«This information aims to enable consumers to determine how the service is charged and billed.
For this purpose, the following tariff information must be published and disclosed:
i) Type and levels of tariffs applicable to the service provision concerned, including roaming communications, geographic steps, intranet and internet tariffs and tariffs for different types of numbers, namely non-geographic numbers;
ii) Minimum service cost, where it does not correspond to the price set for the established charging unit;
iii) Tariff charged for installing, reinstalling and uninstalling services concerned (breaking down tariffs for restoring former conditions), where appropriate;
iv) Minimum consumption, where appropriate;
v) Maintenance fees, where appropriate;
vi) Equipment renting prices, where appropriate;
vii) Discount and credit conditions;
viii) Peak versus off-peak hours, where appropriate;
ix) Prices per period;
x) Information on whether tariffs are pre-paid or post-paid;
xi) Indication of the type of calls included in commercial unlimited traffic offers (namely, calls to geographic or non-geographic numbers), where appropriate;
xii) Inclusion of a link in the website of the service provider to ICP-ANACOM’s Tariff Observatory (applicable to services covered by this observatory);
xiii) Any costs associated to operator portability;
vix) Tariffs of communications to enquiry services on tariffs of calls to ported numbers (where the obligation to implement this service applies);
xv) Disclosure of technical consumption-control means available to users, regardless of the criteria used to bill the service, if any, as well as of information on how to enable and disable this feature; and
xvi) Information on "Fair Use Policy"/ "Acceptable Use Policy", where appropriate, in particular on their content and means to access this information.
It is recommended that service providers make available simulators, at the respective websites and points of sale, allowing the different tariff plans they provide to be compared.»
PT has nothing against the amendment proposed for item i).
As regards point iii), PT points out that terms such as "uninstalling prices" and "restoring former conditions" are quite vague, that countless situations may be covered by these concepts, and that it is unfeasible to disclose this information in a systematic manner that is easily understood by consumers.
The company adds that these conditions depend on the contract conditions that apply specifically to the situation, and that this matter is safeguarded by the referred conditions.
It stresses also that with the requirement provided for in this item, ANACOM exceeds its scope of action, and as such that requirement should be removed, because the determination that operators must publish prices for restoring the service seems to imply that operators are bound to restore the conditions prior to the set up of the respective services. PT is of the opinion that operators are not under any obligation to restore the conditions prior to the set up of services. This obligation exists only in case of an obligation to repair damages in accordance with general terms of the law. Consequently, PT considers that the item under consideration should only be integrated in the final decision if it is recast so as to not include the obligation to publish prices for restoring the conditions prior to the set up of services.
DECO considers in this scope that information on the collection, per municipality, of the Municipal Fee for Rights of Way (MFRW) should also be made available.
ANACOM's position
First of all, it must be referred that item iii) did not undergo any amendment relatively to provisions in the determination on conditions of provision and use currently in force.
The purpose of this requirement is to ensure that users are informed of any burdens which they incur in when contracting services or when terminating such contracts. Where the uninstallation and restoring of conditions prior to the set up are subject to a price, that price must be disclosed. There may be countless situations that may be covered by these concepts, but if a price is due to the electronic communications provider for implementing these services, the value of those provisions must be appropriately disclosed and published. This requirement is in accordance with article 21 of Directive 2002/22/EC (as amended by Directive 2009/136/EC), already transposed to the national legal order with the amendment of ECL.
This Authority rejects the argument put forward by PT, according to which these conditions depend on the contract conditions that apply specifically to the situation, this matter being safeguarded by the referred conditions. This information requirement is intended to promote an informed decision to enter into a contract, and as such, it is entirely justified to establish this obligation in a pre-contract stage, as it is on the basis of this information that the user's will to enter into contract will be formed.
In the light of the above, and as according to point c) of paragraph 2 of article 47 of ECL, transposing article 21 of Directive 2002/22/EC, companies must publish information on applicable prices and tariffs indicating the services provided and the content of each tariff element, as well as any charges due on termination of a contract, it is not considered that ANACOM exceeds its scope of action in the draft decision submitted to consultation.
As regards DECO's proposal to add the obligation to provide information on the collection of MFRW per municipality, this fee varies according to the municipality, and in some municipalities the fee has not even been provided for. Requiring this information to be provided would increase the volume of information on the provision and use of services, without leading to a significant advantage. Consequently, it is not justified to impose the obligation to provide this information. However, so that end-users and any future subscribers are provided with comprehensive information, to this point c) shall be added the obligation to inform that «the offer of publicly available electronic communications networks and services at a fixed location may give rise to the payment of a MFRW. Interested parties are requested to check, at their municipality of residence, if this fee applies and how much it amounts to.»
Relatively to the obligation to disclose information on minimum consumption, referred to in item iv) of point c) of section A, ACOP and DECO stated that article 8 of the Essential Public Services Law - Law number 23/96 of 26 July, as amended by Law number 12/2008, of 26 February, prohibits the collection of minimum consumption. As such, they argue that this item of the draft decision submitted to consultation is contrary to that provision of the Law, which applies to electronic communications services.
ANACOM's position
The Essential Public Services Law prohibits the imposition of minimum consumption, provision which must be interpreted as a prohibition to collect compulsory minimum consumption. This does not prevent, however, the existence of flat rates of a voluntary subscription or other alternative tariff schemes. Consequently, contrary to the observations of ACOP and DECO, the provision of information as comprehensive as possible on the conditions of access and use of electronic communications services justifies the maintenance of the obligation to ensure the provision of information on the existence of minimum consumption - which obviously may not be compulsory/imposed/ - if any.
Although acknowledging that article 47 of ECL provides for the obligation to make publicly available information on standard discounts, Vodafone considers that it will be very difficult for operators to make its discount regime known, as it is based on a case-by-case assessment, and depends on several factors.
The company refers further that discounts usually applied, except for occasionally disclosed campaigns, are generally aimed for the business segment and result from various factors which determine that clients are presented with specific proposals.
Vodafone believes that, to fulfil point c) of paragraph 2 of article 47 of ECL, it should only be required that the information to be disclosed includes the warning that clients must consult the operator to obtain information on discount conditions.
ANACOM's position
As Vodafone acknowledges, according to point c) of paragraph 2 of article 47 of ECL, providers of publicly available telephone networks or services must provide the public (end-users in general, whether companies or not) with information on standard tariffs, as well as details of standard discounts applied and special and targeted tariff schemes.
As results from the current wording of point c) of paragraph 2 of article 47 of ECL (and as provided for in Directive 2002/22/EC, as amended by Directive 2009/136/EC) this requirement was extended to electronic communications services in general. Vodafone, as other companies providing public communications networks or publicly available electronic communications services, cannot fail to fulfil that requirement provided for in the law, and accordingly, ensure the disclosure of discounts usually granted or conditions on which depend the granting of standard discounts.
The solution desired by Vodafone - of nothing more than the indication of how information may be obtained - is absolutely contrary to the requirement laid down in point c) of paragraph 2 of article 47 of ECL, and would fully deprive that obligation from its substance, preventing its intended purpose from being achieved.
PT is of the opinion that in item xii) ANACOM exceeds its scope of action, as the disclosure or making available of comparable information on tariffs existing on the market integrates the sphere of commercial autonomy of operators. Operators should not be forced to disclose on their websites tariff information on their business competitors, and this obligation is in fact unreasonable, as the search for the most appropriate product and service is incumbent on each interested party. The consultation of the tariff observatory should be promoted by ANACOM and not by companies. Likewise, APRITEL hardly understands how operators could be legitimately forced to provide at their websites tariffs of their business competitors.
As far as this requirement is concerned, Vodafone starts by declaring that operators have created and provided their commercial staff and clients with interactive guides and support structures that help select the best tariff according to the needs and type of use, and that in 2006 alterations were introduced in tariff simulators to enable the comparison between tariffs of all mobile operators.
Vodafone considers that the rights which are intended to be protected with this part of the determination have already been duly ensured, and that there are no grounds to include the link provided for in this part of the determination, as the website of each operator aims to disclose its own services, and not those of its competitors. Consequently, and as this measure is not required by article 47 of ECL, it should be removed from the final determination of ANACOM.
Zon also proposes the removal of the obligation provided for in this item xii), referring that [SCI] [ECI].
ANACOM's position
Contrary to the arguments put forward by PT, the requirement that services providers must insert on their websites a link to ANACOM's tariff observatory does not imply that an operator must provide on its website information on prices practised by its competitors. ANACOM requires only the inclusion on a link to a tool for comparing conditions of offer available to all interested parties, so that they are able to compare the various offers available on the market for the services intended to be used, ensuring that offers are comparable under the terms provided for in paragraph 1 of article 47 of ECL.
The provision of comparable information is ensured by ANACOM and not by companies that insert the link on their websites. In fact, the various companies are not required to provide information of prices of their competitors, this information, provided according to consumption profiles, is provided by ANACOM to the benefit of users and of various service providers, as this tool for comparison allows the disclosure of the most attractive offers according to the identified consumption profiles.
This requirement is perfectly covered by the regulatory objectives which ANACOM must pursue to ensure that end-users obtain the maximum benefit in terms of choice, price and quality, and to promote the provision of clear information, requiring in particular that tariffs and conditions for using electronic communications services are transparent (points a) of paragraph 2 and d) of paragraph 4 of article 5 of ECL). With this solution, ANACOM, pursuant to paragraph 5 o article 47 of ECL, meets the requirements established in paragraph 2 of article 21 of Directive 2002/22/EC.
Thus, as referred by PTC, the tariff observatory is provided by ANACOM, which also discloses it, being incumbent on electronic communications companies that provide services covered by the referred observatory to ensure its disclosure to the potential interested parties.
In the light of the above, the arguments presented by Vodafone, according to which the inclusion of the link is unjustified, cannot be accepted.
The arguments used by Vodafone, specifically as regards the fact that the institutional website of each company is aimed at the disclosure of its products and services, do not call into question the requirement provided for in the item of the determination. The disclosure of products and services of all companies is ensured by the "tariff observatory" that is accessible on a different website, other than the website of the company which under this determination is bound to insert the link of access.
Still on this item of the draft decision submitted to consultation, it must be also referred that the arguments used by Zon are outdated, in addition to not being appropriate or sufficient to support the removal of the requirement on the inclusion in the service provider's website of a link to ANACOM's Tariff Observatory. As such, the proposed removal is rejected.
PT questions the utility of the obligation of disclosing the technical consumption-control means [xv], as this information should integrate the scope of discretionary action of each company, and also as tools for consumption control may not be useful in the scope of all voice service offers. In PT's view, the provision of technical consumption-control means should not result from an obligation, but merely from a recommendation.
Vodafone points to the relevance and sensibility of the subject, which in its opinion justifies that information on the existence of these means is provided in a clear way and with emphasis, so that it does not go unnoticed among service users.
CTT believes that this information is not relevant for the decision to enter into a contract, being relevant only a pre-contract stage, as it constitutes only a technical description of a functionality of the service. CTT takes the view that it is sufficient to inform the consumer that this functionality is available at the moment of the service provision.
ANACOM's position
Contrary to what was argued by PT and by CTT, this information may have a decisive influence on the decision to contract, contributing to the making of an informed decision relatively to the contracting of services, and to decrease the chances of disputes which are associated to poor information on the conditions of provision thereof.
ANACOM has received several complaints related to the fact that consumers are sometimes unaware that they have reached their consumption limits, and, having exceeded those limits, they face the suspension of the service or the billing of additional consumption. Therefore, the disclosure of the technical consumption-control means is an important measure to improve the information available to consumers, contributing to decrease the chances of disputes in the sector. This resort may also be very relevant to decrease situations of non-compliance and the amount of judicial and out-of-court disputes.
On the other hand, the disclosure of these technical means is particularly useful as it has a direct impact on the final price of services, bearing in mind, for example, tariffs limited to specific consumption or clauses of responsible use.
The arguments of CTT are not accepted as well, as the purpose of item xv) is not a technical description of service functionalities, but the disclosure of the technical means made available for consumption control, if any.
The relevance of this resource and of its disclosure among users justifies the inclusion of the obligation to promote its disclosure in a pre-contract stage.
Vodafone declares that the information on fair use policy should be transmitted to the customer in an objective and transparent manner and it must be appropriately highlighted and detailed in the various information media made available to the public.
As regards the recommendation that service providers make available simulators at the respective websites and points of sale, allowing the different tariff plans they provide to be compared, PT refers that it is likely to be unfeasible and, as such, it should be removed.
Zon considers that this recommendation should be recast, and for this purpose it puts forward the following wording: «It is recommended that service providers make available simulators, at the respective websites and points of sale, allowing the different tariff plans they provide to be compared», as the company feels that the requirement to provide tariff simulators at points of sale is a redundant obligation, as such points are intended to provide commercial advice.
ANACOM's position
Contrary to PT's arguments, there are already some simulators that allow the comparison of the various tariff plans, made available at the websites of some providers. Consequently, this recommendation is not unfeasible, as supported by PT, as this is already happening right now.
Still on this subject, it is not considered that this recommendation is redundant, as pointed out by Zon. This recommendation made for points of sale of services, not only allows the provision of a more comprehensive customer service, but will also contribute to the decrease of waiting lines/times, as the need to obtain information on tariffs may be fulfilled, at least in part, through the use of simulators.
