CLI-IG CP(97) 011

CLI-IG CP(97) 011
11 JULY 1997
Apologies (item 1)
1. Apologies were received from Caroline Bizios and Stanford White.
Minutes of Previous Meeting (item 2)
2. The minutes of the first CLI-IG (doc.97/004), held on 18 March 1997, were accepted
without amendment The name of Philip Jones is to be inserted into the list of those present,
representing the Data Protection Office..
Revised Code of Practice for Network Operators (item 3)
3. Peter Clarke introduced the most recent draft of the revised CoP for Network Operators
(doc.97/007). The main amendments he drew attention to were:
i) the use of unscreened numbers for remote breakout supported by an explicit
agreement with a subscriber guaranteeing the validity of the information about the
originating call;
ii) the use of unavailable where a receiving network does not support presentation
numbers (ie no default to network number);
iii) an explicit description of partial CLI provided by a PBX with extension DDI
iv) a relaxation of restrictions on CLI related services offered by service provider
networks (eg Indirect Access SPs);
v) changes to align with ETSI terminology.
Unscreened numbers
4. Peter Walker stressed changes to the CoP required the unanimous consent of operators
(CoP, para 3.3). The use of unscreened numbers called into question the cardinal principle of
authenticity and the decision to be made was whether to accept it in principle.
5. Bernard Bowshall queried how a private network operator could guarantee the CLI of an
incoming call diverted out by DISA; Peter Walker thought this would have to be part of the
agreement between the private network and the PTO. By analogy where a call is diverted by
a public network the originating number is carried forward.
6. Simon Sporton thought the debate revolved around a definition of Special Arrangements
(CoP, para 7.2.7). There was a need for originating PSTN calls not to be modified. Peter
Walker identified the issue as defining the rules for private networks - should they parallel
those for transit operators? A further consideration was whether public confidence in CLI as
a whole would break down if thousands of private networks entered into these Special
Arrangements. This was a matter for everyone at the meeting to consider.
AP 2/1 : all
7. Alan Bennett questioned how VPN fitted into this. Peter Walkers view was that from a
CLI point of view VPN did not create a remote breakout problem. However there were
regulatory problems insofar as some VPN services were run under a class licence (eg Mercury
GTN). The issue here was that rules applying to interconnect between operators were being
invoked by an interconnect service being offered to a customer. There was a need to check the
position of VPN services being offered under the TSL. The position was more
straightforward with Centrex where control remained with the VPN operator.
AP 2/2 : OFTEL
8. Bernard Bowshall queried what rules there were for multi-national private networks to
which Peter Walker responded that Data Protection in Telecoms Directive may allow
Networks not supporting Presentation Numbers
9. Peter Walker thought that the issue was that some of those networks that do not support
presentation numbers default to a display of the network number. It clearly defeats the
purpose of a subscriber opting for a presentation number if, notwithstanding, the network
number is displayed instead. If the default were to unavailable a call would avoid being
screened out by a block-blocking facility. On the other hand in these circumstances the called
party is getting a lesser service, ie unavailable rather than a perfectly adequate presentation
number. There needed to be some motivation to fix this problem
10. Ray Walker (Association of Social and Community Alarms Providers/ASAP) said that his
organisation monitored over 1m. households. Calls were sent to and from computers, so
callers who used 1471 or caller display could not dial back to the originating line. ASAP had
used withheld but were now concerned about the impact of block blocking. He strongly
supported the use of presentation numbers as it could literally be a matter of life or death.
Peter Walker said that although there was a tradition of light regulation for new operators
there was a growing feeling that any operator offering CLI services would have to incorporate
presentation numbers into the service offering.
11. Simon Sporton pointed out that para 7.2.1 of the CoP introduced a slight change insofar
as it could be a matter of customer preference whether a network number was classified as
available or unavailable where a Presentation Number was available and CLI restriction was
operational but not invoked. Bernard Bowshall queried the classification of a call made using
a chargecard - the answer was unavailable. There was a clear need for OFTEL to consider
policy on support for presentation number handling.
AP 2/3 - OFTEL
DDI Numbers with Extension Digits
12. Rule 8 in para 7.2.6 provides the procedure where CLI information is, in part, supplied by
the subscribers equipment as in a DDI extension.
Relaxation of Restrictions
13. Para 7.5 of the CoP contains the relaxation of some of the restrictions on CLI related
services which may be offered by Service Provider networks.
14. Simon Sporton pointed out that in the case of , say, a call from a hotel using a chargecard,
a presentation number, which might be a personal number (07), could be inserted on the
second leg of the call. Peter Walker said that the ETSI specification for UPT numbers did
this. The consumer guide should note that a personal number might be used. Someone
queried whether this would only apply to chargecard platforms but it was recognised that
chargecard and indirect access operations were very similar.
General Comments on CoP
15. Peter Walker noted that the Code now included ISDN but did not explicitly cover GSM.
Simon Sporton replied that Vodafone regarded GSM terminals as if they were ISDN
16. There was some debate as to how para 7.2.2 could be modified - presently it requires
presentation numbers not to be numbers for which the call revenue is shared. On the other
hand there would be no harm in the use of a personal number as a presentation number. An
exclusion was required for premium rate numbers however defined, perhaps by reference to
ICSTIS or the Numbering Conventions. It would be necessary to arrive at an agreed
AP 2/4 - OFTEL
17. Peter Walker questioned the last sentence of rule 7, where dialling the standard CLI
unblocking prefix (1470), when the network supports another prefix to achieve this, causes
the call to fail. Why - no privacy issue was involved? An announcement would be better but
Simon Sporton questioned whether the onus could be put on the originating network. Peter
also queried the use of the term originations in sentence 2 of para 7.2.5.
Outstanding CoP Issues
18. Simon Sporton introduced a paper from Vodafone (doc.010). The amendments to the
CoP suggested [(a) scope of ISDN, (b) network number for mobile networks, (c) actions at an
international gateway; (d) numbers valid for use as presentation numbers] were all accepted.
Peter Walker complimented the ISC on their work on the CoP and invited comments on the
draft within a month. He thought the next draft might benefit from a preamble setting out the
cardinal principles of privacy, authenticity and integrity.
AP 2/5 : all
Working Paper on the Rights and Obligations of the User (item 4)
19. Michael Dixon introduced a paper on the Users Rights and Obligations (doc.008) and a
a commentary on them (doc.009).. The paper looks at current features and issues that need to
be considered for the future. Much of the discussion that the paper triggered was about how
to handle unauthenticated numbers. It should be possible to indicate the authenticity status of
such numbers by an additional display at the terminal, as happens with calls from payphones.
There was some debate about how effective the policing of a subscribers use of an
unscreened number might be, with Michael; Dixon expressing a degree of skepticism and
Peter Walker stressing the fundamental nature of the authenticity principle.
20. Issues surrounding the use of Presentation Numbers were also touched on. Warwick
Izzard pointed out that some call centres were not able to deal with return calls. There could
also be practical difficulties in returning calls where a subscriber relied on separate operators
for outgoing and incoming calls. Ray Walker said that the 1471 facility had caused problems
for his organisation. Under the CoP it is vital that the number given is actually diallable,
even if the line terminates on an answering machine or recorded message. Nigel Scott
suggested one solution was the allocation of one number within a numbering bloc which need
not go through a PBX.
21. On block blocking Dave Axford said that two cable companies, Nynex and Bell
Cablemedia were offering a block blocking facility. This was not openly marketed but
accessible through Malicious Calls Bureaux. There had been about 5000 takers so far.
22. It was agreed that OFTEL would draft a Consumer Guidance document, drawing on the
work already done, for discussion at the next meeting.
AP 2/6 : OFTEL
Progress Report on Block Blocking (item 5)
23. Dave Axford gave a brief report on the problems associated with the Block Blocking
service in respect of emergency and other services where the number is usually withheld. The
two approached being followed were to ask the ISC to advise on how certain calls could be
allowed to by pass a block blocking facility and to engage in dialogue with the CCTA
(unfortunately set for 17 July, after this meeting).
24. The most likely solution was to use Presentation Numbers, possibly with a text message,
which could be programmed into switches. However this solution was not entirely problem
free. Chris Bell thought users would resent paying for a return call from which they would
derive no information. It was also recognised that there was a current implementation
problem about adding to the string of a BT number on a Mercury line. Bernard Bowshall also
pointed out that analogue PBXs were capable of sending Presentation Numbers, but not
additional numbers.
25. However Peter Walker felt that as few if any PTOs currently offered Presentation CLI the
further spread of Anonymous Call Rejection would still pose problems. Perhaps Dave
Axford could present a paper for the next meeting.
AP 2/7 : Dave Axford
International CLI Study (item 6)
26. In the absence of Caroline Bizios there was a brief discussion on some technical aspects
of CLI in a trans-national context. It is thought that a foreign subscribers GSM roaming in
the UK will send out the full international number which will be converted when the signal
passes to a fixed network, leaving the local exchange to put in the initial zero. Simon
Sporton agreed to prepare a short information note on CLI for GSM roaming
AP 2/8-9 : Caroline Bizios, Simon Sporton
CLI and EU Directives (item 7)
27. A paper (doc.006) drawing out some of the implications of the Amending Voice
Telephony Directive (AVTD) and the Data Protection in Telecoms Directive for UK
operators was tabled. The main lessons were that, under the AVTD, BT and Kingston would
be obliged to offer the CLI service they already do.
28. Under the Data Protection in Telecoms Directive operators will need to offer users the
facility for preventing the presentation of a CLI number on a per-call basis ( = 141) on a perline basis and to subscribers on a line-blocking basis. A block-blocking service will become
a mandatory part of any CLI service offering though it no longer need be offered free of
charge. Furthermore, a called subscriber must be able to prevent the presentation of his
connected line identification, free of charge.
29. Peter Walker pointed out that connected line identification will be supported by ISUP
and is a feature of Euro-ISDN. He looked forward to the BT paper indicated by Janet
Lockwood at the last meeting on connected line ID issues. Other questions arose about the
distinction between a natural person and a legal person in the terminology of the
Directive and whether a facility to override line blocking, equivalent to 1470, was mandated.
APs 2/10-11 : BT, Frank Phillips
Any Other Business (item 6)
30. Peter Walker mentioned the issue raised by the Data Protection office at the last meeting
of erasure of the 1471 memory. He had spoken to switch manufacturers who had confirmed
that such a feature could be inserted into a schedule of software developments. However they
had raised a couple of questions about the implementation which probably required an answer
from the DP office. Should retrieval itself cause erasure, on the basis that personal date
should not be retained for longer than the purpose for which it was collected? And should
there be any difference in the erasure of answered and unanswered calls? OFTEL would seek
guidance from the DP office.
APs 2/12 : OFTEL, DP office
31. A more general question arose as to whether network numbers should be made available
to organisations where incoming callers were suspected of involvement in crime - this could
be making bomb hoax (or non-hoax) calls, attempts to obtain personal data by deception, etc.
Apparently such a request has been made by certain government bodies. The DP office may
well have an opinion on this but any solution adopted will need to adhere to the finalised text
of the Data Protection in Telecoms Directive.
Date of Next Meeting
32. No precise date set but general agreement that it should be late September-early October.
Date to be notified later.
Summary of Action Points
AP 2/1 : all (CLI rules for private networks)
AP 2/2 : OFTEL (CLI and VPN)
AP 2/3 : OFTEL (PN handling)
AP 2/4 : OFTEL (define premium rate number)
AP 2/5 : all (comments on draft CoP)
AP 2/6 : OFTEL (draft Consumer Guide document)
AP 2/7 : Dave Axford (block blocking issues)
AP 2/8 : Caroline Bizios (International CLI)
AP 2/9 : Simon Sporton (GSM roaming)
AP 2/10 : Janet Lockwood/BT (Connected line identification)
AP 2/11 : Frank Phillips (Interpretation of Directives)
AP 2/12 : 1471 erasure issues
Derek Lockwood
Ray Walker
Chris Bell
Nigel Scott
David Axford
Alan Bennett
Ian Roy
Jarnail Malra
Bernard Bowshall
Guernsey Telecoms
Dave Sebire
Peter Clarke
Jeremy Bow
Colin Annette
Jane Cooper
Steve Herbert
Sussex Police
Simon Parr
Sarah-Jane Amey
TMA/Foskett Powell
Michael Dixon
Simon Sporton
World Com
Terry Young
Peter Walker (Chair)
Frank Phillips (Secretary)
Phil Cobb
Warwick Izzard