Minute of 1st Internet meeting in Hong Kong

28 April 1995

Notes of meeting with representatives of the computer and information industry held on 28 April 1995 at OFTA Conference Room

PresentRepresenting
Mr A S K WongSenior Assistant Director, OFTA
Mr David WuInternet Online HK Ltd
Mr Philip WongAsia On-Line Ltd
Mr Michael DunnAsia On-Line Ltd
Mr Pindar WongHKUST R & D Corporation Ltd
Mr Mark Webb-JohnsonHouston Crest Co Ltd
Mr Alan TsangCyberNet HK Ltd
Mr Billy TamOnjoy Limited
Mr Chester SoongGlobal Information Networks Ltd
Mr Peter StephensEnglish Schools Foundation
Mr Charles MokHKNet Co Ltd
Mr Ben MillerDemocratic Party
Mr Enzo MichelangeliAssociation for Internet Resources
Mr Graham MarshIDG Communications (HK) Ltd
Mr Roger LauHong Kong Internet & Gateway Svc Ltd
Mr Albert LiHK Amateur Computer Comm Association
Mr Tannil LamTCL Technology Ltd
Mr Man Fai KuCitiWell Technologies Ltd
Mr Ngai Chung HoVision Network Ltd
Mr King Chung HoGlobal Link Information Svcs Ltd
Mr Kin Ming FungCUHK Computer Centre
Mr Otto FungInfoLink Communications Ltd
Mr A G Dyerindividual
Mr Brad CollinsHuge Enterprise Ltd
Mr Cheng Che HooCUHK Computer Centre
Mr Y K HaOFTA
Mr Danny WongOFTA
Mr Eric LamOFTA
Mr C L NgOFTA
Mr Charles ChanOFTA

Mr A S K Wong welcomed all participants to the meeting. He said that the purposes of the meeting were to provide a forum to address concerns from the computer and information industry over matters under the purview of OFTA, to answer any further queries and collect views on the development of Internet and bulletin board services. He hoped that the meeting could clarify any remaining doubts in regard to the Telecommunications Authority's Statement on the licensing requirements for telecommunications services dated 22 March 1995 and that a regular forum could be established to maintain dialogue with the industry.

  1. A participant asked whether the provision of BBS (bulletin board service) enabling communications between users via electronic mail should be licensed. Mr A S K Wong said that under the Telecommunication Ordinance (Cap 106), the provision of telecommunications service to the public generally required a licence. However, OFTA would as far as possible adopt a pragmatic approach to interpret the law. The TA's Statement dated 22 March mentioned above explained the circumstances under which BBS did not require a licence. Basically, the TA considered that BBS which were not offered generally to the public on the commercial basis as non-public services which would be exempted from licensing requirements. A participant suggested that a written statement was required to further clarify that non-commercial BBS operators offering E-mail service to their users should not require a licence.

  2. A few expressed concerns that exchange of messages through electronic mail should require a PNETS licence. Mr A S K Wong clarified that exchanging messages between BBS operator and users needed not be licensed. Exchange of E-mail in a private user group system among members of that user group was also exempted from licensing.

  3. Mr A S K Wong invited suggestions on activities that required further clarification on licensing requirement for the TA's consideration so that a further Statement could be issued to clarify any remaining doubts on this issue. He added that OFTA would continue to offer advice on the licensing requirements of telecommunications services. Enquiries could be made through OFTA's enquiry hotline, OFTA staff in the Regulatory Affairs Branch, or by correspondence. In general, reply to simple matters could be made available within seven days. For complex issues where other government departments would need to be consulted, a few weeks' time might be required.

  4. Regarding the PNETS licence format, Mr A S K Wong said that a legislative amendment to the licence was being processed to remove the bar on the renewal of PNETS licence after 30 June 1995. It was expected that the amendment would be passed before the end of June.

  5. On interconnect charge, licensed PNETS operators had to pay a monthly charge of HK$69 per line per month and a usage charge of 9 cents per minute for the use of an interconnection line on the public switched telephone network. Some considered that the 9 cents per minute usage charge was excessive. Others commented that the charging method was inappropriate as the interconnect time commenced once the system was logged in no matter whether it was a misdialled call or not. A few complained that PNETS operators had to bear the liability for settling all the usage charges with HKTC. They suggested that the users should be made to pay the interconnect charge direct to HKTC. Mr A S K Wong explained that because the local telephone tariff in Hong Kong was charged on a flat rate monthly rental basis without any usage charge, any significant use of the telephone network by another public telecommunication service provider in the introduction of value-added or other non-telephonic services should bear the costs of using the telephone network. The 9 cents interconnect charge was regulated by OFTA and was calculated on the basis of the cost per minute of the use of the telephone network.

  6. Some participants noted with concern that under the current policy, the use of a public E-mail service for third party messages was charged with an interconnect fee. In contrast, the provision of E-mail service for customer enquiry or transactions between the bank and its customers, which also had a large traffic volume, did not require a PNETS licence and no interconnect charge needed to be paid.

  7. Mr A S K Wong welcomed participants' comments in writing as to who should pay the 9 cents per minute interconnect charge in the interest of fairness. He said that OFTA would review the 9 cents per minute interconnect charge later this year taking participants' comments into account.

  8. Mr A S K Wong informed the meeting that the Administration was reviewing the Telecommunication Ordinance and a new licensing regime known as class licence would be introduced to automatically provide a blanket authorization for certain value added services. The possibility of applying the class licence concept to BBS/internet operators could be explored. An industry consultation on the Telecommunication Bill would take place later this year when a draft bill was ready for circulation to interested parties for comments.

  9. It was noted that articles on BBS were regarded as a form of publication and the content of the articles was subject to regulation under the Control of Obscene and Indecent Articles Ordinance (COIAO). There was a concern that BBS/Internet operators had no opportunity to examine the content of the users' messages and hence should not be held liable for any contravention of the legislation on the part of the users. Some alleged that it was inappropriate that the COIAO did not distinguish between publishers and distributors. Mr A S K Wong said that the concerns would be relayed to the Recreation and Culture Branch and Television and Entertainment Licensing Authority for consideration. Likewise, concerns on copyright infringement in the context of BBS/Internet services would be relayed to the appropriate government bodies for consideration.

  10. Mr A S K Wong concluded that the Telecommunications Authority would shortly issue a supplementary Statement to clarify licensing requirements for public uses of BBS or internet access service. Meanwhile, further views and comments could be submitted in writing to OFTA. Enquiries on the current licensing requirements could be made to Mr Eric Lam on 2961 6678 or Mr C L Ng on 2961 6654 or by facsimile on 2803 5112. All TA Statements and other information released by OFTA were available on OFTA's BBS on 2834 0119.


    28 April 1995