BT's broadband marketing not anti-competitive

NEWS BT has been cleared of anti-competitive behaviour in its broadband marketing campaigns in a ruling by Oftel. The allegation was investigated following complaints from rival Freeserve about the way BT promoted its 'no frills' product, BT Broadband. French-owned ISP Freeserve claimed BT abused its dominant market position by using its telephone bills - the so-called 'blue bills' - to some 19 million households and its '150' customer service helpline to market BT Broadband, giving it an unfair competitive advantage over rivals. Oftel also investigated claims that BT's joint telephony and internet billing were anti-competitive. Oftel ruled that because BT includes marketing material with the bill of every customer, regardless of their interest in broadband, it leads to a relatively high cost per broadband customer gained through this channel. Competitors could more specifically target potential broadband customers by using much cheaper direct marketing methods of their own, said Oftel. The watchdog also cleared BT's joint billing and said the use of the '150' helpline as a sales channel did not result in high enough take-up to have a material adverse effect on competition. David Edmonds, director general of telecommunications, said in a statement: "Oftel looked at each of the issues raised by Freeserve, and considered them in detail. In this instance we have concluded that BT's marketing activity using the 'blue bill' and '150' customer service line does not prevent Freeserve competing on a fair basis." Freeserve said it is still examining the judgement and has not yet made a decision on its course of action. A spokeswoman for Freeserve said to silicon.com: "We are considering Oftel's judgement with some interest and we are considering our position." An appeal is one possible route the telco might choose, especially given its previous success in appealing Oftel rulings. In April the Competition Appeals Tribunal upheld an Oftel ruling on BT's "predatory pricing" but ordered the watchdog to look at it again as its original investigation had not been sufficiently thorough. That report is due back later this year.