Examination of Witnesses (Questions 340-343)
Mr William McCoubrey, Dr Volker Stapper and Mr Richard
Rumbelow
5 MARCH 2007
Q340 Lord St John of Bletso: The concern
is this would lead to customers being locked in and the concern
that I have is there should be sufficient competition so that
customers would not be locked in because there is a huge amount
of naivety from customers on the retail charges.
Mr Rumbelow: If the question asked relates to
access to services that a customer enjoys on their handset, T-Mobile
does not operate a walled garden approach in terms of people getting
access to general internet services. Some operators do encourage
customers to go to managed service offerings, which are usually
run by themselves, but we do not have that approach. In other
words, people can gain general access to general internet services,
for example, if their phones enable them to do that.
Lord Haskel: We have really covered all
the points that we wanted to. The only other thing is whether
in a sunrise clause you would prefer a sunset clause.
Chairman: I think we have covered that.
Q341 Lord Geddes: Can I just ask an entirely
personal question, which was what I was talking to Lord Haskel
about. I happen to be on Vodafone and I have just got a message,
free, gratis and for nothing, from: "Free MSG. Lowest international
calls from 1p per minute. Text Simple to 80556. This costs you
£5 and you get £5 credit", et cetera. "Text
to opt out". It does not say what you do when you opt out.
I am sorry to bring up an entirely personal thing but what on
earth is all that about?
Mr McCoubrey: I think you may have just been
subjected to an unsolicited marketing message.
Q342 Lord Geddes: I think I was.
Mr McCoubrey: Which could probably be the subject
of an entire inquiry in itself!
Baroness Eccles of Moulton: We ought
to turn on our mobiles and see if we have got the same message.
Lord Geddes: I wonder who these people
are.
Q343 Lord St John of Bletso: I have just
one final question. You have mentioned in your submission to us
that there has been a legal challenge to Article 95. Our understanding
of this challenge to Article 95 is that whilst the lawyers might
say that there is scope for a delay de facto, it is
unlikely that this Directive will be delayed on the basis of a
legal challenge under a breach of Article 95. Would you agree
with that?
Dr Stapper: I would say that all the relevant
stakeholders, including the Commission and the Council, believe
that Article 95 is the proper basis for revision. We do not share
this view because we believe that it is only applicable if there
are diverging laws in the Member States.
Chairman: Good, thank you. Are there
any other questions? Thank you very much indeed. I am sorry we
have kept you slightly beyond our target but in light of injury
time I think we have fulfilled our 60 minutes. Thank you very
much indeed.
| 
