Ofcom proposal to make migration codes compulsory

Migrations between service providers was easy for a year or two, until the
number of unbundled connections started to increase. It is in this climate
that earlier in 2006 Ofcom started to look into the migration process and
what would make it easier for the consumer. Today sees the publication of a
proposal that may see the issuing of a Migration Authorisation Code (MAC)
compulsory, and a third party method for obtaining one if the provider fails
in its duty. The press release can be read here. The full migration
consultation documents can be read at
www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/migration. The consultation period will now
last until 5th October 2006, so it will be some months before we see big
changes in the migration sector.

More of this story at
http://www.adslguide.org.uk/newsarchive.asp?item=2772

Fatboy wrote in
(E-Mail Removed):

> Migrations between service providers was easy for a year or two,
> until the number of unbundled connections started to increase. It is
> in this climate that earlier in 2006 Ofcom started to look into the
> migration process and what would make it easier for the consumer.
> Today sees the publication of a proposal that may see the issuing of
> a Migration Authorisation Code (MAC) compulsory, and a third party
> method for obtaining one if the provider fails in its duty. The press
> release can be read here. The full migration consultation documents
> can be read at www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/migration. The
> consultation period will now last until 5th October 2006, so it will
> be some months before we see big changes in the migration sector.
>
> More of this story at
> http://www.adslguide.org.uk/newsarchive.asp?item=2772

Why does it need consultation? Why can't OfCom simply dictate that it *will*
happen as of tomorrow morning and that the penalties for an ISP not
complying will be severe (£X thousand per failure to comply)? Can anyone put
forward any argument for not having compulsory migration, apart from the
irrelevant one (from the customer's point of view) that some ISPs will
suffer because they can't lock you into their service?

Martin Underwood wrote:

> Fatboy wrote in
> (E-Mail Removed):
>
> > Migrations between service providers was easy for a year or two,
> > until the number of unbundled connections started to increase. It is
> > in this climate that earlier in 2006 Ofcom started to look into the
> > migration process and what would make it easier for the consumer.
> > Today sees the publication of a proposal that may see the issuing of
> > a Migration Authorisation Code (MAC) compulsory, and a third party
> > method for obtaining one if the provider fails in its duty. The press
> > release can be read here. The full migration consultation documents
> > can be read at www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/migration. The
> > consultation period will now last until 5th October 2006, so it will
> > be some months before we see big changes in the migration sector.
> >
> > More of this story at
> > http://www.adslguide.org.uk/newsarchive.asp?item=2772
>
> Why does it need consultation? Why can't OfCom simply dictate that it *will*
> happen as of tomorrow morning and that the penalties for an ISP not
> complying will be severe (£X thousand per failure to comply)? Can anyone put
> forward any argument for not having compulsory migration, apart from the
> irrelevant one (from the customer's point of view) that some ISPs will
> suffer because they can't lock you into their service?

Can't disagree with your view there.

Graham

"Eeyore" <(E-Mail Removed) > wrote in
message news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>
>
> Martin Underwood wrote:
>
>> Fatboy wrote in
>> (E-Mail Removed):
>>
>> > Migrations between service providers was easy for a year or two,
>> > until the number of unbundled connections started to increase. It is
>> > in this climate that earlier in 2006 Ofcom started to look into the
>> > migration process and what would make it easier for the consumer.
>> > Today sees the publication of a proposal that may see the issuing of
>> > a Migration Authorisation Code (MAC) compulsory, and a third party
>> > method for obtaining one if the provider fails in its duty. The press
>> > release can be read here. The full migration consultation documents
>> > can be read at www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/migration. The
>> > consultation period will now last until 5th October 2006, so it will
>> > be some months before we see big changes in the migration sector.
>> >
>> > More of this story at
>> > http://www.adslguide.org.uk/newsarchive.asp?item=2772
>>
>> Why does it need consultation? Why can't OfCom simply dictate that it
>> *will*
>> happen as of tomorrow morning and that the penalties for an ISP not
>> complying will be severe (£X thousand per failure to comply)? Can anyone
>> put
>> forward any argument for not having compulsory migration, apart from the
>> irrelevant one (from the customer's point of view) that some ISPs will
>> suffer because they can't lock you into their service?
>
> Can't disagree with your view there.
>
> Graham

This - fortunately or unfortunately - depending on your standpoint is
probably the best way of doing things and is now quite common, at least with
government, local government and quangos. Rather than push through
somebody's "bright idea" into new legislation or regulations, the idea is
first worked on for feasibility and legal issues and then a draft is
promulgated to stake-holders for consultation. In very many cases, some very
important issues are identified in the original draft by consultees which
were not thought of at the draft stage. These are then addressed before the
final version is launched. Think of it as something along the lines of a
"beta trial", as used by software companies.
In short, it stops (in theory) bad or unworkable-in-practice regulations
being made.
The MAC consultation will in all probability throw up a few loopholes that
rogue ISPs might have exploited with a non-thorough regulation. These should
then be closed before the regulation hits the streets.

George

George Weston wrote in
(E-Mail Removed):

> "Eeyore" <(E-Mail Removed) > wrote in
> message news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>
>>
>>> Why does it need consultation? Why can't OfCom simply dictate that
>>> it *will*
>>> happen as of tomorrow morning and that the penalties for an ISP not
>>> complying will be severe (£X thousand per failure to comply)? Can
>>> anyone put
>>> forward any argument for not having compulsory migration, apart
>>> from the irrelevant one (from the customer's point of view) that
>>> some ISPs will suffer because they can't lock you into their
>>> service?
>>
>> Can't disagree with your view there.
>>
>> Graham
>
> This - fortunately or unfortunately - depending on your standpoint is
> probably the best way of doing things and is now quite common, at
> least with government, local government and quangos. Rather than push
> through somebody's "bright idea" into new legislation or regulations,
> the idea is first worked on for feasibility and legal issues and then
> a draft is promulgated to stake-holders for consultation. In very
> many cases, some very important issues are identified in the original
> draft by consultees which were not thought of at the draft stage.
> These are then addressed before the final version is launched. Think
> of it as something along the lines of a "beta trial", as used by
> software companies. In short, it stops (in theory) bad or
> unworkable-in-practice
> regulations being made.
> The MAC consultation will in all probability throw up a few loopholes
> that rogue ISPs might have exploited with a non-thorough regulation.
> These should then be closed before the regulation hits the streets.

On wonders why it has taken so long for OfCom to get involved, given that
broadband and the issue of migration from one provider to another has been
around for several years.

On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 15:45:34 +0100, "George Weston"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>The MAC consultation will in all probability throw up a few loopholes that
>rogue ISPs might have exploited with a non-thorough regulation. These should
>then be closed before the regulation hits the streets.

They will. Quite what your ISP (Plusnet) is going to do about
recovering all their "you stay (for 5 YEARS) we pay" punters money is
another matter. Take them all to court?

Watch the shares plummet (again - 30%+ down now on a 30 day basis)
once the corporate investors work out what this will do to Plusnets
cash flow for there will be an INCREDIBLE churn on Plusnet customer
numbers as soon as they realise they can move without paying. Whether
you consider this ethical/moral or not depends I guess on the way
you've seen how Plusnet behave.

Personally I hope Mr Strafford ends up with what he deserves
--
John Naismith

"Fatboy" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Migrations between service providers was easy for a year or two, until the
> number of unbundled connections started to increase. It is in this climate
> that earlier in 2006 Ofcom started to look into the migration process and
> what would make it easier for the consumer. Today sees the publication of
> a proposal that may see the issuing of a Migration Authorisation Code
> (MAC) compulsory, and a third party method for obtaining one if the
> provider fails in its duty. The press release can be read here. The full
> migration consultation documents can be read at
> www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/migration. The consultation period will
> now last until 5th October 2006, so it will be some months before we see
> big changes in the migration sector.
>
> More of this story at
> http://www.adslguide.org.uk/newsarchive.asp?item=2772

This is extremely good news. Too many people are stuck with providers who
simply refuse or make things difficult for people to move. They should also
propose a fine system for those companies who fail to offer a mac code
within a certain time. Perhaps they might started getting their arses into
gear.

"Martin Underwood" <a@b> wrote in message
news:44e48976$0$2661$(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> On wonders why it has taken so long for OfCom to get involved, given that
> broadband and the issue of migration from one provider to another has been
> around for several years.

Maybe they got sick of the complaints and decided enough was enough?

Martin Underwood wrote:
> Fatboy wrote in
> (E-Mail Removed):
>
>> Migrations between service providers was easy for a year or two,
>> until the number of unbundled connections started to increase. It is
>> in this climate that earlier in 2006 Ofcom started to look into the
>> migration process and what would make it easier for the consumer.
>> Today sees the publication of a proposal that may see the issuing of
>> a Migration Authorisation Code (MAC) compulsory, and a third party
>> method for obtaining one if the provider fails in its duty. The press
>> release can be read here. The full migration consultation documents
>> can be read at www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/migration. The
>> consultation period will now last until 5th October 2006, so it will
>> be some months before we see big changes in the migration sector.
>>
>> More of this story at
>> http://www.adslguide.org.uk/newsarchive.asp?item=2772
>
> Why does it need consultation? Why can't OfCom simply dictate that it *will*
> happen as of tomorrow morning and that the penalties for an ISP not
> complying will be severe (£X thousand per failure to comply)? Can anyone put
> forward any argument for not having compulsory migration, apart from the
> irrelevant one (from the customer's point of view) that some ISPs will
> suffer because they can't lock you into their service?

You clearly have not read the consultation document, or you would know
the answer to that question.

Paul Cupis wrote in
ec2893$15ql$(E-Mail Removed):

> Martin Underwood wrote:
>> Why does it need consultation? Why can't OfCom simply dictate that
>> it *will* happen as of tomorrow morning and that the penalties for
>> an ISP not complying will be severe (£X thousand per failure to
>> comply)? Can anyone put forward any argument for not having
>> compulsory migration, apart from the irrelevant one (from the
>> customer's point of view) that some ISPs will suffer because they
>> can't lock you into their service?
>
> You clearly have not read the consultation document, or you would know
> the answer to that question.

No I haven't read the consultation document. What *is* the answer to the
question?