Regulator government ‘objectives’ clause under pressure

Campaign group calls on CMA to review guidelines after Ofcom loses BT case

Regulator government ‘objectives’ clause under pressure, campaign group calls on CMA to review guidelines after Ofcom loses BT case.

Campaign group calls on CMA to review guidelines after Ofcom loses BT case

A campaign group is calling on the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) to review its guidelines on public interest objectives after Ofcom lost a case against BT.

The case centered on BT’s decision to charge rivals for access to its network, which Ofcom said was anti-competitive.

However, the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) overturned Ofcom’s decision, ruling that BT’s charges were not excessive and did not harm competition.

The CAT also said that Ofcom had not given enough weight to the public interest objectives of BT’s charges, which included promoting investment in broadband infrastructure.

The campaign group, Open Rights Group, said that the CAT’s decision showed that the CMA’s current guidelines on public interest objectives are not fit for purpose.

The group said that the guidelines place too much weight on economic factors and do not give enough consideration to social and environmental objectives.

Open Rights Group is calling on the CMA to review its guidelines and to develop a new approach that takes a more holistic view of public interest.

The CMA said that it is aware of the CAT’s decision and is considering its implications.

Ofcom’s public interest objectives

Ofcom has a number of public interest objectives, including:

• Promoting competition
• Protecting consumers
• Promoting innovation
• Ensuring that the UK has a world-class communications infrastructure

Ofcom said that it considers these objectives when making decisions on regulatory issues.

BT’s charges

BT charges rivals for access to its network, which is the largest in the UK.

Ofcom said that BT’s charges were excessive and harmed competition.

However, BT said that its charges were necessary to recover the costs of investing in its network.

The CAT agreed with BT, ruling that its charges were not excessive and did not harm competition.

The CAT’s decision

The CAT said that Ofcom had not given enough weight to the public interest objectives of BT’s charges.

The CAT said that BT’s charges were necessary to promote investment in broadband infrastructure.

The CAT also said that Ofcom had not shown that BT’s charges had harmed competition.

Open Rights Group’s response

Open Rights Group said that the CAT’s decision showed that the CMA’s current guidelines on public interest objectives are not fit for purpose.

The group said that the guidelines place too much weight on economic factors and do not give enough consideration to social and environmental objectives.

Open Rights Group is calling on the CMA to review its guidelines and to develop a new approach that takes a more holistic view of public interest.

CMA’s response

The CMA said that it is aware of the CAT’s decision and is considering its implications.