these service should be established, similar to mobile porting.

Line Testing Determination

Issues for comment

6) Are there any elements of the draft Line Testing Determination that cannot be implemented or complied with for technical, operational or other reasons? For example, what are feasible time frames for the Determination to take effect? Please provide details.

Part 2 requires a service to be tested within one business day of activation. However, as a CSP under an aggregation model this would not be possible given the current tools available to CSP’s who purchase under aggregation because;

We do not have direct access to NBN systems to initiate a line test or to determine actual achieved line rates.
We must work through the wholesale aggregator to request any line test, this is an asynchronous request typically through a ticketing system which would not likely be processed and completed within the timeframe.
A service may be non-operational for reasons other than an NBN or CSP fault such as not having the suitable equipment installed correctly at the customer premise, and contact with the customer may not be possible within the target timeframe.
If a service cannot be billed by the CSP until it is determined operational the CSP will incur loss as a result of NBN and/or the aggregator commencing billing on activation.

Possible solutions:

NBN and CSP’s often refer to variable speed technology such as FTTN with a range of speeds, however customers will almost always consider the purchased speed to be the higher value of this band. Instead customers on variable speed technology should purchase the product with only a minimum Layer2 speed guarantee.
For example, the common 50Mbps speed tier under FTTN is referred to by NBN as 25-50 Down / 5-20 Up. Such a service should only be subject to a regulated requirement to achieve the minimum obtainable speed to avoid confusion and conflict.
NBN as the infrastructure provider will always have immediate access to the service operational state and achieved Layer2 line rate. NBN should not issue a service activation completion notice to the aggregator or CSPwhere the service has not passed the test criteria outlined in Part 2 section 8 which NBN is required to undertake. Consequentially NBN must be unable to bill for the service which should still be considered in the provisioning/activation workflow pending testing. As NBN does not interact with end customers they must communicate the failure reasons to the CSP for remedial activity given a reasonable window for resolution being that customer contact is required.
If adopted service operational testing would need to be two steps with the line testing and online status conducted by NBN, following this the CSP would be required within 3 business days to complete operational testing and notify NBN or the aggregator of the test outcome.
A service may have achieved the minimum line-rate and show as online (in-sync) but actually not be in a ready state due to many reasons such as misconfiguration within NBN or the CSP network, the draft determination should state the guidelines which define what an ‘operational’ service includes. It would likely include minimum mandatory tests from the customer CPE ‘modem’ to the internet though resolution of a DNS request combined with a successful Layer 3 speed test.

Part 3 requires Layer-3 speed testing. To comply with the draft determination, we find the following challenges;

Most consumer devices ‘modems’ do not have built in speed testing capabilities. Due to this the most practical way to perform a Layer-3 speed test is to involve the customer and have them use a workstation connected to the service and undertake web based speed testing to a server hosted either in the CSP data centre or to a third party site. A common example of this would be customers and CSP who utilise
Due to customer required involvement it may not be practical to mandate the first test take place within one business day
Due to customer required involvement it may not be practical or a good customer experience to require them to be available to perform this test on five instances over a 7-day period, especially since these tests must take place between 7pm and 11pm.
Many aggregated CSP’s do not operate call centres outside of standard business hours in an effort to provide commercially attractive and competitive products. The draft determination requires five speed tests within seven days all to be conducted between 7pm and 11pm in the consumer’s local time zone and no more than one per day. This would be onerous on all but the larger providers and likely drive up the cost of services. Consider the worst case scenario that a CSP is required to provide this test to a customer located in WST at up to 2am AEDST.
Speed may be impacted due to factors outside of the CSP control, and this is especially true in the case of CSP’s who purchase wholesale NBN services through an aggregator. Examples where speed may be impacted and beyond control are;
Wholesale aggregator congesting backhaul from the NBN POI
Wholesale aggregators do not share NBN POI congestion information
Wholesale aggregator congesting NBN CVC
Wholesale aggregators do not share NBN CVC congestion information
NBN congesting fixed wireless or satellite services
NBN does not share wireless tower and backhaul congestion information
Line faults on the users variable speed service ‘FTTN’ which are not visible to the aggregated CSP
Customers may perform speed tests to servers outside of the CSP or aggregators network boundary where quality and capacity are not controlled
Customers may BYO ‘bring your own’ modem to an NBN service where that modem is not capable of achieving the peak speeds being tested. That modem is not controlled by the CSP. Rarely do consumer modems advertise peak UDP throughput or maximum TCP session capabilities, and if they did they would not be understood by consumers
Where a speed test is performed using a customer connected device and a web browser that test does not consider all other devices that may be connected to the service and consuming bandwidth simultaneously. And in many cases the customer may be unable to accurately isolate other connected devices with the widespread adoption of Wi-Fi.
Section (4) provides what a provider must do if the speed test fails including offering a lower speed plan, however with exception of 4(d) it does not stipulate that the customer must agree to this change. The absence of consent may result in customers being moved to lower speed plans as a simple remedy to speed complaints as opposed to addressing the underlying cause of the slow speed.

Possible solutions:

All of the NBN Line Testing determination should be available only to consumers who are using equipment supplied by the CSP. The CSP should not be required to investigate or remedy faults on equipment not approved by the CSP for use.
NBN provides for device authorisation ‘approved modems’ which could compel vendors to include remotely initiated speed tests through the widely adopted TR069 protocol. Such a solution would allow the CSP to conduct speed tests remotely without customer involvement, such a test should automatically isolate customer connected devices and provide throughput information and other deterministic information. However, desirable this solution is likely to be costly to implement for vendors and unlikely to be adopted widely.
NBN should be required to discuss to CSPs the congestion statistics on Wireless and Satellite technologies and where congestion exist be compelled to remedy the congestion or provide the CSP compensation and contractual release which the CSP should be required to pass on to the consumer.
Wholesale aggregators of NBN services should be required to disclose to their CSP customers, congestion information including backhaul from subscribed POI’s and CVC. Where congestion exists be compelled to remedy the congestion or provide the CSP compensation and contractual release which the CSP should be required to pass on to the consumer.
NBN should be required to provide line testing capability directly to end users via a secure online portal where consumers can test ad-hoc the quality of their Layer2 service and detect any anomalies or errors on the line where NBN may then refer the customer to their RSP for resolution including providing a test report. CSP’s should have access to the same system even if they are purchasing through a wholesale aggregator. NBN already have a mechanism to provide limited access to their systems for CSP’s who are not commercially engaged directly with NBN and this should be extended to the wholesale aggregator providing fault management capability directly between the CSP/RSP and NBN.
Where the CSP and/or NBN offer to remedy with a lower speed service the customer should be required to accept this remedy in all cases.

7) Are the number of tests required under Part 3 of the Determination appropriate for determining the speed of a consumer’s service?

We are of the opinion the method and type of speed tests are suitable for determining the speed of a consumer service, however it may be prudent to mandate Friday and Saturday be included in the five test days.

8) Are there any additional measures that you would consider including in the Determination? If so, what are those measures and why do you think they should be included?

In general, we find the intent of the determination to be appropriate, however it appears to be aimed at RSP’s who have a direct purchasing relationship with NBN and thus full visibility of the supply chain. Without involvement and requirements on both NBN and the wholesale aggregators it will not be possible for aggregated CSP’s to comply with the determination for technical and commercial reasons.

We hold the position that NBN is the network infrastructure owner and should be directly responsible for the quality of service performance from order, activation, to operation. The document has passed the responsibility to provide quality services to the CSP/RSP however in most instances we are just observers in the supply chain without the tools and contractual relations to achieve remediation.

Service Continuity Standard

Issues for comment

9) Are there any elements of the draft Service Continuity Standard that cannot be implemented or complied with for technical, operational or other reasons? For example, are the time frames practicable for the Standard to take effect, noting the three-month limit specified by the Ministerial Direction? Please provide details.

The direction requires the gaining CSP to reconnect the consumer to the legacy network including where that consumer has come from a different loosing carrier. We consider this approach has the following complications: