New Pricing Framework for Openreach Second Consultation - Extension of Consultation Period and note of minor amendments

The second consultation on the New Pricing Framework for Openreach was published on 15 December 2008. The consultation was proposed to close on 20 February 2009

In light of comments received from stakeholders on the complexity of the issues under consideration we have extended the deadline by two weeks . The due date for responses is now 6 March 2009.

We also attach a short list of clarifications and corrections to the consultation which have been identified since publication. The corrections are typographic only and do not impact on the ranges and underlying analysis set out in the main paper.

Amendments and clarifications to A New Pricing Framework for OpenreachPublished 5 December 2009

Para 7.26, page 64	The first sentence of paragraph 7.26 should read as follows: Based on these cost projections, there would appear to be a case for significant increases in the average price of SMPF ancillary services, while the prices of MPF ancillary services should fall in real terms if they are to align with the underlying costs of provision.
Annex 8, Schedule 1Paragraph FA3(A).8 (i)&(j) page 163	These should read as follows (in accordance with the ranges set out in the main documents): (i) for the category of products and/or services specified in paragraph FA3(A).1(i), [RPI to RPI increased by 5 percentage points] (j) for the category of products and/or services specified in paragraph FA3(A).1(j), [RPI decreased by 2.5 percentage points to RPI increased by 1.5 percentage points]
Table A9.4, page 198	In the second table, the figures in rows 9 and 14 represent Mean Capital Employed, not returns, as stated
	Table A10.1 shows the Openreach estimate of CCA costs for Openreach, not for the Core Rental Services, as stated. Openreachs projection of the costs and revenues for the Core Rental Services is provided in Table 5.2 on page 29.
Table at paragraph A10.9, page 213	As explained in Annex 10, the efficiency target of 2% to 4% excludes the effect of reducing fault rates.
Paragraph A10.31, page 219	As set out in the table at paragraph A10.9, the impact of a 2% annual efficiency gain would be 36m (not 41m, as stated at A10.31) while the impact of a 4% efficiency gain would be a further 67m (not 65m).