Good morning, and welcome to the fifth meeting in 2018 of the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee. Could I please ask you all to make sure that your mobile phones are on silent? No apologies have been received, so we'll move straight on to agenda item one, which is in relation to OFCOM. The Scottish Parliament has a formal consultative role in setting the strategic priorities of OFCOM. The committee will now explore OFCOM's proposed annual plan for 2018 and its annual report. I welcome from OFCOM Glenn Preston, the Scotland Director, Gary Clemo, the Connected Nations Project Director, Jonathan Ruff, the author of Connected Nations Scotland 2017, and Matthew Bourne, the annual plan team. Glenn, I think that you are going to make an opening statement. If you would like to make one, please start away. Thank you very much, convener. Yes, just for two or three minutes. You've done my first two or three paragraphs, which was introduced by colleagues, so thank you for doing that. I'll focus a bit on the annual plan and some of the key elements of Connected Nations, and then we look forward to the conversation with the committee. It is a statutory consultation. We're obligated to do this annually. It closes this Friday, so we do welcome the opportunity to have the conversation with the committee about OFCOM's strategic priorities for 2018-19. We have had a consultation event in Edinburgh. We did that on the 18th of January, which was really well attended from across the sectors that we regulate. We had somewhere between 14 and 15 people there. We covered the full range of OFCOM business, so supporting network investment, ensuring markets work for consumers, securing standards in broadcasting, and we did do a December session with the culture committee where we covered our interests particularly in the BBC, understanding convergence and market changes, and also adapting to regulatory change following the passage of the Digital Economy Act in the UK Parliament last year. We hope to publish the plan by the end of March, and we will reflect the engagement that we've done across the UK, including in Edinburgh, and the formal responses that we get from stakeholders across Scotland. It's worth adding that, in respect of Scotland, in particular, the draft plan recognises the provision of fixed broadband, mobile and postal services that meet the needs of consumers and SMEs in particular in rural and remote areas continues to present particular challenges. We'll no doubt get into this in discussion, but on fixed broadband we expect to be given responsibility for implementation of the UK Government's regulatory universal service obligation in the coming weeks. We think that the legislation is due to be laid in the UK Parliament by the end of this month. Once we're clear on the final terms of that, we'll work as we have been along the way with the Scottish Government and the Scottish Futures Trust on the relationship with their own Reaching 100 programme. The evidence session that you did last week with the Cabinet Secretary and Scottish Government officials was extremely beneficial to us in helping our understanding about the direction of travel on that programme. On mobile, we're reaching the point of consulting on future awards of spectrum bands as they're cleared and released. We've touched a bit on that at our previous session last April and in between, particularly on the 700 MHz band. This will cover the design of auctions, any obligations and measures to promote competition as part of the licence awards. That will include us working very, very closely with the Scottish Government on its own 4G infill programme, which is of direct relevance to some of the work that we'll be doing on spectrum auctions. On post, the committee will have seen the significant cross-party and cross-parliamentary interest in the issue of surcharging over recent months. We're continuing to engage with stakeholders across the UK on our findings on the causes and effects, and our consumer group director, Lindsay Fusill, will be giving evidence to the Scottish Affairs Committee of the UK Parliament on the subject, alongside its advice Scotland in trading standards on 27 February. Very briefly on Connected Nations, as you know, it's a report that's an in-depth look at communications networks and infrastructure across the UK. We recognise how important that data is to policy makers, industry and consumers, and you mentioned already, convener, that we did publish a Scotland-specific report on 15 December 2017. What that shows is that coverage has increased significantly in recent years, but there are still many areas where broadband speeds are inadequate and mobile coverage is lacking, and this is most acutely felt in the rural areas of Scotland, which committee members will be all too well aware of. Just to close, convener, and you mentioned this in your opening remarks, the memorandum of understanding that we work to in terms of our engagement with the Scottish Parliament and Scottish and UK Governments contains provisions relating to the appointment of an off-com board member for Scotland, which we have touched on in the past. I'm pleased to say that the first off-com board member for Scotland was formally appointed by Scottish ministers last week. Bob Downs, who is also the current chair of the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, formally took up the role on 1 February. The appointee has the same UK-wide responsibilities as other non-executive members of off-com, but the MOU requires the role to be capable of representing the interests of citizens and consumers of Scotland. My team in Scotland will be working closely with the new board member over the coming weeks and months to support their engagement with the Government, all levels of Government, with Parliament, with industry and wider civic Scotland to ensure that we're properly representing Scottish citizens and consumers' interests at a strategic decision-making level in off-com. I will close there, convener. Thank you very much. I know that you've all done this before, but there will be a series of questions from the members. If I could ask you to catch my eye if you'd individually like to say something and I'll try to bring you all in at the relevant point. Once you've caught my eye and you start speaking, could I ask you not then to look away, because I may want to keep the meeting moving and I may indicate to you to bring what you're saying that section to a close. It's just a question of managing it, but you'll all get a chance of it, so we'll just push straight on then. Mike, I think that you've got the first question. Thank you, convener. Good morning, panel. I'm going to focus my questioning on how off-com is pursuing its promotion of competition in Scotland. There is a significant gap between what is often promised by providers and what is the reality that consumers face in their homes. Often people are sold promises of certain speeds by providers and it's not reflected in what they receive. What can off-com do to ensure that real speeds are a better match to what consumers think they're purchasing? Johnathan, thank you for the question firstly. Off-com's starting point has always been that competition is the best means of delivering good outcomes for consumers in terms of price, quality, service and choice. While that has delivered improvements in Scotland in recent years, as we've highlighted in the Connecting Nations report, it's important to recognise that we're acutely aware that competition hasn't delivered the best outcomes for consumers in rural areas. That said, regulatory solutions alone are unlikely to drive infrastructure investment in some of the most rural areas of Scotland. Off-com's view is, and we highlight that in the annual plan, that it will probably be necessary for government interventions of some kind there, and there's also a role for industry to examine how they approach those issues. As we've highlighted in the Connecting Nations report, we feel that genuine collaboration and constructive dialogue between industry regulators and UK and or Scottish government is the best means of delivering good outcomes there. On your specific point about broadband speeds, I think that it's in one of the chapters under protecting consumers. One of the most important changes that we've put in place is to revise the broadband speeds code of practice, which some of you are probably aware of. In short, that involves strengthening information, while making it clearer than information at the point of sale to consumers. We appreciate obviously that that doesn't always translate into faster speeds, and so we have put in place mechanisms to allow consumers to exit their contract if they feel they're not getting the speeds that are being delivered. In terms of improving speeds more generally, and what we can touch on this, I'm sure, later in the session, there's various initiatives that we are supporting with the UK Government and the Scottish Government, but the most important change that I think is related to the broadband speeds code of practice. On that specific point about broadband speeds, so often we offer a speed up to such and such, and then we find that loads of consumers don't get that speed. When a consumer is trying to make a choice as to what broadband provider they can use, often you can have a situation where a consumer wants to have a higher speed, because it says up to, it actually pays more money for it, and then finds that they're not getting as good a service as they had from a different provider. How are off-combe tackling that? In terms of the information at the point of sale, as I've said, the broadband speeds code of practice does have some provisions there. Primarily it's an advertising point, and that lies with the advertising standards agency, and they have recently put out, I think, it was changing the rules about speeds of up to 10 per cent of advertising. It has to be within a 10 per cent margin of the speed advertised. Primarily it's an advertising issue, but as I said, there are provisions in place in the code of practice to allow people to exit if they aren't getting the speeds that they were promised. Before you go on to your next question, there are a couple of other members who want to talk about specifically broadband speeds. If you want to push broadband speed, I'm happy to give you another question. Can I bring the other members in, particularly on broadband speed? First of all, I'd like to bring in Stuart, and then I'm going to bring in Colin. Just to be clear, it's not speed. It's specifically something that Mr Ruff said. It appeared that you were suggesting that competition was about the provision of infrastructure, and I think that it's probably recognised that, in very small rural exchanges, I'm connected to one with ASD customers. That's not going to happen. What are you also taking in the provision of competition at the delivery of services over the infrastructure that's there, provided by someone else, which broadly means open reach? I think that that's an issue for many rural areas. I know in my exchange that, on standard connection, there are three providers, whereas in the city centre there will be a very substantially larger number of people that I might be able to go to. Therefore, it becomes a price issue. What are off-coms doing to assist in ensuring that there are multiple options that a consumer can pursue? Consumers are not interested in infrastructure per se. They are interested in the price that they pay and the service that they get. What is off-coms doing, particularly for rural areas in that regard? First, I accept the point that, in rural areas, the choices are more limited. I take your point that the infrastructure investment is probably not the most catchy consumer friendly language. In the annual plan, we have, specifically in relation to open reach, put in provisions that we feel would incentivise competition on the open reach network. That is legal separation. The idea is that open reach now has to treat all its wholesale customers, such as Sky, Tok Tok and PlusNet, which comes to providers using the open reach network to treat them all equally, so that it disincentivises them from prioritising. Do forgive me on it very briefly. How will you know that you have succeeded? Do you have a measure for success in competition, in particular in rural areas? On the open reach point specifically, we have, as I said, put in place legal separation. In the annual plan, we have allowed how we intend to measure that. We have set up a monitoring unit within off-com. It is still, I appreciate, early days, but the plan is to—I think that it is fair to say so far that there has been good progress in that, but we intend to monitor that over the course of the forthcoming year. You sort of have stolen one of Colin's questions from Lisa. I am going to bring Colin in with his question on speed, and I will maybe get Jonathan to comment and Glenn on that. Colin, if you would like to question on that. Thank you very much, convener. Scotland obviously has a high proportion of exchange-only lines, and that obviously has a major impact on speeds. Can I ask how off-comer is helping to improve generally broad-band speeds in rural Scotland? Because we have a situation where around 20 per cent of premises in rural and local authorities do not have speeds above 24 megabytes per second. What are you doing to improve in general speeds in rural Scotland, in particular those that are served by copper telephone lines? Perhaps my colleague Gary could give you the technical side of exchange-only lines, but in short, obviously a lot of rural areas are served by exchange-only cabinets. That means that they cannot be adequately upgraded to superfast speeds. There is a more general point around what off-comer is doing to promote delivery of faster speeds in rural areas. Obviously, there is the universal service obligation, so we share the UK Government's ambition for everyone to have a decent broadband service. That has been defined as 10 megabits per second download speed and one megabit per second upload speed. We are currently waiting on the secondary legislation being laid at the UK Parliament, so we will have a formal role there. In parallel to that, obviously, and this was touched on in your committee session last week, the Scottish Government has its own broadband roll-out programmes, the digital Scotland superfast broadband programme, and obviously now the reaching 100 per cent programme. It is worth saying that off-comer doesn't have a formal role in those programmes, but we are acutely aware of the fact that both those programmes are overlapping. We have engaged quite extensively with the Scottish Government on how that will be implemented and how we can factor that into our universal service obligation duties. Johnathan, I am going to stop you on the R100 programme because there are other questions on that. I can see that this meeting is going to be interesting in the sense that it is going to move around a fair bit between where I am trying to take it as far as questions are concerned. Glen, do you want to come in or does Gary want to explain the technicalities of it? Shall we bring in Gary first and then come back to you? It is just really to say that recognising that Scotland does have a larger proportion of exchange journey lines in other nations of the UK. Technically, there is not a straightforward solution to improving the situation for consumers on exchange only lines. OpenReach does have a programme in place to explore ways to essentially upgrade those lines. They cannot be upgraded in the same way that other properties that are not connected directly to the exchange can be upgraded. To be honest, it is less about the technical solution and it is more about the practicality of pursuing its programme called the copper realignment programme or rearrangement programme. What they have found so far is that, on an exchange-by-exchange basis, they can improve the situation for certain lines only. It is not something that we are seeing significant improvements at speed, but it is something that OpenReach is continuing to deploy and we are monitoring as part of the Connected Nations report. Glen, do you want to come in there? A quick point on the question that Mr Stevenson asked about, the consumers and pricing point. We produce a lot of material specifically aimed at consumers to allow them to understand what sort of choices are available to them. I would draw attention in particular to the work that we do on equality of service, which looks at each of the different providers and looks at how successful they have been in the provision of service to consumers and reports annually on that to allow consumers to make a choice about whether they want to move. What we then do rub up against is the point that Jonathan made about the choice that is available to people in rural areas, which was what Mr Stevenson asked about in particular, where that choice is more limited for the reasons that we have been discussing. I am going to come back to Mike, and I am going to ask Mike, sorry, if you could stick to the R100 at the moment, because there are other members who want to come in on that. Right. I think that the important point that I am trying to ask about is competition. Okay. Just because we have mentioned R100, Jeremy, do you want to come in briefly on R100, or should we— Well, it is a supplementary to the original noted question, which isn't mine, so I am not sure how you want to— Well, it is yours on R100, sorry. Right. We will take R100 and then I will come back to you, Mike. So, Jeremy. Good morning, panel. I really wanted to bring it back to something that Mr Preston said in his opening statement, and that was around the fact that he found last week's evidence session enlightening, because it gave you some more insight into the Scottish Government's plans. That sounds terribly worrying, as a statement to me. Why do you have to watch parliamentary committees to understand what the Scottish Government is doing in terms of its R100 project? I appreciate that there are a number of parallel systems running at the moment, one of which you do have a statutory duty to evolve yourself in, in that respect, being the UK Government's USO. But given that there already has been a DSSB project and now a R100 project, additional organic commercial market progress in certain areas and regulatory driven market progress in other areas, it doesn't sound to me that there's a huge amount of joined-up discussion or thinking around these parallel, often confusing to the consumer programmes. Do you have any comments on that? That answer to your question is not necessary to watch the parliamentary engagement for us to understand what's happening. It's just a helpful part of the process. We can and do talk to the Scottish Government all the time. That's several times a week, if you want to put a metric on it. We have been having a conversation with the UK level with the DCMS about the interaction between the R100 programme and what the UK Government has now decided to do with the regulatory USO. Just on a point of detail, we're not yet responsible for the USO and we don't know what the final terms of that are going to be. We understand that legislation will be laid towards the end of this month and that will set out exactly what's required of OFCOM. That's when the conversation will start and why it's helpful to look at the evidence that was given by Fergus Ewing and his team last week about how these two things sit together. How we deal with the issue of costs and pricing and so on bearing in mind that there is a complementary or a separate policy objective and programme being run by the Scottish Government. When we are given that formal responsibility and understand what the parameters are for the USO, we will sit down with the Scottish Government, with the Scottish Futures Trust and other bodies in Scotland, like Highlands and Islands Enterprise, for example, to have a conversation with them about how that all fits together and allows us to make our decisions about the regulatory responsibility that we'll have for implementing the USO. Thank you. I'm going to come back to my now. Sorry, Mike. It's been a roundabout way, but I'd like to push on some of the points that you've got. On competition still, the key for a better service for the consumer is information. And it strikes me that there's huge confusion out there between 10 megabits, 24 megabits, 30 megabits, promises of level of service. We all know—I mean, I've been in discussions with which, for instance, the consumer organisation, and we all know that suppliers, providers know what service they're getting to individual properties throughout the country. And I know which would particularly like to ask, and I'm going to ask that because I'm interested in it, too. In your regulatory role over the providers, can you—perhaps you could explain it if you don't, why you can't—can you get the providers to provide and publish data that they have on individual premises and consumers so that those individual consumers will actually know what information is held on them, reference to the service that they can receive at the moment? Are you with me, my question? Perhaps Gary could expand on the definitional points, but in terms of your point about consumer information, Ofcom publishes a wealth of data that's available on our website. More generally, for coverage—I know that your question is about price— but we have online maps, so you can check this. We have comparison of confidentiality comparison. My point is that the providers—you are not the providers, you are the regulators— the providers have all this information. You are the regulators to the providers. Those providers could provide that information on an individual basis to consumers. You publish a lot of information generally. That's not what I'm asking about. I'm asking about, in your role as a regulator, for the organisations that are the providers, can you get the providers to provide that information on individual premises? I think that we've all had letters saying that from constituents that we were promised this by the provider. When we actually asked them, they said that they couldn't deliver it having promised it. I think that's what you're drilling down on. Who would like to go on that, Gary? For the purposes of Connected Nations, we get data from all of the major providers on the kinds of services, broadband services that they can deliver to every residential property and small business property in the UK. That's a considerable data set. That data set previously has been updated on an annual basis, but from this year we will update it more frequently three times a year. That information has significant value to us as an organisation. We also make it available in various guises to policy makers. Of course, consumers would like to know what kind of service they can reasonably expect at their premise. Jonathan has already mentioned that, as I'm sure you're aware, we make information available via our checker tool. That will give you, if you put your address in, the most up-to-date information that we have on the speeds that the operators predict. Their models are relatively accurate if you factor out the occasional faults that people may get on their broadband lines. Generally, what those models predict is what people receive in terms of the speed delivered to their premise. You can find out, using our online checker tools and apps, what kind of service you can expect at home. Your point about whether we can make that information or we can encourage the providers to make that information available. The approach that we are currently pursuing is a voluntary approach. We've approached BT, OpenReach and Vergy Media in the first instance to encourage them to make address-level data available to price comparison websites, which is the main way in which consumers would access that information, and those discussions are on-going. It's something that you're pursuing. The voluntary approach is something that we're currently pursuing. If they don't do it voluntarily, would you consider requiring them? We were monitoring progress. We clearly have an interest in making sure that consumers have as accurate information as they can to inform their buying decisions. We have a number of ways to do that. We maintain our own websites, and we would encourage operators to... If the convener will allow me to make one comment, there's a difference between saying that consumers can do something and they can find out something with a check than requiring the providers who have that information to make it available to consumers when they're entering contracts. There's quite a difference. I hope that the voluntary approach works. If it doesn't, I would hope that we can be back again to see how we can pursue this. Do you have any other questions? Stuart, you've got a question on this. I'm slightly puzzled by this. Having changed my broadband contracts in the last two years, in each case, I was given an estimate of the download speed and a contractual commitment to at least meet that speed, which allowed me to cancel. In one case, I was promised 68 and I'm getting 82. That's down here. At home, I was promised six and I'm getting eight. However, the key point is that, really, my question is given that the particular provider that I'm signed up with—I'm not going to name names so that you can probably work out who it is—is able to make that kind of contractual commitment, is that something that Ofcom would wish to pursue generally across the industry? If one supplier can make that kind of contractual equipment, that means that there's a no penalty to me option to cancel early if it's not delivered, why can't everybody do it? Particularly in my exchange, back—it's all one infrastructure, even though there's multiple offers. Jonathan. The short answer to that and refer back to my previous answer would be the broadband speeds code of practice. If you aren't getting the speeds that you were promised at the point of sale, you are permitted to exit your contract without penalty. That is what we would point to when concerns like that are raised. There are, perhaps, underline technical reasons about how they manage traffic, perhaps at peak times. However, the measure that we would point to, and it's outlined in our proposed annual plan, is the broadband speeds code of practice. It's also worth adding on terms of consumer protection that we have now published a final decision on automatic compensation. If you, for whatever reason, experience a fault on your line or you're without service for a particular period of time, you are entitled to automatic compensation. Given that part of the network for delivery is the domestic customer's network in their house, and in my case, the speed more than doubled when we replaced one socket, how are you dealing with that issue, which isn't really my suppliers' issue? I suspect that that's a common cause of difficulty. Perhaps Gary could add to that, but there are a number of things that consumers can do in their house to improve their broadband speeds. One of Ofcom's most publicised reports on that was in relation to factors that can affect wi-fi speeds, and there are various electric interference problems that can result in the speed degradation in your house. Again, it's perhaps not the solution to the problem, but there are things, and that is all on the Ofcom website that people can look at to improve their broadband speeds now. I'm going to leave that there and move on to the next question, which is from Stuart Stevenson. We're looking at the USO of 10 megabits, but the Scottish Government is, of course, through its R100 seeking to deliver 30 megabits to have a substantially higher standard, and indeed the upload speed is well of one megabit. Basically, how do the two regimes interoperate, or is that unclear to you as yet, in that the UK legally mandated requirement is different from the target that the Scottish Government has set? First, we were supportive of any Government initiative that seeks to improve connectivity, regardless of whether that is coming from the UK Government or the Scottish Government. The broadband USO, which we have spoken about in a number of forums, would have a formal legal duty to implement that. At the moment, the draft statutory instrument that was published alongside the DCMS consultation last year, as you said, was for 10 megabits down one up. We expect that to be the case. We have, when this was at the stage of a voluntary deal that was being proposed, we had engaged extensively with the Scottish Government on those issues. I think that the answer to the question is a case of timing. We will, throughout the course of the next few months, see more details on that, but we are acutely aware of the overlapping nature of both programmes. As I said, we have excellent working relationship with the Scottish Government. I can move on to another subject, and I am not going to open it up too much because I know that colleagues will do so, specifically related to words of spectrum. In your opening remarks, I think that it was Johnathan referred to, in particular, the 700 MHz spectrum, which is a particular interest of Scotland for 5G. Given that the north of Scotland, in particular, would be the ideal testing ground for that frequency, because there is a great need, because it will be distant from any interference from other jurisdictions who might be using the same frequencies. Indeed, free views started in the north of Scotland and ended up in the south-east of England for that reason. What are we doing to make sure that the rural implementation of 5G, which is very different from what is planned for the city, is technologically and otherwise, is actually at the front of what we might do in looking at the words of spectrum? We will explore the whole issue of connectivity later on, no question. Matthew, you are coming on that one. Shall I start, and then maybe Glen will pick up on specifics. In terms of spectrum overall and awards, it is probably worth noting that we are at a point now where, over the next few years, there is a series of clearances and awards coming up, not just on the bands that you have mentioned but others. For instance, in relation to 5G, we are somewhere away, but we are looking at the 26 GHz band as well, and what else might be done there. To be fair, 26 GHz is very short range, is about covering cities. It is an absolutely no value that we are talking about in the rural areas, and we are the rural committee. I am particularly focusing on the 700 MHz, which is what will deliver 5G for local areas. I may be as sound as if I know what I am talking about, but we should not make the assumption that I have complete knowledge. I do not. That is a very accurate summary of the differences between the two bands. 700 is more imminent because we are embarking on the clearance process for that. I know that there is a now quite a detailed programme in place for how that would be cleared area by area. I do not have the specifics with me, but we would be happy to provide that. That is something that was in within the annual plan this year. Once the spectrum is cleared and the award process, what within the award process can you do to encourage further competition and certainly obligations in terms of the geographic coverage? My abiding point is that it is the first step in a particular spectrum band. We are also trying to look at the wider use of spectrum and what is more appropriate to different areas. I should declare an interest in that I am currently on zero G. It was me who mentioned 700, not Jonathan. It is only fair. I respond to it. As Matt Scott said, we are due to consult on the 700 spectrum process in the next hand for the weeks. We expected to cover the areas that you have asked about. It is about applicability to rural areas and how we might go about doing that. There are different options that we can look at as you will be aware. We will come to members of the Scottish Parliament and ask them to contribute to that ahead of when we get around to awarding the final spectrum next year. The other thing that is worth saying is that you mentioned 5G. The other conversation that we are having at a UK level, but also with the Scottish Government and Scottish Futures Trust, is about how we help to deliver on the 5G strategy and supporting testbeds and trials programmes, because we offer licences for that. We would expect that Scotland, such as other bits of the UK or bits of Scotland, will be interested in participating in that. We will explore those options. Glenn, can I just push a little bit on that? Stewart has made a point about having large parts of Scotland having no G on their phones at all. Some people in Scotland feel that they are looking towards 5G when a lot of places have no G, especially in the north, which I class as north of Inverness, but Stewart may have a different definition. It is really hard to stomach for those rural areas, so we will often be pushing current providers to make sure that 4G is rolled out across the areas that do not have it now, without allowing companies to get distracted by future technology before they have delivered what they should have done already. The short answer to the question is yes. We are currently assessing the existing obligations and the extent to which they have been met, and we will publish a final report on that over the course of the next couple of months. That is those that were due to come to the end of December 2017. It is worth saying also that the connected nations data, which Gary referred to, goes back to the summer of last year, so we would have thought that the pictures improved quite dramatically. We will be publishing more frequently, as Gary mentioned, the sheer data that should allow people to have more up-to-date information. The new awards that are coming up to answer your question are not just looking towards 5G, but also looking to make sure that people can have sensible voice and data services. That is why 700, particularly in rural Scotland, is attractive to us, because that should allow for people to be able to make voice calls and use data in a better way than they can at the moment and respond to your point that there are still geographic areas in Scotland where it is not possible to get a signal. John, I think that you have got the next question. Good morning, panel. I would like to pick up on the obligation that you have about protecting people from harm, whether that is unfair practices or specific harm in ensuring cyber resilience. If Mr Stevenson says that he has little knowledge, I have zero knowledge in comparison, so I will ask about T-Best, which I am told is a new intelligence-led cyber security penetration test framework for communication providers. It is a security measure that I understand identifies and would respond to specific cyber attacks. In the Highlands and Islands and in need in other rural areas, many local communities have established their own networks. How can you ensure that those networks maintain good security and resilience practice, please? Who would like to—you are all looking the other way, so, John, it must have been a good question. Glenn, I think that you will have to go on that. I am not sure that I have that much to say, to be honest. Ofcom does have some regulatory responsibilities specifically in respect of physical resilience of national networks, and we do work with the providers and with Governments to make sure that the adequate protections are in place. I am afraid that I do not know the answer unless somebody else does to those more local and community networks. I am afraid that I do not have a precise answer to the question, but just to acknowledge that T-Best is something that members of my team are engaged with over the next 12 months, we are in the process of Ofcom's duties around security resilience and cyber are in the process of changing. I am not in the position to offer a response to that, but it does sound like something that I would be very happy to follow up with the committee. That would be good if you could perhaps come back to that. Can you say in the interim what measures are in place, specifically when you do come back to us, if there is a roll-out programme? Maybe just a little bit more on the existing protections. I am afraid that I do not have any detailed understanding that I suspect the little knowledge that I have would not answer your question. I can come back with a comprehensive view of what we currently do and how that is likely to change as we inherit those new and changed uses. That would be very helpful. John, you indicated earlier that you might want to drill down a wee bit into local communities with their own networks and security there. Do you think that you have had the answer? I thought Gary said that he would perhaps come back in more detail with that aspect. Richard Watt has come in and I will take Stuart first, then Richard Watt. It is a very specific point related to the increased number of quite small telecom providers. In relation to the fixed line provision, those providers have an enduring responsibility to provide the switching capability for the numbers that they issue, even if the customer becomes a customer of another company. There has been one instance in Aberdeen that was about five or six years ago when a telecom provider failed and therefore the switching capability was removed and therefore people lost access to the telephone numbers even though they were not with the failing company. Are there plans on off-coms part to provide a step-in facility that would protect and cover the switching capability that is an enduring responsibility of all fixed line telecom providers? Because it was immensely disruptive when that happened and it strikes me that we could do something about Jonathan Watt. I agree that when loss of service issues arise, particularly in rural communities, it is felt acutely. It is worth saying that off-com does not have a formal role in administering or managing those community broadband schemes. We are aware that some of the problems and challenges that they face relate to access to backhaul, which they need to connect to the main network. A lot of those providers, and I am not sure in the specific case that you mentioned, Mr Stevenson, rely on fixed wireless access. There has been a number of cases over the past year where failing wholesale providers—I think that one of the cases that comes to mind was AB Internet—had a downstream effect on a project in Loctay, where a couple of hundred people lost service. Obviously, that has a huge impact on businesses and local communities. To answer your specific point about off-coms role there, it is more tricky when it is a fixed wireless provider, when it is on the open reach network, there is a process in place called the supplier of last resort. Can I just be clear that I am making a very narrow point about losing the right to a particular telephone number? Oh, okay. That is hypothetical. You could have a telephone provider in Edinburgh who provides numbers in the range of 131, 998 and then the digits beyond that. They have to provide the computer that is the first place where that number goes to be switched to whatever provider it is. They fail and people lose access to the 998 or whatever. That is the specific thing that affected thousands of customers in the city of Aberdeen. It was not actually a rural issue at all and it was some time ago. There are two points there. Off-coms has general condition 18, which relates to number portability, so everyone has the right to request that their number can be ported. In example, where there is a loss of service issue, as far as I am aware, those numbers are held in a bank for up to six months. I am not aware of the specifics of that case, but that is the general principles. I do not want to over-egg the pudding too much because you might have to go away and think about it. It is simply that the failed provider has the technical duty of just the way that the network works. When you dial that number, it goes to their computer, even if the contract the person has was with entirely other company. It is that issue that protects the access that people have to a specific number, which will be on all their note papers, telephone directories and so on. It really sounds a tiny thing, but for the companies who lost their number, it was not a question of the service was down for a week while somebody else stepped in, they permanently lost their right to their number. It is that issue. However, let us not over-egg the pudding, convener. I think that we have dwelled on that. Maybe, Jonathan, you could write to the committee and let us know, because I think that it is a serious point, but quite how widespread it is, you could perhaps let us know in the correspondence. I know that Richard Lyle wants to come in. I am not sure if anyone is picking it up, but you are on off-comers, going on about service and cost and good provision and so on. I remember the good old days when you phoned directory inquiries and it cost you about five pence. Remember what five pence was? Now you dial directory inquiries to any provider and it can cost you from £1 to £2 to £3 if you stupidly say, yes, put me through to the number, thank you, and you forget you are being directed and then directed again. What are you going to do about that? What are you doing to reduce the cost of directory inquiries? I knew that I should not have let you in, Richard, because that was the question that I wanted to ask. However, I think that it is a genuine point that we have all been approached, especially with those constituents that do not have access to broadband to look up directory inquiries. They have to go through directory inquiries and then, because they have not got a pen to write it down, they do end up going through and it costs them a huge amount of money. It is in your report. What are you going to do about it? Matthew, you are going to answer on that. Thank you very much for the question. Yes, it is in our report and it is one of the priorities for this coming year.  In some cases, yes. On the other hand, you hope that you get some of the benefits of competition between provision, but we entirely accept that where the competition does not work, you do need to step in to protect consumers. We are very aware that we are talking about, in some cases, particularly vulnerable groups of consumers who are more dependent on their landlines. In the UK, there still remains about a million or so households who are landline-only users who do not take advantage of internet technologies, etc. That would be their way of finding these numbers. Great words, Matthew, but can you set a cost, can you say to all these providers, sorry, you are not charging £1.50, you can charge £0.50 or you can charge whatever, but you are not charging what you are charging now. Can you regulate that, can you say, can you enforce that, yes or no? Matthew, I am happy if you want to give a sharp answer to that, because you have made the comment that you believe, I think that your words were sharp practice and it is in your report that you want to do something about it and that regulation may be required, so just confirmation that you can do something about it may answer Richard's question. We would look at a number of, I am sorry that I cannot give you the yes or no, but it is an option on the table. We are at the stage of looking at the transparency and the pricing first and how those markets are operating. I do hope that we do not have to ask you the same question a year's time. Off-coms consumer protection regulation is underpinned by the general conditions of entitlement. You have made a number of changes to the most recent high-profile ones or on issues such as Newstons calling and protecting vulnerable residents. Can you tell me with regards to the new set of conditions, will they have any specific impact on communication providers in Scotland? Jonathan, I think that you are getting directed to answer by Glenn. If I understood the question correctly, will those changes apply to communications providers in Scotland? Yes, of course, it is UK-wide rules. In terms of Newstons calls specifically, obviously the Scottish Government has its own action plan. We have been involved quite extensively with that and a number of other organisations. As far as we are, Newstons calls are coming down, but the research from which it has shown that there was a higher prevalence of Newstons calls in Scotland. Any of the measures that we have put in place in the general conditions, of course, we would hope to see that have a greater impact in Scotland. In particular, while the rules cover UK-wide, is there any disproportionate impact on the communication providers in Scotland that those new rules are likely to have? Not as far as my where. Just before we leave the subject, we all receive letters from constituents who are complaining about receiving calls to do with. I think that the latest one is the new Government boiler scrappage scheme, the scheme and that scheme. We advise them to block their calls to do a call preference, work for a couple of months and then off it goes again. There is a genuine dissatisfaction with the way that is regulated. Is that something that you will be dealing with and looking at more closely? It is just not working what we have at the moment, I would say, from my mailbag. I think that the short answer to the question is yes. It is not only for Ofcom to be able to respond to the new Stons calls issues. The advice that we were offering to the new Stons calls commission in Scotland and that we have been offering at a UK level is technical, so it is working with the communications providers to look at what the technical solutions are to be able to block those things at source. It is a challenging game because they continue to change the technology, and it is really a matter of trying to keep up with that. We are continuing to be part of the new Stons calls commission implementation in Scotland alongside the likes of the information commissioner's office, who has some greater powers in relation to the protection of personal data and data privacy. That is a space that we think is quite rich for being able to push those companies that are doing the sorts of practices that you have identified. The new Stons calls commission was interesting because it demonstrated something that you have just touched on, convener, which is quite a lot of the practices that seem to relate to public schemes. We are relating to policy objectives of the Scottish Government, which had gone unnoticed until the commission really started to look at the background to this stuff. We are working with them to identify where those schemes may be and how we can provide technical advice to stop people from the sorts of sharp practices that we mentioned. Before we leave that, one of the easiest ways to do it would be to make sure that anyone who made those calls had to identify themselves and give their number, but they are all on number with hell, so you cannot ring them back and check them out. I would have thought that any UK company should be enforced to not mask their number, so people could stop it. Do you have a view on that? Those are some of the solutions that we are looking at. I do not know the exact detail, but I think that there is a significant problem with that happening at an international level. It is not simply a case of being able to identify the UK companies, although clearly if we had the scope to do that, we would consider it. The practice seems to be one where the proliferation of calls, in many ways, has come from other parts of the world. Gary might want to come in on that particular point and requires international solutions in the forums that we are members of. Just to add to that, there is an additional problem of spoofing. Some companies may hide their actual number by putting in a false number, so that the consumer may be forced to answer the call and may answer the call, expecting it to be from someone else. That makes the problem of enforcing significantly harder. There are some technical solutions, and, as Glen Lennon says, there are a number of technical aspects to this that we are currently looking into and providing advice. I think that it would be greatly appreciated by people who receive these calls at all times of the night, sometimes, if we could get on top of it. We will probably leave that there and move on to the next question, which is John's. Thank you, convener. It was just a mention of international co-operation. There is a section in your work plan for 1819-headed engaged during changes to European legislation, and there is a fair bit of detail in there, but I am wondering how you see that going forward, especially as Brexit is going to have an effect? Are people going to notice any changes, or will we end up effectively being part of a whole European-wide following all the same regulations? I think that you are probably picking up on some of the changes to legislation that are already in train and indeed were at a European level before there was any vote on Brexit. We have been engaged, as with many member states, for a number of years around the AVMS directive and revisions to that, and also the Electronics Communications Framework, which obviously governs Fixline-Telco. Those, we expect proposals to be adopted on the former during the current annual period, on the ECF, a slightly later timescale, but they are changes that are coming through to those legislation. I am not sure about dramatic changes. I think that some of the core principles remain. On the AVMS front, there are changes to the sum of requirements around on-demand services and adapting to a new world of delivery of audio-visual services. Is the picture that we have committed to some of those things because we are currently in the EU, and therefore those commitments would still hold going forward unless somebody positively changed them? There would not be a gap. We have been signatories to those arrangements and, indeed, their predecessors, and they are incorporated within UK law currently. Unless there was an effective decision to change what we had adopted, they remain. One thing that consumers will be worried about is roaming charges, because it took a long time to get rid of them. Will Scottish British people be charged, or do we not know, when they go to Europe? What about people coming here? Will any of that be affected? It is outside of those particular bits of legislation. There are the separate provisions that were made and that came into effect last year, so in June. Is everyone's aspiration and hope that you have as much continuity as possible and that it is an intervention that has been broadly welcomed by consumers? We hope that it remains. It is subject to agreements continuing, and it might form part from negotiations as well. My questions about the bidding process for the R100 scheme. We are told that superfast broadband is at 94 per cent in urban areas and only 56 per cent in rural areas. We are told that the bidding process for R100 will concentrate on rural areas initially. The country is being divided up into three geographical areas for that bidding process to happen. We obviously want to get competitive bids and value for money, and hopefully contracts awarded by early 2019 are often involved in that process. What role do you have within that process to ensure that we do get competitive bids that are going to deliver on the expectations to deliver 100 per cent superfast broadband to the whole of the Scottish rural areas? The short answer to that is that we do not have a formal role in the R100 programme to date, as Ludi Tew earlier said, it has been about providing technical advice and expertise. On your point about building competition into the bidding process, you are quite right that the Scottish Government has divided it into three geographic lots from what it can gather. It prioritises the north lot first. It is well documented that other European countries have followed what is referred to as an outside approach. I am not sure whether that is directly applicable, but the principle is the same. It is to prioritise the hardest-to-reach areas first. From what we can gather, from discussions with the Scottish Government and the documents that they have published, their aim is to build as much competition into that process as possible. That may involve, given that there will be potentially a range of technologies used, that could involve smaller providers. Indeed, I have attended workshops where smaller providers have expressed an interest in R100. However, the general principle or their aim is to build in a competitive bidding process, which Ofcom, in principle, agrees with. As we have said earlier, competition is one of the best means of incentivising investment. Just to follow up on that, you have no real knowledge at the moment as to how that process is going forward. You are not directly involved, but do you have a feel for how it is progressing or not? Ofcom acts independently from both the UK and the Scottish Government, so I do not know if it would be appropriate for us to comment on the future merits of it. Our connected nations report and the data that you referred to is retrospective, so our role is to comment on progress rather on looking to the future and speculating as to what might happen. However, although we have no formal role, we have engaged extensively with the Scottish Government on that. As we have said, we will have to take account of that now that we will have a formal duty on the UK Government's universal service obligation. Glen, do you want to come in on that? Johnathan has made the point that I was going to, but it is worth stressing it. In relation to the procurement specifically, there is no role for Ofcom, but we will continue to talk to the Scottish Government. The same question that Mr Greene asked earlier, the interaction that Johnathan said between reaching 100 and the universal service obligation, which we will have that formal implementing role to do, is critical. We need to make sure that we get that absolutely right. The next question is from Fulton. Last week's committee evidence session, there was a bit of discussion around individual consumers upgrading to superfast packages. Has Ofcom done any research to explain why consumers are not taking this option? Glen, do you want to go or are you going to Johnathan's start? Thank you for the question. First, in the Connected Nations report, the figure is a 39 per cent take-up of superfast broadband. I do not think that there is a clear reason yet as to why people are not taking this up. It could be the case that they feel that it is not necessary. Ofcom's research is published research, which says that 10 megabits per second is probably about enough at the moment for the typical household. The Scottish Government has made the case for set-out arranged measures to try to encourage take-up in its digital strategy. However, I do not think that there is a clear answer yet as to why only 39 per cent of people in Scotland are taking up superfast. However, that is broadly in line with what we have seen across the rest of the UK. I do not think that that is an issue that is specific to Scotland. However, it is obvious that video streaming services and the demands on data increase. People might start to understand the benefits more of superfast, but to answer your question, it is not yet clear. We have done research on consumers' needs. We publish a communication to market report each summer, which outlines how people are using communication services. Over time, we will be able to report back to the committee on the different ways that people are using those services. Gary, do you want to comment on that? I am vaguely aware of some research that we did a while back, which tried to look at consumers' preferences for different broadband products. As Jonathan points out, there is no one particular issue that we have identified. It could be that people do not see the benefits of superfast. They are quite happy with the standard broadband services that they have. I think that there was about 15 per cent of people who said that they thought that it was too expensive, which I guess is related to the first point. If they do not see the merits of superfast, they are not going to consider buying it if they think that the cost is too expensive. There is something there about the providers of those services, perhaps doing a little bit more to articulate the benefits of superfast. As Jonathan has said, more and more people are watching content, TV, high definition content, delivered over the internet, which is going to need a faster speed. Over time, we will see that moving towards all-high definition, in which case you really are going to need at least a superfast speed. It will be a good opportunity for the providers of these services to look at the costs that they are charging, which is, of course, their decision, but also to look at how they can better articulate the benefits of superfast speeds. You have given a few possible explanations here, Jonathan and Gary. Is there any plans to conduct any research that might give more definitive answers, or do you believe that if you have funded at the Ergale, that this is more for the providers to do? We have a rolling programme of market research, so I expect that we will continue to ask that question, whether it is this year or perhaps next year. I do not know, but it seems to me that that is a question that having asked it once or twice before we will continue asking.  This is one quick additional point. We have talked about take-up also with the cabinet secretary for the rural economy. He has been conscious, both with DSSB about having to think about the design of reaching 100, that government will need to play quite an active role in the promotion of the fact that the services are available for people to take up in the first place. I think that it will be a combination of the market research that we provide to inform policy makers, the providers themselves doing the promotion, as Gary said, and government, particularly where there is public interventions, whether it is the universal service obligation or reaching 100, having to play their part in that promotion as well. Are you happy that the guidance that is provided by advertising standards authority on broadband speed claims in adverts will have the necessary impact on consumer protection? I do not think that we would formally assess what another regulator is doing in that type of way, but clearly, as Jonathan said earlier, the advertising standards agency has felt that the point that a number of members have made about the advertising of up-to-speeds has not been adequate and they have intervened in the market and have told the providers that they are going to have to change, so we will absolutely continue to talk to them about it. It has direct relevance to the provisions in our revised broadband speeds code that Jonathan mentioned earlier as well, so that is the bit that we will continue to keep an eye on to make sure that it is up-to-date to reflect those advertising practices. The conversation often is around technical delivery of broadband and improving that. We do not often talk about digital participation in its wider sense and some of the barriers to access for consumers. I wonder if Ofcom has done any research as part of its consumer research into some of the potential cost barriers. I know, for example, one of those may be the fact that in many of these broadband packages you also have to take out a fixed landline as part of the package, which is obviously an additional cost, in some cases doubling the cost, and anecdotally perhaps many lower-income households do not need or require a landline, so maybe we will be paying for it, but not even install a telephone per se, but just have a wi-fi router. I wonder what behaviour analysis has been done around that so that we can perhaps increase digital participation, especially in lower-income households. I think it's a fair observation. It is one of a potential number of barriers for people taking up services. I think it's probably undeniable that, as the markets for different tail-code products has become more complicated, more providers, more variations within that, there is going to be a wider set of barriers. We have done research in the past around uptake. I think we are going to, within this annual period, have a particular push. It's under a project that we're calling consumer engagement more widely, but looking at exactly those types of issues, the genesis of that is we have acted and interviewed quite strongly in favour of switching and in terms of auto compensation in the past few years, and yet the levels of people making changes to their providers as a result or changing their packages, perhaps, isn't what you might expect from there. That is the genesis of that project, looking at exactly those barriers and why people might not be exercising choice in the way that we think they might. Johnathan? Just following up on Matthew's point, we're acutely aware of the digital divide and how that can be not just a rural urban issue but also an issue around wealth and social equality. Some operators currently offer stand-alone broadband packages. You may see the market change during responding to consumer needs, but the example that comes to mind around that point is something that we've included in our communications market report before, is that a number of households in Glasgow simply couldn't afford to have a fixed connection and they were using mobile phone services for all sorts of internet needs. That brings with it a lot of problems in terms of ability to access benefits and engage with Government services. I don't know if you've ever tried to complete a job application form on a mobile phone. It's extremely difficult. We are aware of those things and we report on them. If I could all give a plug for the cross-party group on digital participation, which I act as the secretary for, we explore a lot of those issues. There are a number of very important organisations in Scotland that are looking at those issues alongside OFCOM, but it's a very good point. Just to very briefly follow up, do you see a place in the future where telcos should not require customers to take fixed line contracts if they only want broadband? At the moment, the majority of such companies require the customer to do that. Does OFCOM have an intervention role perhaps in the future to push that direction? There's no regulation requiring providers to offer or tie the packages together. As I said, it's within their own commercial or business models to offer stand-alone broadband services. On the stand-alone services point, it's worth being aware that we're aware that people who have stand-alone landline telephone services—the reverse problem. That's a problem, and particularly older people who perhaps maybe don't want a broadband service have had to pay for one to get a telephone line. We've introduced measures last year that would bring down bills by at least £5 for those individuals. That point about bundled packages and the cost implications—we are acutely aware of that, but there isn't any regulations that require providers to bundle in that way. You could require them to unbundle, though. Potentially. I'm not sure how proportionate a decision that would be. Any OFCOM interventions have to be proportionate. There has to be a cost-benefit analysis undertaken. I guess we would have to be convinced that the scale of the problem was significant enough that it required an intervention on that scale. I've got a quick question on the roll-out of R100. One of the things that the Scottish Government is relying on is funding from gain-share from people who get the contract. My question to you is considering what you've just said about people taking up superfast broadband. Is there a fear that that gain-share may be overplayed, or is there a fear that that gain-share some providers might say, well, to continue our service, you've got to have superfast broadband? Or do you think that that's an unrealistic concern? Gain-share, obviously, would see money returned back into that overall R100 pot for more people taking up. It's in the commercial, sorry, it's within the communications provider's interests to have more customers. As far as I could see, it would be a win-win situation for everyone. I'm not sure of the specifics of how much of the gain-share money is attributed to the £600 million that's set aside for R100, whether that's additional money or that's topping up. I'm not a way of not sure of the specifics of how that's broken down, but as far as I could see, being everybody's interests for take-up to increase. Jonathan, thank you. You confirmed my concern that when I asked the question on gain-share last week, I wasn't sure how much of the £600 million that we've made up. As you've watched it, you obviously share my concern or lack of clarity. Move on straight to the next question, which is Richard Lyle. Yes, good morning again. I've just reminded that broadband is a reserved matter for the UK Government. Can you tell me what is a reserved matter in regards to what government is responsible for the provision of mobile phone, provision services, masks, etc. What government is that? Jonathan. First of all, all telecommunications are reserved to Westminster. Spectrum is licensed on a UK-wide basis. There are Scottish Government initiatives such as their mobile action plan, which we'd hope would bring about some real improvements in areas where there's not spots. The Scottish Government has said that it would look to introduce changes that don't rely on reserved powers, so spectrum. Some of those changes, just to summarise, involve changing to planning laws. They would be looking at introducing business rates relief to encourage operators to put the infrastructure on the ground where it's needed. They are also looking at rental guidance for how we can make use of public assets or existing public assets. While spectrum is a key part of mobile connectivity, there are other areas that are devolved such as planning and business rates where changes could be made that would see increased connectivity in rural areas. It is the UK Government's responsibility, but the Scottish Government is bringing in various initiatives in order to progress. My specific question now is aimed at. Jonathan Amaronson, you were the author of Connect Nations 2017. What progress has been made to address mobile not-spots and what can Ofcom do to help increase coverage of 4G in Scotland now? Ofcom suggests that it's only 17 per cent. I got an email last week from another provider who I want to name who says it's more than that, so what is it? The 17 per cent point relates to 4G coverage now. An important caveat there, which might not have came across in some of the coverage over the past week, is that it's 17 per cent from all four operators. That's an important point just to get on record. That was in the email. In terms of not-spots, off the top of my head, 31 per cent of Scotland doesn't have any service from any operator. The Scottish Government and the Scottish Futures Trust published last year a 4G infill programme, as part of their mobile action plan. They have consulted on around 35 sites in the not-spot areas where they would be looking to draw on the measures that I mentioned earlier around rates relief and infrastructure investment to drive coverage to those areas. That percentage should improve dramatically over the next through Scottish Government initiatives? Certainly, any initiatives that are going to put more base stations in rural areas would result in increased coverage, regardless of who's doing that. I think that I've pressed you enough on that. Some people are getting bored with my saying that it's the UK Government's fault, not the Scottish Government's fault. Can you tell me also how does off-com support the mobile needs of vulnerable customers? You made the quite pain point about people trying to do a job application or going to benefits from a mobile phone, which is quite hard. What are you doing to help people like that? Do you mean in terms of the mobile phone experience? Yes. Vulnerable consumers, people who don't have access to the point that you were making earlier, landlines or whatever. Is there anything that they can do, or is it just a case that we'll just need to eat? Circuit and scene, wait for catch-up. One of the main mechanisms for ensuring that vulnerable consumers have a good connectivity experience is through a universal service obligation. Obviously, there's not one currently for mobile services. Actually, the current existing European framework doesn't allow for a mobile phone universal service obligation. There are obviously challenges around the cost of mobile phone services, but perhaps somebody could correct me from wrong here. I think that those have come down greatly over recent years. By international comparisons, the UK is actually not too expensive for mobile phones, but I do take the point that obviously its data packages increase as well at the cost of those services going up. I'm briefly bringing Glen and then move to Stuart. We have already covered that, but I think that it's also an answer to your question about what can off-com do. The spectrum awards that we've already referenced, not just 700 and its properties being good for remote and rural areas, but some of the other spectrum bands that Matthew mentioned in his interventions, that's the space where we're trying to improve coverage and trying to allow people to access voice and data services in different parts of Scotland so that they can participate both at a social level but also an economic level. It's important to recognise that the trajectory of that has been upwards. There has been quite significant improvements over the course of the last few years. The data that we publish in Connected Nations is fast approaching a year out of date, so we will be doing the same exercise again two or three times this year that should demonstrate further improvements still, but it's those bits of Scotland that are just harder to reach and harder to deliver the infrastructure in that we're really focusing on. Just a quickie, and it's primarily an interest of another parliamentary committee, but there's a rural aspect to my question. Are off-com pursuing the issue of terrestrial TV and terrestrial digital audio broadcasting holes of which there are substantial numbers of Scotland? Again, I speak personally. I'm on other things. Glenn, do you want to lead on that? Jonathan might pitch in, but the short answer to that question is yes. We're doing quite a lot of work to explore the continuing provision. Gary also mentioned the fact—I think that Mr Seaton might have asked me that question previously—about the fact that services are going to be increasingly offered over the internet only, which gives us some of those quite—it takes us to the question about how the provision of infrastructure is working in those different bits of the rural and remote Scotland in particular. Jonathan, do you— Just to add to that point, I think that there's been some concern around digital TV interference or the loss of digital TV services as part of spectrum clearance programmes. Is that what you were referring to? I would refer to it, but I was meaning that there are lots of white areas where there is no signal as of today. I'll also make the subsidiary point that a lot of the slave masts do not cover the full range of channels that are available on the master masts, and I just want the off-com of a role, because those are differentially rural impact issues. So the short answer to that is, as Matthew Liddy, there's a whole programme of spectrum clearance over the course of the next year, and you would expect to see particularly, again, 700 MHz band, which is well suited to travelling over longer distances. So perhaps any of your constituents or people who are in areas that aren't currently receiving a digital TV signal may see improvements. In fact, we've trialled a clearance programme in Selkirk in the borders, which was successful. Indeed, increasing the signal strength—my signal, when it was analog, was half a megawatt. Now it's digital, it's 800 kilowatts. I beg upon it, it's 8 kilowatts. Ergo, I get no digital signal. Again, by clearing bands of spectrum that are particularly well suited to carrying TV signals. I think I'm going to leave that there, because as far as television goes, it stretches also into another committee. I think we've had an answer there. If there's anything that you want to add to that, of course you can send it to the committee, it clarts afterwards. John wants to comment very briefly, and then I'm going to get to you. Go back to mobile phones. Do you take an interest in the power supply for mobile phone masts? Although the fact that the mast is there, if the power supply is not very secure, or if it fails, that's a problem—and we talked about resilience earlier—is that something that Ofcam gets involved in? A yes or no answer would probably suffice on that. Jonathan, is that you? I might actually have to refer that to my more technically minded colleague, Gary. Okay, so Glenn shook his head. Matthew didn't look the other way, so it's definitely you, Gary. It's not something that we report on in Connected Nations at the moment, but it is something that we've considered. Obviously, the issue of mobile coverage in rural areas—there's the issue, as you've correctly said, about resilience power supply, but also cells in rural areas tend not to overlap. If one becomes unavailable, then there's no service at all. Those two points are things that we've considered trying to factor in in some way to Connected Nations in future years. Jamie, you've got a couple of questions. Yeah, I'll be very brief on this. I think we've covered mobile considerably at various points. Is it possible that some parts of Scotland will, in effect, leapfrog 4G and go direct to having a provision of 5G services? Does that seem a likely possibility in Ofcam's eyes? Gary, by a process of elimination. I don't think that we will see that any parts of Scotland or indeed the UK avoid or miss out on a 4G deployment and go straight to 5G. As has been mentioned already, the figures that we've quoted for mobile coverage in Connected Nations for Scotland, especially in terms of geographic area, are low. We will expect, given that data was collected in June last year, that things would have improved if we were to look at the situation today. I would expect that there are certain parts of Scotland that, in Connected Nations, we reported as being 4G not-spots through commercial roll-out and other activities. I would expect to see 4G in the next period being delivered to consumers. We will see good coverage of 4G across Scotland before we start to see a 5G roll-out. Jonathan wants to come in very briefly on that. Just a very quick supplementary point. 5G is important to have on record. That's particularly well suited to short distances, so it's not the solution to rural connectivity, as perhaps many people think. Thank you. I'm happy to park that there. Finally, we don't have a huge amount of time, unfortunately, to discuss it, but it is important that we touch on it. That's talking about access to much higher speeds, such as ultra-fast, or full fibre services, fibre to the premise services. It's a very low percentage at the moment of premises that have FFTTP 0.6 per cent, and even the disparity between 100 meg speeds upwards is hugely different in rural versus urban areas, specifically in urban areas where they have fibre cable, as opposed to open route services. I wonder if anyone in the panel had a view on what could be done to improve access to those higher speeds, or, indeed, ultra-fast, at 300 meg upwards, or, indeed, one gig upwards, especially with a focus on businesses and SMEs. I think they will more likely require those ultra-high speeds. Gary is indicating that he wants to come in on that. Gary, if I could bring you in, I'll try and bring you all in on this, but if I could encourage you to give succinct answers, it would be great. Gary? I would pick up on the current situation. You quoted the figure from last year's connected nations. An important point to note about that figure is that it doesn't include fibre to the premise availability for those services that are only delivered to businesses. Connected nations focus on small businesses and consumers, so that figure would be higher for small business premises. We would expect to report this year on a higher figure, but also some of those services that currently are only available to businesses, we would expect in time that those providers would open those services up to residences as well. Matthew, do you want to come in on that? Yes, very briefly, indeed, just to add to that. I think that we are conscious that competition takes you so far. We are very aware and encouraging of the need for investment in new technologies and new deployments as well. Particularly this year, we see ourselves, not with the answers, but with a facilitation role, so there is an ambition to get the relevant people together. In fact, we are planning a particular conference on this matter in the next quarter or so. We are all for it. I think that you are going to get the last word on this. Very briefly, just one supplementary on the point that Matthew just made about the conference that we are doing. We will ensure or have already invited the Scottish Government and industry representatives from Scotland to participate in that, because we think that infrastructure investment piece is going to be critical in allowing us to get to the kind of ultra-high-speed that you have been talking about. Thank you. I think that that naturally brings us to a short question. In your opening remarks, Mr Preston, you referred to postal services, and surcharging. We haven't otherwise covered that. I just wonder what role you have in ensuring equity of access particularly for parcels, but I also make it not simply in the delivery of parcels to premises in rural areas, but also the availability of pickup of parcels to be delivered to otherwise, because that is a vital service for many micro-businesses in rural areas. I just wonder what the regulator is doing on that, because I think that the whole issue of surcharge for delivery has become a very prominent one that we would like to hear from you on. I think that that falls within all of our interests. I am not sure that it falls within our interests specifically as a committee, but we would like to hear the answer to that, because it is a real issue across some of the more remote areas of Scotland. I thank you, Stuart, for bringing it up, and Jonathan, if you could give us an answer on that, I would appreciate it. Of course. Firstly, it is a very important issue. Charges should be clear up-front to people as they go through the sales process. On the regulation point, off-com has powers from the Postal Services Act. Our powers are limited to the Royal Mail and, essentially, it is about ensuring the safeguard of the universal service obligation. On parcel surcharging, it is a complex issue. We have powers to request information from parcel operators. We have published research on this in our annual monitoring report. Indeed, we wrote to Mr Rumbles about this sometime last year. What that showed was that four out of the five parcel operators that we requested information from applied surcharges, the other one that was not, was Royal Mail. It is important to note that there is no obligation on retailers to use Royal Mail. It is a commercial decision to use other parcel operators, but it is quite concerning to see, obviously, the higher charges. On what off-com has been doing, we have been engaged in Mr Lockhead's round table and contributors campaign. We are also giving evidence to the Scottish Affairs Committee at Westminster on 27 February. If you have an interest in that, we urge you to keep tabs on that. Can I invite Mr Ruff to address the pick-up point? The focus has been on delivery up till now, but pick-up is a narrower interest, but economically very important. Are you engaged in that? Jonathan, you could acknowledge simply by saying that you think that that is as much a problem as delivery charges, and that would be acceptable. Most definitely. Thank you. That last point is important to a huge amount of people across Scotland. I would like to thank Glen, Gary, Jonathan and Matthew for coming in front of the committee today and giving evidence. It has been very helpful. I would now like to suspend the meeting briefly to allow the witnesses to depart. I would ask committee members if possible to stay seated so that we can move on to the next bit. I would now like to move straight on to agenda item 2, which is subordinate legislation relating to animal feed. This is a consideration of a negative instrument concerning animal feed. No motions to a null have been received in relation to this instrument. The instrument breaches laying requirements. It comes into force early on 6 February 2018. This is the date required by European legislation, which the instrument transposes. Is the committee agreed that it is contempt with the explanation given to the presiding officer for the breach? Are we agreed? We are agreed. Is the committee agreed that it does not wish to make any recommendation in relation to this instrument? That is agreed. That concludes today's committee business. I now close the meeting. Please could the committee members remain in their seats.