Maximum fine raised to £2m for telcos that don't cough up network data

Ofcom lays down the law


Ofcom can fine telecoms companies up to £2m for failing to hand over information about their networks, the media regulator has said.

The government raised the maximum fine Ofcom could issue from a previous level of £50,000 following changes to the EU Authorisation Directive, Ofcom said in a statement.

"The government has increased to the level of fine that Ofcom can impose for failure to comply with an information gathering request. This has been increased from £50,000 to £2m," Ofcom said in its statement (24-page/160KB PDF).

The Authorisation Directive was altered as part of a wider Telecoms Package of reforms that were set out by European lawmakers in 2009.

The Directive gives national regulatory authorities (NRAs) the power to force telecoms companies to provide them with information about their networks, such as how much the companies spend maintaining them and the level of consumer usage.

NRAs, such as Ofcom in the UK, need this information to make informed decisions about what it is reasonable to charge customers to use networks, a spokeswoman for Ofcom said. Ofcom will only impose fines on companies that do not comply with information gathering requests on a formal basis, the spokeswoman said. Ofcom predominantly engages with firms in an informal capacity, she said.

Ofcom announced the change in a statement which also detailed guidance on new rules on how the regulator will handle the resolution of disputes over communications.

A number of measures, such as setting up meetings between companies in dispute to clarify the scope of disputes, were announced in the new guide.

Ofcom can now claim costs from companies that ask it to resolve disputes, the guide said.

The new rules place no duty on Ofcom to resolve network access disputes, the statement said. Ofcom can intervene at its own discretion, the dispute resolution guide said.

"Ofcom has discretion whether to decide that it is appropriate for it to handle the dispute," Ofcom said in its guide to the new rules (36-page/284KB PDF).

"In exercising that discretion, Ofcom may in particular take into account its priorities and available resources at the time," the guide said.

NRAs must work together to help resolve cross-border disputes, the guide said.

"Where Ofcom considers that a dispute ... relates partly to a matter falling within the jurisdiction of the NRA(s) of other Member States (ie, because it relates to activities carried on by one or more parties in more than one Member State), Ofcom must coordinate its work with those NRA(s)," Ofcom's dispute resolution guide said.

"Ofcom may also consult the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC) in order to ensure a consistent resolution of the dispute, and may ask BEREC for an opinion as to the action to be taken to resolve the dispute," the guide said.

"Where Ofcom (or another NRA) requests an opinion from BEREC in relation to the dispute, Ofcom must take account of BEREC's opinion when it resolves the dispute," the guide said.

"We believe the changes set out ... will simplify the dispute resolution process, provide greater transparency in our handling and resolution of regulatory disputes, and make them more efficient and effective for both the parties concerned and Ofcom," Ofcom said in a summary of its statement.

The changes came into effect on 26 May and have been introduced in order to comply with the EU's Telecoms Package of reforms.

The reforms were passed in late 2009 after legislative wrangling between the European Commission, which wanted more centralised regulation of telecoms, and the European Parliament, which wanted nations to retain regulatory powers.

A compromise was reached by which national regulators will engage in closer co-operation on pan-EU regulation, but by which no central regulator independent of member states will be set up.

The revised EU rules require countries to enable telecoms regulators to force more sharing of telecoms infrastructure.

Copyright © 2011, OUT-LAW.com

OUT-LAW.COM is part of international law firm Pinsent Masons.

Similar topics


Other stories you might like

  • Prisons transcribe private phone calls with inmates using speech-to-text AI

    Plus: A drug designed by machine learning algorithms to treat liver disease reaches human clinical trials and more

    In brief Prisons around the US are installing AI speech-to-text models to automatically transcribe conversations with inmates during their phone calls.

    A series of contracts and emails from eight different states revealed how Verus, an AI application developed by LEO Technologies and based on a speech-to-text system offered by Amazon, was used to eavesdrop on prisoners’ phone calls.

    In a sales pitch, LEO’s CEO James Sexton told officials working for a jail in Cook County, Illinois, that one of its customers in Calhoun County, Alabama, uses the software to protect prisons from getting sued, according to an investigation by the Thomson Reuters Foundation.

    Continue reading
  • Battlefield 2042: Please don't be the death knell of the franchise, please don't be the death knell of the franchise

    Another terrible launch, but DICE is already working on improvements

    The RPG Greetings, traveller, and welcome back to The Register Plays Games, our monthly gaming column. Since the last edition on New World, we hit level cap and the "endgame". Around this time, item duping exploits became rife and every attempt Amazon Games made to fix it just broke something else. The post-level 60 "watermark" system for gear drops is also infuriating and tedious, but not something we were able to address in the column. So bear these things in mind if you were ever tempted. On that note, it's time to look at another newly released shit show – Battlefield 2042.

    I wanted to love Battlefield 2042, I really did. After the bum note of the first-person shooter (FPS) franchise's return to Second World War theatres with Battlefield V (2018), I stupidly assumed the next entry from EA-owned Swedish developer DICE would be a return to form. I was wrong.

    The multiplayer military FPS market is dominated by two forces: Activision's Call of Duty (COD) series and EA's Battlefield. Fans of each franchise are loyal to the point of zealotry with little crossover between player bases. Here's where I stand: COD jumped the shark with Modern Warfare 2 in 2009. It's flip-flopped from WW2 to present-day combat and back again, tried sci-fi, and even the Battle Royale trend with the free-to-play Call of Duty: Warzone (2020), which has been thoroughly ruined by hackers and developer inaction.

    Continue reading
  • American diplomats' iPhones reportedly compromised by NSO Group intrusion software

    Reuters claims nine State Department employees outside the US had their devices hacked

    The Apple iPhones of at least nine US State Department officials were compromised by an unidentified entity using NSO Group's Pegasus spyware, according to a report published Friday by Reuters.

    NSO Group in an email to The Register said it has blocked an unnamed customers' access to its system upon receiving an inquiry about the incident but has yet to confirm whether its software was involved.

    "Once the inquiry was received, and before any investigation under our compliance policy, we have decided to immediately terminate relevant customers’ access to the system, due to the severity of the allegations," an NSO spokesperson told The Register in an email. "To this point, we haven’t received any information nor the phone numbers, nor any indication that NSO’s tools were used in this case."

    Continue reading

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021