sherbert wrote on Jun 1^st, 2010 at 3:05pm:

Ofcom-detractors may be interested to tune their radios to BBC Radio 5Live around 5:45PM today, when live coverage of this story is planned.

From The Daily Telegraph


Nuisance calls
Curbs on cold-calling are cold comfort are like telling naughty children not to play Knock-Down Ginger at the same house more than once a day.


By Telegraph View
Published: 8:09PM BST 01 Jun 2010


On the evening of January 10, 1876, Alexander Graham Bell's assistant heard historic words from an earpiece at the end of a wire: "Mr Watson, come here. I want you." Sometimes one is tempted to regret that Messrs Bell and Watson ever succeeded in their experiments. It is bad enough to be summoned from the bath by a telephone call seeking your custom for banking or double-glazing, but to stand dripping at a silent receiver is doubly chilling.

Ofcom says that from next year no company may ring the same household more than once a day if there is no one available to speak down the tube when the call is answered. Such curbs on cold-calling are cold comfort. They are like telling naughty children not to play Knock-Down Ginger at the same house more than once a day. Telephones are a shortcut to our hearthsides, and we rightly object to silent intruders.

Dave wrote on Jun 25^th, 2010 at 7:27am:

My initial reaction and links to extended comment may be found here - "Gobsmacked by Ofcom's foolishness".

We wait to see if parliament will debate the issue of Ofcom's failure to use its powers properly (as admitted by the terms of the proposals in this consultation) before the Summer recess - which occurs 2 days after the consultation closes. If the debate is scheduled in time, I hope that this will cause Ofcom to undertake far more radical revisions to its policy than what is contained in the proposal out to consultation.

Specifically, Ofcom should now acknowledge that pretending to have powers of regulation which it does not hold is one of the reasons why its attempts to address the problem of Silent Calls have admittedly failed. Furthermore, stating a policy under which some Silent Calls are tolerated (by declaring that only a second Silent Call within a 24 hour period is to be deemed to be a misuse of a telecommunications network or service) is a clear breach of the expectation imposed on Ofcom by parliament when it was last granted an increase to the maximum penalty -

"We expect you to use your powers to eradicate the nuisance of Silent Calls"

.

Dave wrote on Sep 28^th, 2010 at 12:02pm:

If we want to get into the ridiculously precise detail that Ofcom uses in making a determination of what is "persistent misuse of a telecommunications network or service" we can start off by saying that the 3% limit applies to calls made on a particular campaign in a 24-hour period. If we want to get further into the detail we can start to look at what is meant by "calls", but lets not.

The simple fact is that despite receiving complaints detailing 100,000 cases of Silent Calls from identified callers in 2009 and having undertaken 22 secret investigations into unnamed companies, nobody has been found to have been committing "persistent misuse" by making Silent Calls since 2007.

Unless all those complaints and investigations, not to mention the evidence held by Telcos and made available to Ofcom, are missing the point, all Silent Calls currently being received are approved by Ofcom.

News on this topic can be viewed at this link, where one can also subscribe to updates by email or in a feed viewer.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Oct 9^th, 2010 at 3:41am:

This is trully shocking. Ofcom has managed to bury the news that silent calls are now permitted (within a limit) under the headline that the fine for those exceeding the limit has been increased.

It will bode well for the director of communications at Ofcom getting a job in politics.


It is of deep concern to me that silent calls to telephone users are permitted. The rule (as it should be) is quite simple; you don't ring someone and then hang up once the recipient has answered without saying anything.

It's also important to bear in mind that the same telephone could receive multiple silent calls in a single day without any sanction against any company. I thought that Ofcom was acting to stop repeated silent calls; so why only ban multiple silent calls from each organisation?

Also, the wholly unorthodox solution of TPS registration can only be enacted where the subscriber is aware of it. I think it's safe to say that vulnerable groups such as the elderly will more be very disconcerted and not certainly not appreciate this as being a solution.

sherbert wrote on Nov 19^th, 2010 at 2:49pm:

Technology is utterly irrelevant, the industry has always been able to trace calls.

The only point worth making is that any voice caller who fails to identify themselves by voice when their call is answered should be treated as misusing the telephone network. Giving a telephone number instead is not acceptable - what does that tell someone who does not recognise the number? Most outbound call centres would use outgoing only lines, so an aggrieved victim would not be able to make a nuisance call in return to let off steam!

The right to withhold one's number from the person you are calling is rightly protected and quite irrelevant. Anyone who suggests that only those who choose to conceal their identity should be required to reveal it should think more carefully about what they are asking for.

The correspondent appears to believe that the ICO is failing to enforce the regulations requiring respect for TPS registration or is pointing out that not all Silent Calls are unsolicited direct marketing calls. Both are true.

sherbert wrote on Nov 21^st, 2010 at 10:55am:

The BT Nuisance Call Bureau would not deploy their most advanced capabilities in such a case. This is a matter of policy, not capability. If the call in question had, for example, been an accurate warning about a bomb, the call would have been traced.

The standard call tracing facility would be deployed if there were a pattern of such calls. This enables the recipient to signify that the most recently received call is to be logged. The number of the caller (even if "withheld") is thereby made available to the NCB who can identify the caller under a reciprocal arrangement with the originating telco and pass the information to relevant bodies, e.g. the Police, and (since a policy change was made in 2003) Ofcom.

I do not fully understand the detail, but I am happy to accept that there are probably good reasons (probably cost, which bears on the price of telephone services,) why this logging facility is not provided to all at all times. It is provided where deemed necessary for period of one month, without charge. It has been used to identify Silent Callers, however Ofcom generally does little with the information.

The point I seek to make is that if an abusive caller does not identify themselves during the call, it is unlikely that they would comply with a requirement to provide a number when making abusive calls. I accept that the moral right to withhold their identity should be forfeit if the call is abusive, but as with other similar situations it is not easy to apply such a principle. Anyone undertaking a burglary should be required to wear a striped T-shirt and an eye-mask, carry a bag with the word "swag" on it and give their name and address to anyone challenging them, saying "its a fair cop, gov". Its a great idea, but I cannot see how it would work.

Going slightly off topic, but thought I would send out this warning.......

My wife took a phone call this week from a foreign woman, with chattering in the back ground, saying that she was calling from 'Windows' saying that our computer was sending out error messages to them. At that point my wife put the phone down. I think this is a scam that has been going around for some time and it seems to be still going on. Of course when I dialled 1471 the number was withheld.