Ofcom this morning published the 'NTS consultation'.  Full details can be found on their website using the links below.

This basically consists of two consultations - The full consultation documents can be downloaded using the links at the bottom of this message.  These are available in Adobe Acrobat (.PDF) format.

I have been informed by Ofcom that the team dealing with this matter follow the discussions on the SAYNOTO0870.COM forums, and have requested as many people as possible to submit a formal consulation response to Ofcom.  

The deadline for responses to the consultation is 6 December 2005, so please make sure your views are submitted.

Details and instructions for submitting your comments can be found by visiting the following pages:

http://www.saynoto0870.com/consultation

The key points include

1. 0870: END TO REVENUE SHARING.
2. 0871: RE-CLASSIFIED AS PREMIUM RATE.
3. 0845: NO CHANGES FOR THE NEXT TWO YEARS.
4. 0844: INCREASED PRICE TRANSPARENCY.
5. IMPROVED CONSUMER INFORMATION.
6. ADVERTISING AND MARKETING.
7. ADULT SERVICES CONFINED TO 09 NUMBERS.
8. USE OF NTS NUMBERS BY PUBLIC BODIES.

Website Details (Ofcom)

Press Release - Ofcom consults on new approach to 0870/1 and 0844/5 numbers
http://www.ofcom.org.uk/media/news/2005/09/nr_20050928

Number Translation Services - A way forward
http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/nts_forward/

As Above (Plain English Summary)
http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/nts_forward/nts_pes/

Proposals on 0870 numbers: FAQ's
http://www.ofcom.org.uk/media/mofaq/telecoms/nts/

Providing citizens and consumers with improved information about Number Translation Services and Premium Rate Services
http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/nts_info/


Downloadable Versions
Improved Information About NTS Numbers Consultation (50 pages)
http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/nts_info/ntsinfo.pdf

A way forward Consultation (216 pages)
http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/nts_forward/nts_way_forward.pdf

Response Cover Sheet (Word)
http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/244504/condoc_cov_sheet.doc

Response Cover Sheet (Rich Text Format)
http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/244504/crcs.rtf

Daniel,

Are you living in a time warp somewhere as your post did not appear on this site on the time and date stated.

As for suggesting revenue share is going to end on 0870 well sorry its not.  That is just Ofcom's misleading headline in the press release.  Revenue share will continue on 0870 for those who want it with call price announcements instead.

There was a short interview with Matt Peacock of Ofcom on today's (Thursday's) BBC Radio 4 "you and yours" program.

Nothing new but maybe worth listening to.

They included criticism of the BBC for using these numbers ("you and yours", of course, uses an 0800 number).

The recording should be on the BBC R4 listen again site after 3pm.

well ive got an appointment with someone at ofcon tomorrow about a different matter on behalf of a member of the public I represent. FULL EXPENSES YAY!!!

Anyways Im gonna pick up a hard copy of both the consultations, easier (sic) to read in hard form then on the web.

Am I mistaken, but I’ve a feeling that the Ofcom Consultation Announcement has been largely ignored by the media.  I saw an ITV Teletext item yesterday but that’s all.  I listened to BBC Breakfast for part of the morning but there was nothing (not surprising as they’re always pushing their own 0870 contact number)  Likewise, I saw nothing in the Telegraph or Times.

Whose side are these hacks on?

What's to announce?

Its only a consultation on some further useless and ineffective Ofcom proposals designed to allow most of the scamming to continue in a revised form and the 0870 scam, and especially the 0845 scam, is not yet to be brought to an end.

I have been trying my very best.  Did you spot the guy who was interviewed alongside Matt Peacock in todays BBC R4 Your & Yours program.  I have a feeling I know him from somewhere. ;) :-X

It has taken Ofcom nearly twelve months to publish this new consultation. People with six-figure salaries and bonus payments have been involved. The new proposal is one huge fudge. The most bizarre aspect is that, if implemented, the proposal is that a number that many people believe, incorrectly, to be "local rate" will now cost more to call than a number associated with being "national rate".

Why does Ofcom need to perpetuate the 08 scam? The public doesn't need NTS in its current form. Organizations may need NTS, but if they do, let them pay for the features that benefit themselves.

As mikeinnc said elsewhere, why is the UK virtually unique in adopting to such a degree a numbering system that encourages revenue share?

These proposals are just unacceptable. The scam will shift elsewhere. Ofcom and the even more pathetic ICSTIS have presided over the introduction of countless telephony scams and have done NOTHING to protect the consumer. It is time these two bodies are discarded and replaced with an independent regulator, free from cronies from the telecommunication industry, so that it can regulate the UK telephone system to protect the consumer.

Today's You and Yours broadcast can be heard in Real Audio here.

And having now listened to this, it shows how ineffective, weak, complacent and wholly useless the UK regulator is. Listening to the Ofcom spokesman was painful given his feeble explanation that Ofcom can't do anything. Tell you what Matt - go to your masters and GET some powers to do something. Don't just sit back on your fat salary and pension - take some ACTION. You're being paid six figures, so EARN it!

wrote on Sep 29^th, 2005 at 2:06pm:

And having now listened to this, it shows how ineffective, weak, complacent and wholly useless the UK regulator is. Listening to the Ofcom spokesman was painful given his feeble explanation that Ofcom can't do anything. ....

It's taken nearly a year for Ofcom to come to this conclusion? ::)

Don't forget, Mr Peacock said on You and Your's last year (listen here) that they "hoped" to have the new framework in place before the end of March 2004!  :o

One year on, not alot's changed. The only thing is that more and more people are becoming aware of the issues. Hopefully this is leading to more and more complaints to companies using the numbers.

The Advertising Standards Authority are changing the way the numbers can be advertised, but Ofcom have yet to do something about the numbers themselves.

A few years ago, the Inland Revenue had a consultation period on before the introduction of stakeholder pensions. The deadline had expired by the time I made certain enquiries and comments about phasing out of carry-back and carry-forward of pension contributions. A senior person at one of my pension funds was surprised at the seniority of a person at the Revenue that I managed to speak to. I discovered that the process of consultation received about 150 responses, almost all from pension fund managers - only about 5 from members of the public.

Why am I so off-topic so far?

The same may happen with this process - perhaps at least 95% of received submissions to this process will be from telecoms companies... unless ... news of the process, and better information counter-acting certain companies misleading statements of present costs, is made widely available to the general public.

So why isn't it in the press? It isn't interesting enough.

For most people the cost of 0870 and 0845 numbers is simply not a big issue. And the people who nerdishly dedicate themselves to cheap calls providers like 18866 etc are probably less than 100,000 in number.

Let's not keep winding each other up here - tell your friends.

Let's hope that Ofcom get 150 replies from telecoms companies, and rather more than 5 from individuals - how about 10s of 1000s?

wrote on Sep 29^th, 2005 at 3:14pm:

The same may happen with this process - perhaps at least 95% of received submissions to this process will be from telecoms companies...

Paragraph 1.24 in the "Way forward" document says that Ofcom received "over 100 responses to the October 2004 Consultation, including 74 from consumers and consumer groups."

What number "over 100" is, I'm not sure yet, maybe it says somewhere else. However, this suggests to me that there were quite a percentage of responses from consumers.

wrote on Sep 29^th, 2005 at 3:14pm:

So why isn't it in the press? It isn't interesting enough. For most people the cost of 0870 and 0845 numbers is simply not a big issue. And the people who nerdishly dedicate themselves to cheap calls providers like 18866 etc are probably less than 100,000 in number.

It seems to be a big issue to the telecoms companies who want to keep this scam going doesn't it?  Haven't they fought tooth and nail to keep it?

Unfortunately a lot of the media have their snouts in the trough on this scam which is why it doesn't receive the adverse publicity it should do.

I would think You and Yours could be encouraged to put out a piece to get people to respond as the deadline in December approaches.

But do Ofcom have an online response form to fill in?  No they don't.  They have an offputting form with questions that they want answered.  And they have a funny cover sheet just to make it all seem more awkward and hard to respond to.  To say they are not customer focused is to put it mildly.

Just send any views you have to the email addresses for the consultation and ignore all the fiddly bits they have designed deliberately to try and put the public off responding.

Ofcom's con doc, section 5.15 states:

Ofcom's Contact Centre keeps a record of all complaints that it receives. During the
last year, 126 complaints relating to 08 NTS numbers were recorded.

This seems at odds with its June 14, 2005 response to my FOI request [How many complaints has Ofcom received from the public that relate to the use of 0870 and similar numbers by organizations whether commercial or government?] which stated:

From 1 January 2004 to 31 May 2005 Ofcom received 1,044 Complaint/Dissatisfaction cases (there were also a further 168 queries on this issue) (source: OCMS "Cost of Non-Geographic National Rate").

Now whilst the two periods are different, and "last year" is undefined, there seems to be a significant difference here which I suspect relates either to the counting methodology and Ofcom creativeness wrt complaints and NTS, or the fact that the lying liars are at it again.

For Ofcom to take this campaign seriously, I suspect that the number of responses from the public will need to be in the order of the number received from the last consultation, so we're looking at around one hundred. If we could get two hundred responses, this would be a major achievemement. Given the complexity of the documents together with public apathy, I suspect one hundred responses is going to be difficult.

I wonder whether the individual that provided the http://www.freeweb.telco4u.net/rachelf/index.htm site will do the same again. Recognizing that this takes time and hard work, we probably need something along similar lines that cuts through the Ofcom BS and provides an easy means for people with concerns but little time to respond.

wrote on Sep 29^th, 2005 at 3:14pm:

For most people the cost of 0870 and 0845 numbers is simply not a big issue. And the people who nerdishly dedicate themselves to cheap calls providers like 18866 etc are probably less than 100,000 in number.

But those who don't "nerdishly dedicate themselves to cheap calls providers" but do change provider do so because the glossy advertising material bamboozles them into thinking that "free calls" means free calls, taking little notice of the rates of these numbers.

The fact that there are relatively few who do chase cheap call providers shows how the masses are so complaicent that they think these wonderful loving telcos are doing them a favour!

IMHO it calls into question the effectiveness of competition to the ordinary man in the street. With the likes of the Post Office charging 10p/min to call 0870 numbers in the daytime, it makes us wonder what sort of people run these things. Marketing people and the like and not a technical bod in site!

Surely the people who have started 'Post Office Homephone' can't be the same sort of people who run local rural Post Offices who are struggling to keep running.

Ofcom's con doc, paragraph A14.5 states:

Because of the conflicting nature of the results of the research, it is difficult to
determine the actual percentage of SPs that might migrate. However based on
the views expressed, Ofcom considers that it is most likely that between 35% and
45% of SPs (likely to account for approximately 45-55% of traffic⁴¹) might migrate
if 0870 numbers were linked back to geographic rates. Ofcom has therefore used
these figures to estimate the costs and benefits of restoring the geographic link
on this range.

⁴¹ All assumed to be voice traffic as ISPs do not tend to operate on the 0870 number range.

So, Ofcom's own view is that possibly 55% of all 0870 traffic will shift to a different revenue-generating range (I'm guessing 0844 due to the problems associated with a PRS-regulated 0871).

wrote on Sep 29^th, 2005 at 3:42pm:

IMHO it calls into question the effectiveness of competition to the ordinary man in the street. With the likes of the Post Office charging 10p/min to call 0870 numbers in the daytime, it makes us wonder what sort of people run these things. Marketing people and the like and not a technical bod in site! Surely the people who have started 'Post Office Homephone' can't be the same sort of people who run local rural Post Offices who are struggling to keep running.

Dave,

As one who got A in his A level Economics back in 1981 when it was hard to get an A perhaps I can clarify that the free market only works perfectly where (a) there is a perfect flow of information to all consumers and (b) there are no cartels or structural imperfections in the marketplace that makes it difficult for competition to operate.

But the regulator Ofcom has allowed numerous structural imperfections and a lack of free information to persist as telcos are not forced to dislcose the rates of 084/7 calls as being different to customers and most go to very extensive lengths to hide these costs in their marketing literature.

If there was only one rate for uk fixed line calls and only one rate for mobile calls per phone provider and perhaps different rates peak and off peak the ordinary man could understand it all and make a sensible choice but as soon as you bring into the equation that 084/7 account for 20%+ of call values and that the telcos can deliberately hide this then the market is badly distorted.  The useless Ofcomites even allow the biggest marketeer of direct competition to BT for calls, TalkTalk, to claim that it is selling an "all calls to uk landlines" option with its Option 3 instead of only all calls to numbers starting 01 and 02.

The ordinary man is quite capabable of making sensible choices if price competition is simple and straightforward(as with say stawberry and banana prices) but cannot do so when a useless regulator allows a situation of deliberate misselling to occur.  The same thing happened with 118 directory enquiry services where providers don't just charge per number enquired for but by time as well and in addition most of these outfits scam huge amounts by offering to put DQ callers through without them even having to tell callers this will go on being charged at the DQ rate of say 30 to 50p per minute.

It isn't that normal people are stupid or lazy about prices as Andy claims but that normal people expect the world to be honest and decent and straightforward whereas the telecoms regulator has allowed a totally dishonest non level playing field with inadeauate information to grow up.  It is Ofcom that is the root cause of all the problems.  Unfortunately in the 2000s where morality and religion is dead I would regrettably expect commercial companies to abuse almost any loopholes that an ineffective regulator incompetently leaves wide open.  And since the regulator's staff get their fat salaries even when they screw up badly or miss deadlines by a mile then why should they even care.

As for the lady in the Post Office she is someone from the community who loves the community but the marketing boys at Head Office are barrow boys in sharp suits interested only in profit and their fat bonuses and not in community service.

wrote on Sep 29^th, 2005 at 3:20pm:

Paragraph 1.24 in the "Way forward" document says that Ofcom received "over 100 responses to the October 2004 Consultation, including 74 from consumers and consumer groups." What number "over 100" is, I'm not sure yet, maybe it says somewhere else. However, this suggests to me that there were quite a percentage of responses from consumers.

Paragraph 2.22 says (as previous post) that 74 responses were from consumers and consumer organisations and that 26 were from communication providers (CPs; telcos to you and me), service providers (SPs; companies/organisations operating on 0845/0870 type numbers) and other regulatory bodies. Where "over 100" comes from, I don't know, because my maths tells me 74 + 26 = 100

Edit: Section 3 starts of by listing the numbers of each sort of respondant:

Quote:

74 from consumers and consumer groups; 2 from other regulatory bodies; 14 from communications providers; and 11 from ISPs, SPs and other business associations.

So 1 more has been 'found'.


wrote on Sep 29^th, 2005 at 3:59pm:

So, Ofcom's own view is that possibly 55% of all 0870 traffic will shift to a different revenue-generating range....

What concerns me is that alot of Ofcom's idea of competition is that companies will simply move to another number range. That means changing number!

So they go out and get themselves a number that won't change if they move location and then they have to change it to stay ahead of the 'competition'! ???

The issue is taking off, as you and other members here have hoped. I spent about 15 minutes explaining to friends whingeing about call centres the other day that they are deliberately managed to be marginally staffed and earn money for not answering the phone soon enough. These people did not realise that 0870 calls cost more than double ordinary landlines since BT cut prices las t year.

Be realistic - many people are still unaware of these issues - they need more information - I was encouraging more communication with more people, not some cliquish self-contained group of nerds (sorry to insult ourselves but that is how most people will see it).

So Dave wants maybe 200 responses; idb hints at 1000 discontents; I hope for 10s of 1000s of responses.

As to taking effective action well it has come to me in a blinding flash of light that seems so simple but I doubt can be achieved in practice.

Basically Ofcom could be inundated with tens of thousands of responses to this consultation if we could encourage the management of TalkTalk, Tele2, Tiscali and Onetel (least likely in its current caretaker form awaiting sale) to write to their customers or email them telling them to respond to Ofcom's consultation complaining  that their all inclusive calling plans and/or cheap 1 hour evening/weekend call rates withe the companies are being heavily devalued by:-

(a) ongoing ripoff of 0870 being classed as premium rate not charged at same prices as geographic calls and no certainty that current Ofcom proposals will end this scam even on all 0870 numbers for all telecoms providers.  Most importantly that this makes the numbers excluded from their fixed price monthly calling plans.

(b) ongoing even bigger ripoff of 0845 numbers marketed as "Lo-Call" and cheaper than national rate geographic calls being now charged at a premium rate and so excluded from all inclusive 01/02 plans and charged at far more off peak for Level 1 customers/

(c) Further outrageous ripoff of 0844 numbers which most customers have been led to believe are "Local Rate" (not least by Mr Howard Stoate MP following the extensive 0870 adverse publicity for NEG and doctors surgeries) but are not and excluded from calling allowances.

(d) A general complaint that although these 084/7 numbers have now replaced normal 01/02 numbers for 90%+ of uk customer service calls that Ofcom has taken several years to make any proposals about the problem and now proposes to delay acting against any of these ripoffs (even 0871) for a further 18 months to 3 years depending on how you do your maths and consider when Ofcom's clock may start running.

One would hope TalkTalk, Tele2 etc would be all for this but I have a nasty feeling they won't want to publicise these calls currently being excluded from their normal calling plan prices?  Unfortunately Finarea is the only one with everything to gain from exposing the current ripoff but they don't have nearly as many customers and don't seem very aggressive about either their marketing or advertising.

Here is an email from Matt Peacock, Ofcom's Communications Director, attempting to offer an explanation as to why they did not hit Matt's own quoted spring 2005 deadline for acting on 084/7 abuse stated on BBC R4 You & Yours program last November:-

----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Matt Peacock [mailto:Matt.Peacock@ofcom.org.uk]
Sent: 30 September 2005 07:19
Subject: Re: How did March 2005 New Framework Deadline Given on You &
Yours for 084/7 slip to Oct 2005 & Become Just Another Consultation?

The intention with our proposals last year was to put the new arrangements in place shortly after the consultation close date. Which is why we said what we did, when we did.

However, as you know, that consultation generated responses which fundamentally altered the team's views. So the team felt it needed to do further work, develop new proposals and then seek views on those, by now very different, potential solutions.

So in short, that was our intention then; people told us we were wrong; we listened, changed our approach, and now we're back out again with a new approach to seek views.

Please respond to the consultation.

Regards
Matt

And here is my own emailed reply back to Matt Peacock and Ofcom:-

-----Original Message-----
From: NGM
Sent: 30 September 2005 09:31
To: Matt Peacock

Subject: Ofcom's Explanation as to Why it Missed its Own Spring 2005 084/7 Action Deadline

Dear Matt,

Thank you for your email attempting to justify why your own promised deadline (given on BBC Radio 4's You & Yours program last November) for action by Ofcom on its last 084/7 consultation in Spring 2005 has not now been hit.

However it was always to be expected that respondents would not like Ofcom's Option 2 increased price granularity on 084/7 approach (that is even more price levels on 084/7 than now so no customer would then have a clue what they were paying for calling any 084 or 087 number) and that Ofcom's strange attempt to prejudge the outcome of its last consultation by saying that it much preferred its own Option 2 proposal would then be scuppered by the public's views.

And the sum total of responses you received from consumers to your last 084/7consultation pointed to them wanting something much closer to Ofcom's own Option 4 (abolish all revenue sharing on 084 and 087 numbers and turn them back into normal priced calls like 01/02 numbers), so why not get on and implement that solution in Spring 2005 or soon thereafter?

The answer seems to be that this did not suit the business interests of the telecoms industry partners who you appear to see as your customers for some reason, compared to the citizens and consumers given to you as being your customers in the remit that Parliament gave you.

And because you do not wish to upset those important powerful business customers and their senior staff and directors (many of whom just happen to be former working colleagues of current senior Ofcom staff) you have now decided to give them a further chance to water down and most importantly extensively delay what the public and the Ofcom Consumer Panel clearly wanted in their response to your last consultation.  And all the while these business 084/7 operators (especially on the Telco side) reap further massive profits from consumers who don't think that they should be paying any extra for these calls in the first place.

And whatever happens those hundreds of millions of pounds a year of unfair extra windfall call cost profits to the telcos (BT, Cable & Wireless etc) and call centres are never going to be refunded to the customers who have unjustly paid them.

Yours in severe disillusionment and disappointment.

Regards,

NGM

Just done my visit to riverside house (ofcom london) and got my copy of the 300 ish pages (both consultations).

Needless to say they were not very pleased and looked quite pi**ed off at having to print the whole 300 pages for me. heh heh amazing what being an elected member can do for you!!

Now I also know where all the ofcom money goes, on the upkeep of the building, and the fancy waterbottles with ofcom marked on them.

Got my yellow highlighter ready!!!!!

When the bottom line is reached, it has to be the Labour Government who are allowing this 0870 abuse to happen.  They, alone, have the power that can properly deal with Ofcom.
But this Labour Government have actively encouraged the scam at all stages from the day they were elected.  We accepted their lies about not worrying about the new anti-terrorism legislation, then watch as the police invoke them against an 82 year old man at the Labour conference!!
We are sleepwalking into a political abyss - 0870 abuse is merely a small part of the overall plot which, hopefully, may awaken people (but I'm not holding my breath!).

I entirely agree with the sentiment of your last post Firestop. The only point I would make is that these scams have been going on for some years now since their origin; it's just that they have been escalating as a fashionable element of the supposed "leaner, fitter" restructured amateur business model. Rather like outsourcing when sense comes back into things and the professionals replace the amateurs again the trend will decrease anyway, since it seriously upsets customers.

So the New "labour" government is only responsible for allowing it to continue and escalate, principally because they got their exchequer snouts deeply in the trough, as yet another form of stealth taxation.

wrote on Sep 30^th, 2005 at 3:18pm:

When the bottom line is reached, it has to be the Labour Government who are allowing this 0870 abuse to happen.  They, alone, have the power that can properly deal with Ofcom.!

I'm with you on the above 101% Firestop.

The NGN revenue sharing 084/7 regime in fact started up in 1995 although then 0870 was known as 0990 and 0845 was 0345.  This was all allowed by OFTEL who seem to have somehow been conned into believing it was all just an exercise in large companies having a national and easily redirectable number.  Although revenue share was possibly hidden away there in the rules of what OFTEL originally allowed it was not at all relevant because in 1995 most of us with BT phone lines could not route calls with other phone companies at a cheaper price.

Thus the price of an 0990 call seemed just the same as a national call and 0345 seemed just the same as a local call.  The only difference was that one did not know the geographic location one was dialling.

But just after the Labour government was elected in May 1997 (I remember the timing very well because I only had my current home a few months then and my father also died a week after Labour was elected to office) things changed with 0990 being redefined to 0870 and 0345 to 0845 (I suspect that this may actually have been when current revenue share arrangements were secretly allowed and perhaps it wasn't possible on 0990 and 0345 at all).  At the same time for the first time it was now possible for a BT line customer to route calls on their line with a whole host of other companies using a simple 4 digit indirect access code, and at that time I signed up with a company called AXS Telecom (later Liberty Telecom before being swallowed up by Tiscali) who offered national calls for 2p per minute compared to BT's 7.91p.

From this point on (from way back in 1997 and not just from 1st July 2004 as some of you seem to think) 0870 and 0845 were an obvious problem as I rapidly learned that the 2p per minute I enjoyed with AXS Telecom was not possible for these numbers to which AXS did not route calls.  They only routed calls to numbers starting 01.

I looked into this further and found BT wouldn't even let me add an 0870 number to Friends & Family. I compalined to the Chairmans Office and was told no discount was possible due to advanced call statistics and intelligent routing which were allegedly very expensive and complicated to offer?! ::)

It was annoying but it wasn't a big deal because you see only about one in 10 customer service places I needed to call had one of these horrid numbers or didn't also show a geographic alternative as well.  Also back then in many cases a geographic phone number was still shown in last year's phone booke (pre Voip days).

So while NGN began at the end of the last Conservative government Firestop is right to say that it has only exploded under New Labour and under the totally negligent stewardship of OFTEL and then Ofcom.  And blow me if in 1997 hardly any government agency or department used an 0990 or 0345 but after two or three years of New Labour they were absolutely everywhere in the national and local government sectors.

So although I am sure that amongst the anti 0870 campaigners on this site there must be the odd New Labour supporter (in fact I know of one active Labour member of this forum for sure but he isn't a Blairite and he doesn't believe in accepting Spin) and a few more Lib Dem supporters it does seem to be the case that in order to allow this government to save a very small amount of money at a few agencies (probably worth no more than £10m a year or so) they have allowed us to be subject to further hundreds of millions of punds of scamming a year, most especially in the exploding Pay as You Go mobile market, where 087 and 084 calls usually cost a lot more than 7.51p and 3p a minute and are usually even excluded from bundled call minutes for contract mobile phones.

So yes the reason that Ofcom has delayed, procastinated, stonewalled and avoided taking any action for so long is because that is what its New Labour political masters want.  Its fairly obvious that if Tony Blair and Tessa Jowell were at all concerned about this major national scamming that OFTEL or Ofcom could have totally stamped it out at the stroke of a pen several years ago.

084/7 scamming is not an accident it is a massive unspoken conspiracy between many of the uk's largest telcos and government and the call centre industry all of whom are now very loathed to take their snouts out of the trough.

hmm i wonder who that labour member could be :-P

After having read a few pages on the train home tonight and then falling asleep, it seems theres a lot of contradictoy stuff in it.
I havent got onto the 216 doc yet! im still only on the 50 :-P

Oh and of course its way too hard for the ISP's to change numbers, even though over 60% of the UK population is now on broadband.

Sorry Guys but have just got back from t'Pub and found myself listening to a VERY experienced  member of the 'establishment' (a friend really) who thought that as the Telegraph had today published that the 0870 scam was over ... then it was !

Please do watch out for the lower intellect of the media reporter !

Life  ? Don't talk to me about  life .....

wrote on Oct 1^st, 2005 at 12:15am:

Life  ? Don't talk to me about  life .....

Is your first name Homer or Marvin then? ;) ;D

There have been over 1,000 views of this thread up until today. If just half of those people sent an opinion to Ofcom it might have some impact. But they won't as things stand. Why? Because it's too much hassle.

That's where this site comes in. The organisers and contributors have the expertise to make it easy for casual passersby to submit an opinion to Ofcom, without the need to go to all the trouble of reading the consultation documents. People looking at this site already know the issues - they don't need to read hundreds of pages of formal documents to have it explained to them.

So could I suggest that some kind and knowledgeable person sets up a new thread entitled "This is how you send your views on 0870 numbers to Ofcom" (or something along those lines).

The top message would provide two things:

(1) the email address to which a submission can be sent (It has to be email or nine out of ten won't bother)

(2) two (or at most three) of the main points to be made in a submission to Ofcom.

The message should be a maximum of 200 words, if that. Make it as easy as possible for the people who can contribute five minutes but no more.

Finally, remind people to be brief, clear and polite. Abusive, confused messages won't strengthen the case.

I think that's a good idea, AJR.
Need to get a lot of responses in, and that is probably the only way to do it.

wrote on Sep 30^th, 2005 at 11:53am:

Just done my visit to riverside house (ofcom london) and got my copy of the 300 ish pages (both consultations). Needless to say they were not very pleased and looked quite pi**ed off at having to print the whole 300 pages for me. heh heh amazing what being an elected member can do for you!!

Are we non-elected non-members able to go and  p*ss them off too? I'd enjoy that! For whom does one ask?

Do I get to meet Kip Meek? (especially if he's not asleep or, better still, is feeling abnormally combative...!)

wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2005 at 9:22pm:

Do I get to meet Kip Meek? (especially if he's not asleep or, better still, is feeling abnormally combative...!)

These Ofcom characters do seem to live up to their given names.

Mr Peacock is as one might expect from his name prepared to endlessly respond to emails to put on a fine show that at least gives the impression that Ofcom is doing a splendid job.  But Mr Meek by contrast has never once responded to one of my many emails even though he has received.  And that's even though as Policy Director he must be the man responsible for many of the issues with which we seem to have a problem.

I suggest you email the contacts given in the two current consultations to ask if they are planning to hold any NTS Consumer Focus Groups that you might be able to attend? :-/

wrote on Sep 29^th, 2005 at 4:13pm:

What concerns me is that alot of Ofcom's idea of competition is that companies will simply move to another number range. That means changing number!

And with 10,000 numbers on each block, thus thousands of services on each block, how do they fight it out to set the 'price point' for that block?

Ofcom's other solution is to force the service providers to compete by providing different 'pricing points' on 0845/0870 numbers. What a load of rubbish! If they wanted to have different rates they would have chosen 0844/0871 numbers.

The fact is that the document acknowledges that businesses aren't really aware of what their customers are paying to call! Despite this, Ofcom seems insistant on giving them a 'choice' about what the caller pays!

Of course, the consumer doesn't really understand the current setup either, and that coupled with the fact that revenues are that small, it's really not worth companies spending too long 'thinking' about what type of number to use.

Businesses think it's a 'local rate' or 'national rate'. Therefore, I put it to Ofcom that it takes a hint and gives the service providers what they want; that is geographically priced calls on 0845/0870.

wrote on Oct 6^th, 2005 at 6:56pm:

Businesses think it's a 'local rate' or 'national rate'. Therefore, I put it to Ofcom that it takes a hint and gives the service providers what they want; that is geographically priced calls on 0845/0870.

Ofcom seem incapable of taking a hint or indeed even several sledgehammers being applied to their collective thick skull that the current system is crooked and corrupt.

Their excuse seems to be that light touch means putting the interests of the telcos first and as the telcos don't want the 084/7 scamming to end then it won't

wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2005 at 1:53pm:

There have been over 1,000 views of this thread up until today. If just half of those people sent an opinion to Ofcom it might have some impact. But they won't as things stand. Why? Because it's too much hassle. That's where this site comes in. The organisers and contributors have the expertise to make it easy for casual passersby to submit an opinion to Ofcom, without the need to go to all the trouble of reading the consultation documents. People looking at this site already know the issues - they don't need to read hundreds of pages of formal documents to have it explained to them. So could I suggest that some kind and knowledgeable person sets up a new thread entitled "This is how you send your views on 0870 numbers to Ofcom" (or something along those lines). The top message would provide two things: (1) the email address to which a submission can be sent (It has to be email or nine out of ten won't bother) (2) two (or at most three) of the main points to be made in a submission to Ofcom. The message should be a maximum of 200 words, if that. Make it as easy as possible for the people who can contribute five minutes but no more. Finally, remind people to be brief, clear and polite. Abusive, confused messages won't strengthen the case.

Might work, but if they get hundreds of the same virtually word for word submissions then they wont take notice of them.

wrote on Oct 6^th, 2005 at 9:28pm:

Might work, but if they get hundreds of the same virtually word for word submissions then they wont take notice of them.

I think its a fair bet Ofcom won't take any notice however many submissions they get because this if Ofcom we are talking about.  That is one of the most ineffective regulators in the UK that only seems to see the importance of the interests of big business and not the interests of ordinary uk telecoms consumers.  That is to say that Ofcom in fact does exactly the opposite of what it says on the tin.

But if we want to get a load of submissions sent in I would suggest a form popping up in front of every person who comes to this website to look up a phone number.  This would tell them about the consultation and the fact that the government is going to allow the 0870 abuse to carry on in a slightly amended form and is going to do nothing about 0845 numbers in the medium term.

I would encourage them to say whatever they think about this (not tell them what they should be thinking) and then press the button to email it to Ofcom.  There are thousands of people a week here looking up numbers and surely most of them must hate the 084/7 scam and be prepared to write a few words opposing its retention by Ofcom.

ive just about read thru 25% of the document, Its quite handy for getting to sleep at night, allthough I made the mistake of taking the whole doc to bed the first night, woke up with paper everywhere!

I will send in my submission shortly, I agree OfCon wont do anything.
ofcon.org.uk is Available to buy btw.

wrote on Oct 7^th, 2005 at 6:49am:

ive just about read thru 25% of the document, Its quite handy for getting to sleep at night.

I have yet to find the strength to start on this tome but I know I have to as I cannot send out any statements condemning Ofcom for a total failure to stop the scamming unless I have checked to make sure what is tucked away on Page 104 of its turgid tome.

The fact that they issued a press relief that gave the impression to the media that they were going to stop the 0870 scamming almost straight away simply beggars belief.

I just had an interesting thought about checking who the repondents from the general public to the last consultation were and then checking them off against another list of people. ;)

Dear All,

I wholeheartedly support the comments made by AJR below:


Quote:

There have been over 1,000 views of this thread up until today. If just half of those people sent an opinion to Ofcom it might have some impact. But they won't as things stand. Why? Because it's too much hassle. That's where this site comes in. The organisers and contributors have the expertise to make it easy for casual passersby to submit an opinion to Ofcom, without the need to go to all the trouble of reading the consultation documents. People looking at this site already know the issues - they don't need to read hundreds of pages of formal documents to have it explained to them. So could I suggest that some kind and knowledgeable person sets up a new thread entitled "This is how you send your views on 0870 numbers to Ofcom" (or something along those lines). The top message would provide two things: (1) the email address to which a submission can be sent (It has to be email or nine out of ten won't bother) (2) two (or at most three) of the main points to be made in a submission to Ofcom. The message should be a maximum of 200 words, if that. Make it as easy as possible for the people who can contribute five minutes but no more. Finally, remind people to be brief, clear and polite. Abusive, confused messages won't strengthen the case.

But equally I disagree with mc661's response:


Quote:

Might work, but if they get hundreds of the same virtually word for word submissions then they wont take notice of them.

Now I know I don't have the expertise or knowledge or experience of many of you, and I know its so easy to be cynical and defeatist, but what choise is there?  Either we try something or we don't, and if we don't wish to try to use this ofcom consultation as an opportunity, then why don't we just close down this whole site!!!

Surely, these consultations are the kind of opportunity that  this site is all about - surely it is the whole point of SAYNOTO0870 to  to try to use this consultation to assist and mobilise the widespread dissatisfaction with the misleading, expensive and just plain rip-off nature of the 0870/0845 etc.

I also disagree that the point that having a standard email complaint is telling people what to think.  Regular users of this site already know the issues but it takes time and effort to put this into sentences and write it all down - having  a set of keypoints (which people can of course add to) makes it easier to get things started.  People could be free to choose which parts of the standard submission they wish to use.

Taking MakeHistoryPoverty as a case in point,  I don't believe standardised complainst will be ignored by Ofcom, especially if the volume of them is high enough.  Such a campaign needs to make it crystal clear the problems of NGNs and also make suggestions for change.  Again, this is where the expertise of you guys come in.  If complaints begin to arrive in their 100s or even 1000s, Ofcom and others will have to start taking notice.

So starting a new thread "How YOU can AFFECT the future of 0870" or something sounds a great idea.  In addition, perhaps this could be linked up with Money Savings Expert where I'm sure there's many who believe in consumer power etc.  Perhaps too, reference could be made to this on sites like PleadgeBank.Com to try to further support.  Finally the viral email ideas that have been mentioned previously could also be employed.

If the deadline is this coming December, there isn't much time so we need to get going.  I for one am keen to complain and encourage others I know to do the same, and I'm sure I'm not alone...

Cheers
Garry

PS Its frustrating just talking about things but not actually doing anything so come on - what are we waiting for?

Garry,

I think a pop up box telling people how to respond to the consultation when people come to the site to get a geographic number would get a lot of responses sent. Especially if there was a form and a Send button to just send off your complaint to the Ofcom email address.

If it just listed bullet points and perhaps referred to a thread in the Discussion Forum for those more interested that would probably work.

But of course don't forget that a lot of us gave very strong views on what to do with 084/7 earlier in the year and Ofcom has conveniently ignored most of those views and still incredibly describes these numbers as being associated with new added value telecoms services that did not previously exist!

But we must not give up heart and hope that if Ofcom gets 10,000 submissions from the public they will realise they must take immediate drastic action to immediately stop the scamming.

Thanks NGNMan for your reply.

The newbie in me has to admit I wasn't  fully aware of the earlier submissions to Ofcom, apart from references to it in this thread.

Nevertheless, definately sounds a good idea, having a pop-up window, a thread containing bullet points and links for further information, and a button to send it.

This would take the user probably a matter of minutes to make their point and submit it to Ofcom.  And if only a third of those who have viewed this thread were to do this, that would be 500 complaints to start with, and add to that a proportion of passing visitors seeking alternative numbers...who knows what numbers could be achieved.

Looking forward to seeing this take shape.......

wrote on Oct 7^th, 2005 at 10:45am:

The newbie in me has to admit I wasn't  fully aware of the earlier submissions to Ofcom, apart from references to it in this thread....

See "Responses to Consultation" at this link which also shows the full previous Ofcom consultation document:-

http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/ntsoptions/

wrote on Oct 7^th, 2005 at 11:31am:

See "Responses to Consultation" at this link...

See also Say no to 0870! Hot Topics for some links to threads discussing this consultation.

I can see where Ofcom is coming from by allowing 0845 numbers to stay as they are. However, I have no sympathy because it should have made a separate numbering range for pay as you go dial-up internet services and the like. These could be charged at the same rates as the current 0845. That way they could move voice services to standard geographical rates. I presume that this is what they have done on 0844 where each block is labelled as being internet or non-internet.

The key sticking point that I can see with 0845 is that most companies on this prefix chose it because it offered a way of being contacted at local rates. Some have had their numbers (previously 0345) for years. Why should they suffer?

Moving on to 0870, why should these companies who selected 0870 over 0845 end up better off than the 0845ers? Forget the excuses "Well everyone else does it," they set out to disadvantage callers local to them by having a 'national rate' number. They should have thought of this before jumping on the bandwagon.

As for the suggestions that providers will have a pricing announcement to allow them to continue charging above geographical rates, I don't think that this will happen for the majority of providers. I think that if BT align 0870 rates to that of 01/02, others will follow suit.

To have to have announcements when priced above geographical rates will make providers think twice because of the negative impact this will have on their service.

That said, Ofcom must bear in mind that if a significant number of providers don't charge geographical rates for these numbers, then consumers will be confused once again.

The numbers could be described as 'national rate' again, but with a message like "Unless informed otherwise by your provider".

wrote on Oct 8^th, 2005 at 1:50pm:

Moving on to 0870, why should these companies who selected 0870 over 0845 end up better off than the 0845ers? Forget the excuses "Well everyone else does it," they set out to disadvantage callers local to them by having a 'national rate' number. They should have thought of this before jumping on the bandwagon.

Ofcom's whole position is utterly insane as forcing a voice call centre on 0845 to move to 0870 so as to only charge customers geographic rates will involve them in a lot of marketing, cost and potential lost callers.

Whereas 0845 dial up customers are in an ongoing daily/weekly relationship with the customer and can easily send a customer an email and/or a web link to let him change the phone number just once.  If the customer can't connect he will soon contact the company (on their 0870 or 09 number so costing them little) to resolve matters.  But the 0845 voice operator finds its old yellow pages ads and publicity leaflets etc totally worthless if they switch to 0870.  More likely they would have to set up an 0870 too and then keep the 0845 for all those reading the old ads.

But the unfairness to the voice operators of charging more for their 0845 calls compared to 0870 compared to the minor inconvenience to the rapidly dieing 0845 dial ISP marketplace of switching each remaining customer once to another number should have meant that the dial up ISP people had to change their numbers and that 0845 voice numbers were charged as geographic on the same new rate as 0870.

But where have some of the most senior staff of Ofcom come from?  Well Stephen Carter comes from NTL and Matt Peacock comes from AOL.  So what a surprise that they have favoured the dialup ISP business interests of those companies at the expense of thousands of charities and local government call centres who originally picked 0845 to try to offer callers the lowest possible call rate.

I tried to tell Ofcom their proposal from the NTS Focus Groups was utterly insane and to call it off but no they went ahead saying how great their proposals on 0870 were and totally hiding the disgrace on 0845 and also the fact that none of this may happen for 18 months or more.

Ofcom are a total disgrace and are not fulfilling the remit given to them by parliament but none of us seem to have the power to do anything about it.

wrote on Oct 8^th, 2005 at 2:07pm:

... also the fact that none of this may happen for 18 months or more.

Yes, more time that this current 'market' is allowed to continue as-is.

From "Way forward" consultation:

Quote:

Option B4: Restore geographic linkage for 0845 and 0870 after an interim period 6.36 The idea behind this option is that Ofcom should take steps to re-establish the linkage between 0845/0870 calls and standard geographic call charges rather than completely dismantle the linkage as proposed in Option B2. Under this option, the linkage would apply to all OCPs including payphones and mobiles and not just BT as is the case with the current linkage between 0845/0870 and geographic call charges. All OCPs would be required to charge 0845 calls at their local geographic call rates and 0870 calls at their national geographic call rates (including all applicable discounts) or make a call pre-announcement specifying the call charge. Those providers that have a single geographic rate for local and national calls would charge 0845/0870 calls at their geographic rate.

So 0845 will be local rate, and 0870 will be national rate (for those few provider(s) that still distinguish). In this case, companies on 0845 up and move to 0870 to avoid being at a disadvantage to existing 0870ers.

Of course, for the majority of subscribers local and national will be the same. However, if companies now describe the numbers as being 'local' or 'national', it will appear to many consumers as if the local ones are cheaper than the national ones (when infact they're not).

This will be an issue at the end of the 'interim period' when 0845 will be charged at local rate rather than 0870's national. This will leave those that moved from 0845 to 0870 at the disadvantage they didn't want to be at, ie charging the 'national rate' rather than their previous 'local rate'.

Add to that, if they do migrate, who's going to still be on 0845 when they do become 'local rate'? The current voice SPs won't like it in the 'interim period' and the ISPs won't be able to survive when it is made 'local rate'. So when it's made local, expect all the current 0845 services to have moved elsewhere!

Dave,

As I understand the Ofcom press release their proposal is that 0870 call rates are synchronised woth geographic national call rates much earlier than 0845 are synchronised with geographic local call rates.  0845 will remain on the old BT Standard call tariffs for at least a year longer than 0870.

But admittedly I haven't read the consultation yet!  How did they end up with over 100 pages more than their original consulation though?  Surely they should have been able to move closer to actuall conclusions as a result of the responses received?

Can I assume that again Ofcom is listing various possible solutions but is expressing its own preference for just one of those solutions and that is the one they are publicising in their press release as though it was definitely going to happen even though it is only a consultation?

I would assume there is no way that 1899, 18866 etc will be able to offer 0845 and 0870 at the same rate as GNs from what is in the proposals?  They will just have a call price announcement instead saying they cost more as is already the case?

wrote on Oct 8^th, 2005 at 3:08pm:

As I understand the Ofcom press release their proposal is that 0870 call rates are synchronised woth geographic national call rates much earlier than 0845 are synchronised with geographic local call rates.  0845 will remain on the old BT Standard call tariffs for at least a year longer than 0870.

I've not read the whole document yet, just read upto the above Option B4 which appears to be what Ofcom's press released proposal is. The thing is, that some of the options are mutually exclusive because of the way that the 'Impact Assessment' (IA) has been done. Each policy issue, ie revenue sharing, consumer protection etc, has several options. Read section 6 and you will understand what I mean.


Quote:

How did they end up with over 100 pages more than their original consulation though?  Surely they should have been able to move closer to actuall conclusions as a result of the responses received?

In a nutshell, yes, they should be 'homing in' on a solution. The mind boggles at the various connotations of the options presented.


Quote:

Can I assume that again Ofcom is listing various possible solutions but is expressing its own preference for just one of those solutions and that is the one they are publicising in their press release as though it was definitely going to happen even though it is only a consultation?

I wouldn't like to say on that yet as I haven't read it cover to cover.

However, Option B4 is to restore the geographical linkage to 0845/0870 (so they admit it's broken, which is a step forward from the previous document!!!). In the IA, they then decide to assess the impact on 0845 and 0870 services separately, something which isn't done for other options, apart from B5 which is a variation on B4.

The key thing though is that their consultation is once again written only in industryspeak and made so lengthy that only telecoms industry hired hands plus a few diehards on this forum will be motivated to respond.

It is a complete outrage they don't have a web form for response and can't summarise the key issues for the public to respond on in no more than 5 or 10 pages.  But then Ofcom is only there to make life easy for its telecoms industry chums whatever it may claim.

It is ridiculous that we should be having to wade through another 250 pages.

Ofcom are a disgrace.  They should be closed down.

wrote on Oct 8^th, 2005 at 3:50pm:

The key thing though is that their consultation is once again written only in industryspeak and made so lengthy that only telecoms industry hired hands plus a few diehards on this forum will be motivated to respond.

There is a 'Plain English' version here. It doesn't appear to be available in PDF and I use Firefox where the text is smaller than in Internet Explorer. I've only just noticed that this isn't the way it's supposed to be and is another site that display properly in no Microsoft browsers. I can make it the same size as in IE by clicking Accessibility in the top right corner and setting text size to larger.

I think that we need to encourage people to read the PE version and point out some of the basic issues, so as to assist them to put their views in their own words.


Quote:

Ofcom are a disgrace.  They should be closed down.

NGM, your blood pressure! ::)

Hang on guys,

I think some of you seem to be in danger of being taken in by the bamboozle! As I have suggested previously the reason that, as you correctly conclude should have been the case, Ofcom seem not to have arrived at or any nearer to any supposed "conclusions" as a direct result of their last two "consultations", and should have thus now have been able to summarise any remaining issues succinctly is that this large document is a smoke screen! It is a deliberate red herring.

This overkill, verbose document has been deliberately produced to muddy the waters and avoid taking the regulatory action which they know full well they should take now under the Acts, which they are so fond of quoting. They know that if they confuse the general public with a document like this, which goes round and round in circles, avoiding the real issues and regurgitating all the previous nonsense which they have published concerning NGN abuses, but with all the elements moved around and well mixed up, few consumers will respond to yet another seemingly complex consultation. Then Ofcom will eventually be able to claim with some impunity - "Well we had a really comprehensive final "consultation" about this and hardly any consumers responded, so they must be happy with what we are going to do. They can then apply exactly what they had planned in the first place, namely do a bit of juggling with numbers to make it appear as if there have been some regulatory changes, but in reality keep all of the scams going as at present, where necessary with slightly different 08 sub-categories and perhaps a few cost announcements as a sop!

Also of course, to state as they do in their "consultation" document that "0871 numbers could be re-classified as Premium Rate numbers" fully exposes that this is all bamboozle. I must emphasize yet once again that it was the regulator who originally took the decision to move all Premium numbers to the 09 prefix category. This was what was defined in the New National Numbering Plan, and was done so that consumers could know clearly which numbers are Premium numbers by the 09 prefix, and to ensure that queueing was prohibited on all Premium numbers. You can see by this statement in their "consultation" document that what Ofcom are doing all of the time is to avoid the real issues, since their controllers do not want the scams to end, most of all with queuing!

wrote on Oct 8^th, 2005 at 6:23pm:

This overkill, verbose document has been deliberately produced to muddy the waters and avoid taking the regulatory action which they know full well they should take now under the Acts, which they are so fond of quoting. They know that if they confuse the general public with a document like this, which goes round and round in circles, avoiding the real issues and regurgitating all the previous nonsense which they have published concerning NGN abuses, but with all the elements moved around and well mixed up, few consumers will respond to yet another seemingly complex consultation. Then Ofcom will eventually be able to claim with some impunity - "Well we had a really comprehensive final "consultation" about this and hardly any consumers responded, so they must be happy with what we are going to do.

Yes Dorf that is precisely what I fear the cynical and clearly non consumer focused boys and girls at Ofcom are up to.

A pretence of doing something whilst still allowing their former chums in the telecoms companies to carry on with  most of their scamming unimpeded.

I must say that I thought their Communications Director Mr Matt Peacock sounded rather rattled when he was on You & Yours the other day.  But perhaps he couldn't think of any obvious answers to that other chappie they interviewed asking why Ofcom had now embarked on another consultation after already stringing us along for the last two years.

The thing that was most outrageous about the Ofcom Press Release was their claim that they would definitely be taking action to bring the 0870 scam to an end and making it sound like it was happening right now.

I wonder how many people are now calling 0870 numbers thinking that they have been returned to being ordinary priced uk calls? :o

wrote on Oct 8^th, 2005 at 6:23pm:

I think some of you seem to be in danger of being taken in by the bamboozle! As I have suggested previously the reason that, as you correctly conclude should have been the case, Ofcom seem not to have arrived at or any nearer to any supposed "conclusions" as a direct result of their last two "consultations", and should have thus now have been able to summarise any remaining issues succinctly is that this large document is a smoke screen! It is a deliberate red herring.

I agree dorf. This issue affects consumers greatly, and because consumers don't (and shouldn't have to) understand the ins and outs of how the 'internal framework' operates, the two should be kept separate as far as consulting goes.

Reading consumers' responses from the previous consultation (Options for the Future) shows what the 'citizen-consumer' thinks. Ofcom has started again from square one, consulting both consumers and industry alike.

Well I've just got round to starting to read the consultation and on page 14 of the .pdf it reads:-

Quote:

CP obligations to publish NTS tariff information: a separate consultation on the proposed amendment to General Condition 14, which Ofcom is publishing on the 28 September

They are talking about yet another consultation but I couldn't find it on their website and according to the date it should have been released already.  Does anyone know where it is?

I've just heard what I believe to be evidence of a change of heart by Auntie BBC.

You & Yours daily at 12 noon . The presenter asked for listeners to  call then mentioned 0870 but immediately (with a sound surprise in his voice ) mentioned that the number to call was 0800*****.

Hurrah. Long Live The Queen ! (and all who sail in her)

wrote on Oct 10^th, 2005 at 5:10pm:

You & Yours daily at 12 noon . The presenter asked for listeners to  call then mentioned 0870 but immediately (with a sound surprise in his voice ) mentioned that the number to call was 0800*****.

I copied in the presenters and producers of You & Yours on my email to the BBC Watchdog presesnters congratulating them on their 020 8 number but asking why they hadn't done it earlier or explained the reason for the change.

Since You & Yours is also a consumer program and as You & Yours have been active critics of 0870 (unlike the useless SnoozeDog) I expect they have been able to use this as ammunition with the BBC management and also asked to go what they rightly or wrongly perceive as being one better than Watchdog (right in that for me the call will be free instead of costing 3p but wrong in that 0800 will still cost mobile phone callers loads of extra money) by having an 0800 or 0500 number.

But yes it seems we are slowly getting there with the old drip, drip on the stone approach.  The fact that the late night phone in program on BBC 5 Live has always had an 0500 number was pretty indefensible.  What exactly was special about that program compared to all the other Beeb phone lines using 0870.

For someone with only 15 posts LaVilleGour you certainly have made every single one count.

wrote on Oct 10^th, 2005 at 5:25pm:

.. The fact that the late night phone in program on BBC 5 Live has always had an 0500 number was pretty indefensible. ...

You know that somtimes they ask callers to cal the 0870 and press some option on the afternoon show (mayo blokie?), even though the 0500 works alongside it

From Hansard:

10 Oct 2005 : Column 38W

<<
Telephone Numbers
Malcolm Bruce: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what assessment has been made of the likely impact Ofcom's proposed changes to (a) the 0870 number range and (b) 0845 numbers could have on those industries which rely on these number ranges to fund or subsidise the cost of providing other services to consumers; [15007]

(2) what assessment has been made of the likely impact Ofcom's proposal to remove revenue sharing of the 0870 number range will have on the Number Translation Service industry; [15008]

(3) what assessment has been made of the likely impact Ofcom's proposal to maintain the current price per minute rates for 0845 numbers for a two year period will have on internet service providers' ability to take advantage of British Telecom's next generation network roll-out; [15009]

(4) if he will bring forward measures to (a) help consumers understand the pricing of calls to Number Translation Services and (b) ensure providers who charge more than the standard fixed line rate make a pre-announcement to consumers using their services. [15010]

Alun Michael: The matter raised is the responsibility of the Office of Communications (Ofcom). Ofcom is the independent regulator for the communications sector, deriving its main powers and duties directly from statute rather than by delegation from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, and accountable to Parliament in its own right. Accordingly, my officials have asked the chief executive officer of Ofcom to reply to the hon. Member and to send me a copy of his response. Copies of the chief executive's letter will also be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
>>

wrote on Oct 12^th, 2005 at 10:37pm:

Ofcom is the independent regulator for the communications sector, deriving its main powers and duties directly from statute rather than by delegation from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, and accountable to Parliament in its own right. Accordingly, my officials have asked the chief executive officer of Ofcom to reply to the hon. Member and to send me a copy of his response. Copies of the chief executive's letter will also be placed in the Libraries of both Houses

What a farce to claim Ofcom is accountable to Parliament when the reality is that it is accountable only to a combination of a few vested interests in the telecoms industry (the former working colleagues of current Ofcom senior personnel) and to a few government ministers who then turn round and deny that they are responsible for influencing Ofcom's actions.

If Ofcom is accountable to parliament can Mr Stephen Carter, Mr Kip Meek and Mr Ed Richards from the Ofcom Board be subjected to an all day grilling of the full house of commons please.

What continues to incense me is that in all these claims that "those who currently rely on the revenue from these scams to provide these wonderful services which they deliver...."  the scammers and their supporters always markedly avoid consideration of the viable option that any entity which really wishes to provide a value-added service, rather than a standard telephone call with extortion, has always got -  the option of 09 numbers. As we all know in almost all cases the 08 rip-offs are with "services" which are not services at all. They are just normal telephone calls, but with the additional extortion of queuing on line to significantly increase the revenue collected.

We really do have to begin to discriminate clearly between those telephone calls which are normal telephone calls and those which truly deliver a real value-added service. Then we can clearly and equitably see that no entity should be allowed to extort revenue from normal telephone calls. On the other hand any entity which wishes to provide a true value added service which they expect the customer to pay for, in addition to the cost of a normal telephone call, should be using 09. Ofcom have allowed NTS to cloud this rational thinking, which was of course present originally in the new UK telephone numbering structure.

Once you rationalize that you can see the unavoidable reality that what all of this confusion and skulduggery is about is to deceive consumers, so that call queuing can be allowed. As I have to repeat over and over this is the real reason that all of the organisations benefiting from this racket do not want the gravy train to end, and why Ofcom will not do the right thing. Where organisations use 09 they cannot have call queuing, and that is why in most cases they can make much more revenue with all the 08 scams!

I think an examination of the Register of Members Interests for Mr Malcolm Bruce MP would make for some very interesting reading indeed, but one has to go along to Parliament to look at it as they do not make it available on the web. ::)

I notice that Mr Malcolm Bruce is not a signatory to this parliamentary motion which now has 31 MPs on board from some recent additional signatories, including Mr Andrew Rosindell of Romford, a well known working class Conservative champion of ordinary people.

http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetails.aspx?EDMID=28872%09%09%09%09%09%09%09&SESSION=875

I am very interested in Mr Malcolm Bruce MP's questions over the last few months.  If he has a business interest in this area a complaint to the Parliamentary Ombudsman could well be in order.

It seems there is an online register of Members Interests after all but only 20 people seem to be listed and the Commons web link is broken.

http://www.parliament.uk/about_commons/register_of_members__interests.cfm

I have telephoned them to ask why.

I feel sure Mr Bruce's entry will make for some very interesting reading.

This thread is very interesting and I'm learning more and more about the issues involved.

I would like to follow up, however, earlier parts of this thread on organising and assisting a more widespread response to this latest consultation:


Quote:

I think a pop up box telling people how to respond to the consultation when people come to the site to get a geographic number would get a lot of responses sent. Especially if there was a form and a Send button to just send off your complaint to the Ofcom email address. If it just listed bullet points and perhaps referred to a thread in the Discussion Forum for those more interested that would probably work.

Quote:

There have been over 1,000 views of this thread up until today. If just half of those people sent an opinion to Ofcom it might have some impact. But they won't as things stand. Why? Because it's too much hassle. That's where this site comes in. The organisers and contributors have the expertise to make it easy for casual passersby to submit an opinion to Ofcom, without the need to go to all the trouble of reading the consultation documents. People looking at this site already know the issues - they don't need to read hundreds of pages of formal documents to have it explained to them. So could I suggest that some kind and knowledgeable person sets up a new thread entitled "This is how you send your views on 0870 numbers to Ofcom" (or something along those lines). The top message would provide two things: (1) the email address to which a submission can be sent (It has to be email or nine out of ten won't bother) (2) two (or at most three) of the main points to be made in a submission to Ofcom. The message should be a maximum of 200 words, if that. Make it as easy as possible for the people who can contribute five minutes but no more. Finally, remind people to be brief, clear and polite. Abusive, confused messages won't strengthen the case.

I found your link to the plain english version of the consultation extremely useful and a good place to start to those coming new to this consultation:


Quote:

http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/nts_forward/nts_pes/

Like many others no doubt, I'm keen to put my penny's worth into this consultation, for what its worth, so please, please can we have your help in setting up a new thread to assist us with this.  In addition, pop-ups for more casual users of this site , links with MoneySavingExpert and maybe PledgeBank.Com, and even suggestions to viral email friends and relatives could only help to gather the momentum for a considerable response to this consultation opportunity.

I think there's something like 6-8 weeks before the deadline to this consultation to gather support and with the distraction of christmas approaching we need to start a campaign to respond asap.

Regards
Garry

Here is the entry from the Register of Members Interests for Malcolm Bruce, MP.  Me thinks Mr Bruce may be being somewhat economical with some other interest he appears to have in the telecommunications industry:-

BRUCE, Malcolm (Gordon)
5. Gifts, benefits and hospitality (UK)
 1 and 7 March 2004, upgrade from World Traveller Plus to Business Class by British Airways on both outward and return flights to India. (Registered 13 May 2004)
6. Overseas visits
 6-8 February 2004, to Podgorica, Montenegro, arranged and funded by the East West Parliamentary Practice Project (EWPPP) to discuss parliamentary democracy with Montenegrin politicians. Travel and accommodation provided by EWPPP. (Registered 13 May 2004)
 1-7 March 2004, to New Delhi, Hyderabad and Mumbai, India, to meet with government ministers, officials, organisations and businesses to discuss trade and investment issues. Visit arranged by Liberal Democrat Friends of India and funded by the Indian High Commission. (Registered 13 May 2004)
 10-12 December 2004, to Pristina, Kosovo, arranged and funded by the East West Parliamentary Practice Project (EWPPP) to discuss parliamentary democracy with Kosovan politicians. Travel and accommodation provided by EWPPP. (Registered 18 January 2005)
 12-16 December 2004, to Moscow, arranged and funded by the Russia Foundation. Travel and accommodation provided by the Russia Foundation. (Registered 18 January 2005)
 16-18 February 2005, to Washington DC and New York, to attend a Senate hearing and a seminar at New York University School of Law on the Yukos Case, Russia and US national interests. Business travel, transfer from Washington to New York and hotel accommodation in each city were paid for jointly by the New York University School of Law and the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. (Registered 2 March 2005)

I believe that one of the common arguments that Ofcom uses is that significant changes to the 0845 range would have a serious effect on the pay as you go ISP model. This need not be the case. If the 0870 proposal is adopted as is, without modification, then there is no reason why 0845 could follow the same route. The 0845 ISP numbers could simply be classified, on an individual basis, as a separate range, for the sake of argument, to be charged at Z0 rate. Ofcom seems concerned about number blocks however there is a precedent to my suggestion. BT already exclude geographic ISP numbers from Options 1, 2 and 3 in terms of the one hour for 5.5p charge. It maintains a list of all known ISPs operating on 01 or 02 numbers. Indeed this list used to be published on the BT web site until the numbers were targeted by those with an interest in gaining unauthorized access to computer systems. At present, BT allows a check of whether the geographic number is an ISP at url http://www.bt.com/Choices/isp_excl.jsp - for example enter 02079061000 to see that this number is excluded (to be honest, this exclusion is disgraceful and should be challenged, but that is another matter). If BT can adapt billing to accommodate some 01 and 02 numbers, then exactly the same mechanism could be applied to 0845. Any views or counter arguments are welcome.

wrote on Oct 13^th, 2005 at 4:21pm:

... The 0845 ISP numbers could simply be classified, on an individual basis, as a separate range, for the sake of argument, to be charged at Z0 rate. Ofcom seems concerned about number blocks however there is a precedent to my suggestion. BT already exclude geographic ISP numbers from Options 1, 2 and 3 in terms of the one hour for 5.5p charge. It maintains a list of all known ISPs operating on 01 or 02 numbers. ...

According to the consultation documents put out by Ofcom, prefixes are broken down into 10,000 blocks, eg 0871 123xxxx which are used for charging purposes. In the previous "Options for the future" there was talk about how much it would cost for systems to be upgraded to charge on a more granular basis. Each individual  originating provider (ie, BT, TalkTalk, Orange etc) will have to make changes in their metering system if they are all to charge like this.

How BT pick out individual numbers (as in the case of BT's exclusion list for 01/02 numbered ISPs) I don't know.

I quite agree that this would be a compromise we could live with, especially as internet dial-up numbers are never actually dialled by a human. That way they could appear on phone bills as "Dial-up Internet Service".

Of course, of dial-up internet had been given its own separate prefix, then this wouldn't have been an issue. Instead, they preferred to sell such services as being at "local rate".

wrote on Oct 13^th, 2005 at 4:34pm:

How BT pick out individual numbers (as in the case of BT's exclusion list for 01/02 numbered ISPs) I don't know.

I remember seeing the list a couple of years ago - it was large! Densely-packed small text on several pages of html if I remember correctly. I wish that I had kept a copy. I suspect BT analyzed customers' bills and looked for repeated calls of lengthy periods from multiple users. It could then reasonably assume that the number belongs to an ISP and a quick call would check for the tell-tale tones.

Another suggestion to be considered is that much is made (usually by NTS providers and the target organization) of the usefulness of what NTS provides to them. Accepting that position for a moment, then shift 0844, 0845, 0870 and 0871 to 01844, 01845, 01870 and 01871 respectively and allocate seven-digit numbers. Open up unused 01XXX codes for NTS ranges once these are exhausted. This will allow the numbers to be treated as geographic by callers from anywhere in the world, and the target organization will have to fund the cost of the NTS aspect (as happens here and I suggest in most places outside the UK). Sadly those areas with geographic codes above will have to have a new allocation but this is a small sacrifice for the eradication of a corrupt system. The above isn't perfect but just a thought and an option. There may well be better ways of dealing with this. Any genuine number that needs to derive an income must shift to 09 - the number range allocated for this very purpose in the first place.

wrote on Oct 13^th, 2005 at 4:45pm:

...shift 0844, 0845, 0870 and 0871 to 01844, 01845, 01870 and 01871 respectively

I like that idea, 'though you just cann't do that to the residents of Thirsk, Thame and the Outer Hebrides.   It would at the very least need a transition period to free up these numbers, extending the whole sorry saga .

But all is not lost.   Aren't 02844,  02845,  02870 & 02871 available ?

That is the principal issue idb, as you say all uses of NGNs where revenue is required must be moved back to 09 where they belong. I do not believe it is difficult at all to plan a proper use of the 08 category. ISPs could easily be allocated a relatively low rate 09 category. It is all about wanting to plan a proper structure which conforms to the National Numbering Plan. However I don't agree with your idea re 018.... That would just confuse things even more. Any number commencing 01 must stay geographic.

Also there is no acceptable reason that NGNs cannot be made accessible from abroad. Other countries manage it, for example this is why scammers have been using Premium numbers abroad for Trojan diallers to fleece some UK internet users. The real reason is that Ofcom do not want to do any of these things and they fight it all the way.

wrote on Oct 13^th, 2005 at 4:21pm:

If BT can adapt billing to accommodate some 01 and 02 numbers, then exactly the same mechanism could be applied to 0845. Any views or counter arguments are welcome.

There is surely a contradiction in the Ofcom consultation in that they believe some 0870s in the same number block as other 0870s can be allowed to stay at 7.51p per minute with a call  price announcement while other 0870s in the same number block fall to 3p if there is no call price announcement.  Yet for 0845 they argue that this is impossible.?

I don't know I haven't yet had the time or the courage to plough into the full 250 pages of consultation yet knowing that most of it will be gibberish and that the gist of the Ofcom proposals could clearly have been fitted into a 25 page document.  But that wouldn't have justified their 9 months of procrastination would it. ::)

wrote on Oct 13^th, 2005 at 7:38pm:

The real reason is that Ofcom do not want to do any of these things and they fight it all the way.

My dear Dorf you cut to the heart of the matter as always.

The only reason the 0845 dialup ISPs don't want to change their customer's dialup number to something else is because any email on this subject to the customer would remind their customers that due to inertia they are being ripped off at £1.80 per hour in the daytime to connect to the internet, whereas even if their home internet needs are minimal they could move to an 0808 dialup service like www.flexi-surf.co.uk which gives them 60 hours a month of 0808 internet access time for only £5.

The reason the 0845 dialup ISPs don't want their apple cart upset is precisely because this is another huge ripoff area where older non IT savvy customers don't move away from a very expensive means of internet access through inertia and lack of knowledge.  My mother, who inherited my Compuserve's 0845 account, was one such internet user until only very recently.  I kept trying to persuade her of the need to move but aged 70 she was fearful of change.

It is clear Ofcom should make the 0845 dialup ISP merchants change to an 0844 number and restore 0845 to non revenue sharing status as soon as possible and at the same time as 0870.  The only reason Ofcom claims it can't do this is because it would badly affect the business interests of a company like NTL, AOL and Wanadoo where some senior Ofcom personnel have until not so long ago been employees.  And as a result the aforementioned companies have far too much high level access on first name terms to senior Ofcom staff.

wrote on Oct 13^th, 2005 at 5:08pm:

But all is not lost.   Aren't 02844,  02845,  02870 & 02871 available ?

No. 028 is the area code for Northern Ireland.

Local numbers starting 44 are Downpatrick.
Local numbers starting 70 are Coleraine.
Local numbers starting 71 are Londonderry.
No local numbers yet start with 45.

wrote on Oct 13^th, 2005 at 4:34pm:

...Of course, of dial-up internet had been given its own separate prefix, then this wouldn't have been an issue. Instead, they preferred to sell such services as being at "local rate".

As always, Oftel (now Ofcom) didn't think to use a special number for dial-up users.

Having scanned the 200+ page (haven't read whole document yet) I can see where Ofcom are coming from with regards to dial-up users and 0845 but I believe they have totally over estimated the costs in migrating over to a 0844 number.  99% of ISP's offer email facilities as well as internet access and therefore they could easily email their customers (most customers would then be informed) and this wouldn't cost that much at all - just the time it takes to write the email because surely they have ways of emailing all customers anyhow.  ISP's have no problems e-mailing when they are doing deals/offers, upgrades, etc.

Most customers would be using Windows so therefore they could write a script that would simply add/change the dial-up properties (after closing down any software protection they run to ensure their dial-up number isn't changed to a premium rate number) and manual instructions could also be included in the email.

I definitely don't agree that ISP would need to burn a whole new set of their ISP discs and send them out to existing customers simply because of a number change.  I believe it would be OTT and not necessary.  All new customers would of course need their ISP disc to be with the new number instead of the old one.

Any ISP customers that have doubts could ring their ISP (probably on an 0870 number) to confirm this.

The problem is there would be a very small percentage of customers that don't read their emails so would not know about the change until they tried to dial-up.

I believe a period of 3months (to 6max) is all that is needed to ensure as many customers as possible were informed and to allow the ISP's to use the rest of their discs.  In the meantime CD's sent out could have a small note stating number has changed and how to change it.

Most companies claim they don't use the NGN's because of the revenue sharing but because of the features it brings.

Most of these features can still be used on an ordinary geographical anyhow.  I believe the other main reason would be if they were to move premises, etc and therefore a geo number would probably have to be changed but just how often do business move addresses and outside their old area?  This wouldn't be a problem on a NGN.

Anyhow, if Ofcom does finally abolish revenue sharing (and therefore the cost should then drop down and be classed as a geographical) then we'll see just how many of these companies then move to either a 0871 (not likely due to strict ICSTIS rules) but the likely choice then is an 0844 costing the maximum 5ppm.

Obviously any company migrating their number to either 0871/0844 was in it just for the revenue sharing but those that don't move and stay on their NGN but without revenue sharing are either using the NGN for the benefits it has and wasn't bothered about the revenue sharing or is likely to have given up the revenue to save the costs of migrating to the 0844 range.

No matter what option Ofcom choose I believe they should make it compulsory that all NGN's numbers published (whether its on the internet, leaflet, TV, radio, etc) have a cost indication next to it that reads something like, "calls cost upto 5ppm from a BT landline, costs from other networks vary. Mobiles cost upto 40ppm."  This, I believe, would ensure everyone is aware that costs to NGN's from mobiles are so high.

Of course, the telco's should all have to indicate the price to 0845/0870/0871 with their geographical prices as well (on the same page).  Other 0844 and premium rate can be on a different page but accessible via a link from the main tariff page.   The teleco's should also make it clear that calls to NGN's aren't included.

Now as for the tariff notification/announements at the beginning of the call, Ofcom claim customers would be annoyed with this feature which I believe could be true BUT call operators like Call18866/1899 use this call notification/announcement on their calls which must surely mean that it can't be that expensive to get started as I can't see Call18866/1899 having the money to do this and just like Call18866/1899 the customers can choose to have the call cost notification/announcement off or on.  I believe it should be on by default for NGN calls and if the customer chooses to turn this off then that's fine.

wrote on Oct 15^th, 2005 at 1:37pm:

As always, Oftel (now Ofcom) didn't think to use a special number for dial-up users.

So why do schools' dial-up internet services have the prefix 0820? Some of these 0820 numbers date back to 1998.

wrote on Oct 15^th, 2005 at 3:37pm:

So why do schools' dial-up internet services have the prefix 0820? Some of these 0820 numbers date back to 1998.

I suspect this was an after thought by Oftel(Ofcom) that they should have thought of beforehand.  I believe 0820 are cheaper or something and specially for schools, etc but before this they were using ordinary numbers like us joe bloggs were.

Didn't realise the numbers went that far back though.  I can't see many (if any) schools still on dial-up now though!

wrote on Oct 15^th, 2005 at 3:58pm:

I can't see many (if any) schools still on dial-up now though!

There are 297 uk phone exchanges which do not currently have broadband and 101 of these have no hope of getting broadband at the present time.

One of these in Forest Green, Surrey is only 2 miles away from me here.

http://www.samknows.com/broadband/regions.php

wrote on Oct 15^th, 2005 at 4:36pm:

There are 297 uk phone exchanges which do not currently have broadband and 101 of these have no hope of getting broadband at the present time. One of these in Forest Green, Surrey is only 2 miles away from me here.

I didn't realise it was that many.  Those using dial-up are being ripped-off compared to broadband.  I take it BT are reluctant to upgrade their exchanges due to the costs involved and the unlikelyhood of a return in investment!

wrote on Oct 15^th, 2005 at 4:36pm:

There are 297 uk phone exchanges which do not currently have broadband and 101 of these have no hope of getting broadband at the present time.

These figures are all well and good.

However, I don't think that this really makes much of a point. I question how many and what percentage of subscribers' lines are within the distance that broadband will work? If it's a tiny minority, then that explains the figures and it would therefore be pointless to install broadband.

I know of an exchange a few miles from me which is having broadband fitted at the moment and will be working in November and serves (according to SamKnows) 188 residential premises and 38 non-residential premises. Currently 15 subscribers have registered their interest in having broadband.

In this area there are quite a few houses with microwave dishes on, which I presume are for a wireless broadband of some kind. I have been unable to find out what this service is, so if anyone knows, I would be interested to find out.

If this is for internet access, then it either it reduces the number of people interested in BT ADSL, making it even less worthwhile BT installing it.

wrote on Oct 15^th, 2005 at 4:40pm:

I didn't realise it was that many.  Those using dial-up are being ripped-off compared to broadband.  I take it BT are reluctant to upgrade their exchanges due to the costs involved and the unlikelyhood of a return in investment!

BT were unwilling to upgrade 600 exchanges for this reason, mainly in the North of England, Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland.  Most of thes have been paid for by the local regional development agencies but not in regions where there wasn't a general problem so no big subsidised scheme to address the issue.

196 of the 297 will be done by the end of the year but the 101 (including the one next to me) are being left out in the cold.  These 101 exchanges probaly only have an average 150 lines each.  So about 15,000 phone customers are involved.  The 196 have perhaps another 30,000 lines on them.

They could always use a provider like http://www.fast4.net in terms of price but its going to be very slow and they keep having to dial up.

wrote on Oct 15^th, 2005 at 5:02pm:

BT were unwilling to upgrade 600 exchanges for this reason, mainly in the North of England, Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland.  Most of thes have been paid for by the local regional development agencies but not in regions where there wasn't a general problem so no big subsidised scheme to address the issue.

I assume NTL or Telewest don't cover these areas for possibly the same reasons?

wrote on Oct 15^th, 2005 at 5:07pm:

I assume NTL or Telewest don't cover these areas for possibly the same reasons?

And herein lies the problem. The likes of NTL and Telewest take the rich pickings and BT has to supply to everyone whilst still 'competing'!

wrote on Oct 15^th, 2005 at 4:58pm:

However, I don't think that this really makes much of a point. I question how many and what percentage of subscribers' lines are within the distance that broadband will work? If it's a tiny minority, then that explains the figures and it would therefore be pointless to install broadband..

BT are greatly extending the limit at which you can get a 256k service and 512k broadband service on all exchanges.

On Forest Green exchange next to me in prosperous commuter Surrey and not far from the M25 the homes are all in range of the exchange but its just that BT doesn't want to pay the £50,000 upgrade fee itself for a new fibre optic cable to the exchange and the DSLAM as it only serves 230 lines.  But these 230 lines raise over £30,000 per year for BT in line rental, which I highly doubt they will use up in an engineer making perhaps 2 or 3 visits a month to the exchange.

http://www.samknows.com/broadband/exchange.php?ecode=THFTG

BT set a cut off at 300 lines and its effects have been very arbitrary and unfair.  Yet exchanges in Scotland with only 50 lines are getting ADSL upgrades paid for by the Development Agencies.  Contrary to what you think on most exchanges 80 to 90% of lines are always within the distance limits as they always build the exchange in the main centre of population the exchange serves.  The exchanges considered unviable bt BT are largely small ones only served by a copper rather than a fibre optic trunk cable to the nearest big exchange.

These 12 exchanges in the South East of England have been classified by BT as unviable for broadband:-

http://www.samknows.com/broadband/regleague.php?status=2&region=10&direction=DESC&order=prereg

BT's trick is to force the County Council or anyone but them to pay up for the work.  Since as we know BT is such a poor company with almost no income. ::)

wrote on Oct 15^th, 2005 at 1:37pm:

Most customers would be using Windows so therefore they could write a script that would simply add/change the dial-up properties (after closing down any software protection they run to ensure their dial-up number isn't changed to a premium rate number) and manual instructions could also be included in the email.

All of the stated reasons for why it is tricky to move customers away from ripoff £1.80 an hour (weekday peak) legacy 0845 dialup ISPs come under the heading of bamboozle, hogwash or flim-flam.

I used to have an 0800 and an 0845 dialup ISPs and they both changed the phone number a couple of times by sending an email and explaining how to do it in Dial Up Connection settings.  They sent an email address to the address you had to give to sign up................ ::)  As for all these CDs etc well there is only one major ISP that uses proprietary software for internet connection that requires this nonsense.  That service provider is AOL where Ofcom Communications Director Mr Matt Peacock used to work. ::) :o  And I am sure even they could find a way to change the dialup number via an online download.

In the time frames in fact envisaged by Ofcom for acting on 0870 (6 to 9 months to consult plus a year to implement) 0845 dialup internet will be near dead so Ofcom's claims that these call prices could not be slashed to geographic rates are really utter nonsense.  Anyone still on 0845 at that point shoudl be forcibly moved to an 0844 1p per minute service, an 0808 subscription service or to budget broadband for their own good.

Ofcom's game here is in fact to protect the business revenues of the telecoms companies against possible decrease.  The fact that this means millions of consumers paying more than they should for 0845 voice customer service calls for another year longer doesn't seem to concern Ofcom in the least. :o

wrote on Oct 15^th, 2005 at 5:12pm:

And herein lies the problem. The likes of NTL and Telewest take the rich pickings and BT has to supply to everyone whilst still 'competing'!

... and at the same time is limited in terms of how cheap it can be (if it wanted) because of fear of undercutting their rivals which they are pretty much prohibited from doing so.

I have continued this discussion about the coverage of broadband in Increasing the coverage of broadband.

wrote on Oct 15^th, 2005 at 5:44pm:

Ofcom on the other hand state that it still can't be done without great expense for the ISPs concerned.  To me it seems yet another excuse.

Yes bbb that is precisely it just another lame and deceitful OFTEL/Ofcom excuse for sitting on their fat and over paid arses in their air conditioned offices before heading out at lunch time for another pleasant little tete a tete at a smart restaurant with some telecoms industy former working chums of theirs.

If you had dealt with OFTEL and Ofcom for as long as I and Dorf have on this issue you would have to come realise that it is precisely because they are in bed with the telecoms companies that this outrageous scamming has been able to carry on in ever larger amounts for the last 8 years.  And because of this Ofcom are actually tryiing to procrastinate as long as they humanly can and they have now thought of another wheeze to keep 0845 call scamming going for at least another 2 to 3 years.

Not only does it keep the declining 0845 scamming going for a while longer but it also keeps the non declining 0845 voice call scamming to charities, the inland revenue etc going for as long as possible.  Quite brilliant really from Ofcom's own cynical point of view.

wrote on Oct 15^th, 2005 at 5:54pm:

...this outrageous scamming has been able to carry on in ever larger amounts for the last 8 years...

Where does 8 years come from because until BT done away with local / national price differences then 0845 was local and was cheaper regardless of where you rung from (except of course those on inclusive calling plans).

wrote on Oct 15^th, 2005 at 6:33pm:

Where does 8 years come from because until BT done away with local / national price differences then 0845 was local and was cheaper regardless of where you rung from (except of course those on inclusive calling plans).

I think it's because the framework for the numbers doesn't allow for providers to undercut these BT rates, and therefore stifles competition. AFAIK, these local/national linkages only applied to BT non-discounted tariffs. Other providers can charge as they please, or in the words of Ofcom, it's upto their "commercial discretion".

The reality is that they stiffle competition and providers cannot charge geographical rates because of the differences (from a financial point of view) in the ways geographical and NTS calls are terminated.

The latest consultation document seems to make some headway in this area because it talks about making providers other than BT charge a particular price on 0870, at least.

wrote on Oct 15^th, 2005 at 6:41pm:

I think it's because the framework for the numbers doesn't allow for providers to undercut these BT rates, and therefore stifles competition. AFAIK, these local/national linkages only applied to BT non-discounted tariffs. Other providers can charge as they please, or in the words of Ofcom, it's upto their "commercial discretion".

I didn't think of that point of view.

Has anyone managed to finish the document yet?

wrote on Oct 15^th, 2005 at 6:33pm:

Where does 8 years come from because until BT done away with local / national price differences then 0845 was local and was cheaper regardless of where you rung from (except of course those on inclusive calling plans).

Because from 1997 on I could call geographic numbers on my BT line using an indirect prefix code (1615) with other companies like AXS Telecom (now merged into Tiscali) at 2p per minute in the weekday peak but 0845 then cost me 4p per minute and 0870 7.91p per minute.  So for those of us in the country pinned to a BT line but prepared to use the cheapest call carrier the fact is that calls to 084 and 087 non geographic numbers have been costing us lots of extra money since 1997 when these calls were already far more expensive than the cheapest way of making geographic calls.

The fact that some lazy BT customers didn't look for other ways to make calls until the more aggressive marketing of TalkTalk and Tele2 in the last couple of years is neither here nor there.  The 1st July 2004 BT price change merely meant that even lazy and stupid customers that made all their calls with BT were forcibly transferred to BT Compulsion 1 (aka BT Option 1) and sudenly found 0870 and 0845 calls were now also costing them more money.  Although BT did their best to hide this by still calling 0845 and 0870 Lo-Call and National Rate on phone bills which the ever incompetent Ofcom amazingly allowed.

But for the most telecoms price aware members of this forum (which I consider myself amongst along with Dorf and Tanllan who unlike me both have professional backgrounds in the telecoms industry) 084/7NGNs have been costing us much more money than calling geographic numbers on our BT lines since at least 1997.

wrote on Oct 15^th, 2005 at 6:44pm:

Has anyone managed to finish the document yet?

So far I haven't managed to start it and have only read the Ofcom press release which didn't encourage me to even want to start the consultation documents.

The thing is I know they are going to me very, very angry and I don't know if my blood pressure can stand it.  Of course as the response date to the consultation looms I will have to brace myself for the task.  But as one who read the two consultation documents for the last consultation in full I know the sort of drivel they are bound to contain.

The first responses to the consultation document have already been published:

http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/nts_forward/responses/?a=87101

Well, Norfolk Trading Standards have submitted their response to Ofcom's NTS Consultation: A Way Forward here.

I quote this from it:-

Quote:

Ofcom supports compulsory price indications for NTS services. We disagree. Consumer protection law does not require any price indication to be given in relation to the provision of a telecommunications service. Criminal and civil sanctions can be imposed against advertisers who give a misleading price indication. By choosing not to give any price indication at all, advertisers can easily and legally avoid any risk that they are breaking the law and that those sanctions will be applied against them. It would be wrong to deny advertisers this option. It is not desirable to require advertisers to give price indications for a product supplied by a third party (i.e. the OCP), where neither the advertiser nor any regulator has control over the price charged. Ofcom suggests at A8.7 that it is better to give a 'fairly accurate' price indication than to leave consumers 'completely in the dark' about call prices. This is equivalent to saying that it is better to give a somewhat misleading price indication than not to give one at all. We disagree strongly. We would not object to an indication which merely puts callers on notice that the call is not charged at a standard rate (e.g. 'Check rates with your service provider'), and gives no indication of price. We strongly support Ofcom's proposals to require OCP's to publish their NTS call charges more prominently and accessibly, and we believe that these proposals will significantly reduce the already questionable benefit of advertisers giving price indications. In our own work on this issue, we have found it difficult to ascertain call charges from OCP's, and particularly from mobile OCP's. We submit that any future advertising guidance must recognise silence on price as a legal and acceptable option for advertisers.

They feel very, very strongly about not advertising the price of a call.  I wonder if this has anything to do with the fact that Norfolk Council use 0844 that cost 5ppm?

I agree it's impossible to give a price indication from all teleco's but I believe Ofcom are correct in saying it's better to give a price indication from BT landline than none at all.  Simply because most landline teleco's charge approximately the same price as BT (slightly less in most cases).  The only exception is, of course, those low-cost, no-frills providers like Call18866/1899, etc.

Norfolk Council are of the opinion that simply stating "rates may vary" is sufficient.  I don't believe that makes us consumers aware of the call charges especially if its an 0845 / 0870, etc because most consumers will not bother checking simply because they will think it's just the same price as a local/national call.

I believe that anyone using an NGN's should state the cost of the call per minute from a BT landline.  For a 0845 it could read, "Calls cost upto 4ppm from a BT landline, prices vary from other networks."  Exactly what ASA/CAP & Ofcom have decided on so far.

Regardless to what Norfolk Council think that isn't in most cases misleading because it reads "upto".  Only time it's really wrong is for mobile networks and payphones and I believe ofcom should force price announcements on the networks for any call that isn't charged at normal geographical rates.  Don't the mobile networks already give a price announcement for freephone calls so could they not modify this to give a price indication on 084x/087x as well?

For those that didn't know Norfolk Council have issued a factsheet for businesses in their area that state they can't advertise their 0845/0870 as local/national but can remain silent on the cost of the call.  I challanged this and mentioned ASA/CAP guidelines and they stood by what they have mentioned in their factsheet.  You can view their factsheet (in pdf format) here and read their reply to my email here.

Quote:

The first responses to the consultation document have already been published: http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/nts_forward/responses/?a=87101

Thanks, idb, I found this post really useful.  Seeing other peoples examples, it shows how easy it is to respond to an Ofcom consultation.  I'm sure others would appreciate this too so will cut and paste your post to form a new thread so to make it more noticeable.

Of course, after making a response, whether or not anything changes as a result is another matter.  Still, you've got to be in it to win it, as they say!

I can see where Norfolk Trading Standards are coming from.    Their remit is not to protect  consumers, but to make  traders behave lawfully.

It is rather up to Ofcom to correct the rules, if Trading Standards are only concerned with compliance.

They have a point 'though, about advertisers being required to indicate what it's going to cost You  to call Them, when your contract for calling them is not with the advertiser but with your service provider -   hence their stance on getting the OCPs(?) ( - would that be  Outbound Call Providers ???)   to be much more upfront about their charges.

Joe65, the problem is though that simply saying, "costs vary" does not make customers aware that they are paying over the odds compared to geographical calls.

How many consumers seeing an 0845 number and "costs vary" are going to check the cost of calls to 0845 from their provider when for years and years 0845 was known as (and indeed was) local rate?  You will find most people will think well it's just local rate and not think a thing of it.

I agree about making the telco's more upfront of the cost of these calls (they generally don't now) but this will really only happen on their website.  How many consumers actually check the website of the teleco for cost of calls because why should they as 0845 is local and 087x is national rate in their mind?

I know ofcom has mentioned the possibility of forcing telco's to do a price announcement but I believe they wont due to the cost involved to teleco's.  They should on mobile companies because there is a big difference from paying 4ppm to call an 084x to paying upto 40ppm.  The cost of this equipment can be taken from the profit they make between 40ppm and what it costs them to carry the call (obviously nowhere near 40ppm).  I realise that high costs in the NGN area mean calls to geographicals and handsets are generally cheaper.  I also understand that mobile networks probably spend a lot more money maintaining their networks than landline providers do simply because of the technology involved.

And remember that it could just be coincidence but Norfolk council charge 5ppm to call them and obviously don't tell anyone that they are paying well over the odds to call them when even an 0845 would be cheaper.  If you lived in Norfolk and were ringing an 0844 would you be happy in knowing that you are paying well over the odds to call your council instead of a geographical (or at worse an 0845)?

The main thing people should do in their responses is to slate Ofcom for launching another consultation instead of taking action and for the ridiculouse further delay proposed to any action on 0870, and even more 0845, when they finally announce what they are planning to do perhaps say next September. :o

Also say it is quite unbelievable that Ofcom are using the excuse of a few incompetent ISAs to allow 0845 to become higher priced than 0870 for a period while BT is still allowed to market 0845 as Lo-Call on every BT phone bill.

Also attack Ofcom for the absurd length and complexity of its consultation document which clearly does not make it accessible and is also unnecessary in relation to the relative simplicity of the subject matter involved.

wrote on Oct 19^th, 2005 at 9:45am:

Joe65, the problem is though that simply saying, "costs vary" does not make customers aware that they are paying over the odds compared to geographical calls. How many consumers seeing an 0845 number and "costs vary" are going to check the cost of calls to 0845 from their provider when for years and years 0845 was known as (and indeed was) local rate?  You will find most people will think well it's just local rate and not think a thing of it.

I agree entirely bbb_uk, but if Tradings Standards people are conditioned to take this legalistic stance, then it's all the more important that OfCom get the law ammended accordingly.     Regulating the tarriffing of these numbers may be the only practical way.   That at least should bring more transparency to the contracts between consumers & their Telcos., as some Telco.s  have failed to.
  That might make it easier for the advertisers too, who need only then publish the regulation (IF it could be expressed in simple & clear cut terms).
 

Well I have now submitted my response to Ofcom. How many others will do the same?

Maybe the site should restrict access to the NGN database for those who havn't submitted a response to Ofcom.

That might make them realise they would be better off getting off their arse and doing _something_ to stop the abuse.

Cheers, Des.

wrote on Oct 18^th, 2005 at 11:57am:

The first responses to the consultation document have already been published: http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/nts_forward/responses/?a=87101

How did you discover this really useful link idb ?

I made the mistake of searching for the responses myself on the OfCom site, found them no bother, spent ages, really getting into the  them, but it struck me how confused were most of the respondents continually referring to OfTel. At first I put it down to the industry being as confused as everyone else, until I slowly realised (on seeing even BT get it wrong) I was in totally the wrong place looking at responses to the previous NTS consultation. :-[

Confusing or what ?    Thanks for the link idb, it's the only way I could find the right responses.

Any way to get it up on the Homepage, for the benefit of others confused by the administrative structure of the OfCom site ?

What seemed really amazing though was how pertinent all these responses (to the earlier consultation) seemed to be to todays one.
So Why are we still only here  ?

wrote on Oct 19^th, 2005 at 6:55pm:

How did you discover this really useful link idb ?

I've found that Ofcom tends to place a link for the responses on the original consultation page. I tend to check periodically anyway so came across it yesterday.

wrote on Oct 19^th, 2005 at 7:44pm:

What seemed really amazing though was how pertinent all these responses (to the earlier consultation) seemed to be to todays one. So Why are we still only here  ?

The only purpose of Ofcoms latest consultations, as it has always been with Ofcom, is further extensive procrastination so as to allow thier chums in the 084/7 ripoffs camps to go on ringing the cash register as long as possible.

I was reading their plain English thing on 0870 on a train today and they make the ridiculous statement that they need to delay 0870 revenue share implementation for a year after they report back (which will probably be next September) so that companies can have new letterheads prepared and so the companies do not suffer any operational inconvenience.  They then go on to say this will also benefit the customers of 0870 numbers by them not ultimately being forced to bear the cost of this stationary reprint.  But what hogwash when their own analysis suggests most companies will not change their 0870 number and if any do they can obviously leave a message on the old one telling you the new one to call.  I am sure any savings on stationery not billed to customers will be greatly offset by them having to go on paying 0870 ripoff premiums for a further additional year.

Also in their proposals on 0845 numbers they actually admit they don't want all these rapidly dieing ISPs to have to change their numbers just because they might lose some customers and some money as a result.  Well good these customers are being ripped off through inertia and should either be on a 1p per minute at all times 0844 or move to a freephone 0808 dialup service at much lower prices.  But no Ofcom is prepared to see all 0845 numbers (including the tens of thousands of voice call numbers that are nothing to do with dial up internet) become more expensive than 0870 (so absurd that anyone other than the Stalinist revisionist working at Ofcom can see it) for endless government department services and for people like charities and the Consumers Association just so that a few ISPs are not inconvenienced in an industry that will be nearly dead by the time we hit their 0870 price change date.  Yet Ofcom is the one who advised the COI to tell govt departments being on 0870 was kinder to customers.  Dohhhh what's the use when dealing with the peanut brains and dodgy free lunch takers who make up most of the Ofcom staff.

The respondents so far have been far too kind.  My response will start by damning Ofcom for its morally bankrupt position as a regulator and for showing that it is consistently prepared to come up with the most convoluted obfuscation to put the interests of the public last and telecoms companies first.

The whole thing is a disgrace.  They propose putting 0871 under ICSTIS but not forcing the services to be renumbered to the 09 range.  But if they are not renumbered to 09 then obviously the public will think 0871 costs the same as 0870............................

The whole thing is shameful and makes no sense.  For instance Ofcom says revenue share will be abolished on 0870 but then says some companies may want to still charge more than geographic call rates for calling the numbers.  But why would they want to do this any more than for calling an 01 or 02 number if no revenue share is any longer involved.

There is no moral consistent basis to Ofcom's proposals.  It is just a convoluted set of weasel words that basically arranges the goal posts in a way that does the least damage to the former business colleagues of Mr Stephen Carter.

For those that weren't already aware, Ofcom's consultation was split into TWO consultations:-
Number Translation Services: A Way Forward

and

Providing citizens and consumers with improved information about Number Translation Services and Premium Rate Services
So for those that may have already responded to Ofcom's 'A Way Forward' consultation don't forget the other consultation mentioned above!

wrote on Oct 18^th, 2005 at 11:57am:

The first responses to the consultation document have already been published: http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/nts_forward/responses/?a=87101

Hey idb,
            There's something faulty with the link to reponses.
If I follow it I still see the original list of only about 12 responses.

Wondering why no more had been posted in the last few days, I found if you delete the  last
"/?a=87101"  bit  you can see twice as many  (currently ~25).
Try it:-
http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/nts_forward/responses/

The dodgy link seems  to have originated from OfCom's website, where I guess it was copied from.  Eg at the very bottom of this page :-
http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/nts_forward

I've sent a message to their Webmaster, though I guess they won't get it fixed as quick as our 24/7 operation.

wrote on Oct 20^th, 2005 at 1:16am:

... For instance Ofcom says revenue share will be abolished on 0870 but then says some companies may want to still charge more than geographic call rates for calling the numbers.  But why would they want to do this any more than for calling an 01 or 02 number if no revenue share is any longer involved.

That's only like the current state of affairs with freephone numbers costing more than geographical numbers from many mobiles. It will be the originating providers which will benefit from this. And with the many 0870 numbers in service, I'm sure that mobile providers won't miss an opportunity to rip people off.

That said, on the whole, it would be far better than the current setup, although if these numbers are promoted as costing geographical rates, it might encourage a larger percentage of calls to 0870s to be made from mobiles.  :-/

wrote on Oct 20^th, 2005 at 8:21pm:

That's only like the current state of affairs with freephone numbers costing more than geographical numbers from many mobiles. It will be the originating providers which will benefit from this. And with the many 0870 numbers in service, I'm sure that mobile providers won't miss an opportunity to rip people off.

ok Dave thanks for this.

So in our responses to Ofcom we all need to say it is not good enough that Ofcom says revenue sharing must end.  But on top of this Ofcom must insist that every licensed uk telecoms call carrier, including mobile phone companies, cannot charge more for carrying a call to an 0870 number than they charge for calling an 01 or 02 number.  That is to say that if you have a contract mobile phone with inclusive minutes for all normal uk fixed line calls that 0870 must now be covered by the package.

In our response we must particularly point to the current 0845 and 0870 ripoffs as being a reason why the present Ofcom proposals must be further revised to insist that all uk OCPs cannot charge more for 0870   numbers than their rate to 01 and 02 numbers once the new regime comes in.  It is not good enough for Ofcom to say it hopes this will happen.  Also Ofcom does not comment on inclusive call packages to geographic numbers and again Ofcom must be forced to make rules to ensure that 0870 numbers will be included in these call packages once these changes go through.  Light Touch = Out of Touch is the message we must get across to Ofcom

Of course I would also like to see this rule applied to 0845 but that needs to be tackled in a different way by showing Ofcom that by the time their 0870 changes come in there will be hardly any 0845 dial up left and that what dial up is left will have all moved to cheaper deals on 0844 and 0808 so there is no case at all to preserve the revenues of a few remaining ripoff 0845 dialup ISPs at the expense of continuing inflated prices for millions of calls a day to voice 0845 numbers.  Ofcom must have it pointed out to them that 0845 has always been marketed as being "Lo-Call"!  Also the fact that 0845 is used for voice calls and dialup is entirely the fault of their totally incompetent predecessors at OFTEL.

wrote on Oct 13^th, 2005 at 7:38pm:

That is the principal issue idb, as you say all uses of NGNs where revenue is required must be moved back to 09 where they belong. I do not believe it is difficult at all to plan a proper use of the 08 category. ISPs could easily be allocated a relatively low rate 09 category. It is all about wanting to plan a proper structure which conforms to the National Numbering Plan. However I don't agree with your idea re 018.... That would just confuse things even more. Any number commencing 01 must stay geographic.

Having thought about this, I'm inclined to agree. Ofcom has made a complete mess of the NTNP and further anomolies should be discouraged, however I plan to modify my original suggestion slightly. My a5sertion is that NTS 084 and 087 are not needed and should revenue be required then the numbers must shift into the 09 range and all others must revert to geographic. Recognizing that number migration takes a while and that the Ofcom proposed timeframe is unacceptable, then an interim solution is required.

My proposal is that 0844, 0845, 0870 and 0871 are allocated a geographic 'replace code' from the unused pools that simply overlays the NGN and will be handled exactly as a geographic equivalent. This will be a temporary measure until these scam numbers are consigned to history. Give operators a two year period to switch over.

A similar process used to happen here in the United States for the toll-free numbering, although it has subsequently been ditched, presumably because foreign operators treat such calls as normal geographic numbers and there are now fewer problems with international termination. Area codes 880, 881 and 882 were allocated as 'replace codes' for toll-free numbers 800, 888 and 877 respectively and designated "paid international calls to +1 8XX" so that calls originating outside the NANP could be terminated.
Comments/criticisms are again welcome.


<><><>

This message board software is a joke. It changes the phrase "my a5sertion" (I have had to replace an 's' with a '5' ) to "I disagreeertion" presumably because it does not like the word a5s.

Has this software been designed by Ofcom by any chance?

Can the owner do something about this ludicrous behaviour?

wrote on Oct 21^st, 2005 at 12:29pm:

A similar process used to happen here in the United States for the toll-free numbering, although it has subsequently been ditched, presumably because foreign operators treat such calls as normal geographic numbers and there are now fewer problems with international termination.

A smiliar process occurred on London when 01 became 0171 and 0181 and when those codes then became 020 when either dialling code (old and new) worked together for a long period.

But Ofcom won't allow this in this case idb as this would mean an early end to the 0870 and 0845 scamming.  The whole  point of Ofcom's proposals is to preserve the 0870 and 0845 scamming for as long as they think they can get away with it politically.  And then as a thank you many of those Ofcom directors will soon move back to the private telcos at much higher salaries.

Of course they will say this is due to their extra skill set developed at the regulator and will deny it is a pay back for favours bestowed.  But you only have to read what is written in the consultation document about loss of revenue to service providers and telcos to work out the real truth. :o

Anyhow thanks on your suggestion about immediately bringing in the dual geographic code on 0870 and 0845.  This completely blows out of the water Ofcom's argument that 0845 has to go on revenue sharing for years and years more so incompetent dialup users will still be able to go on dialling 0845 (if they don't mind paying the extra cost. ;) :o )

I will make sure to include your valuable suggestion in my response to Ofcom as I hope that you also will.

Hi idb,

I do not believe myself that the 08 series, mainly referring to 0870, 0871, 0845, 0844,  should be phased out or deleted. I believe all current 08 numbers should be continued within NTS, but should be charged immediately and henceforth at the originating telco carrier's geo rate. NTS should be operated so that any connection costs en-route and for terminating should be bourne by telcos within the NTS, on a swings and round-abouts basis (rather as car insurers share the settlement payouts for claims, not any longer claiming from the other insured but settling their own insured's losses). At the end of the day this would result in algebraic balance and there would be a saving of the current costs of computing transfer costs and settlements between the telcos.

NTS and the 08 series of NGNs could then be used as was originally intended before BT commenced abusing them, and Oftel sat by and watched it happen, doing nothing.

I believe all Premium use (Revenue Sharing use) should be forced to 09 where it has belonged all the time in the current structure.

Other abuses, misleading designations and misnomers,  particularly 070PNS abuses shall also be ceased. I do not believe 070PNS should have ever been alllowed within the 07 category. Its characteristics are essentially no different to those generally intended for NTS, and it does not have any characteristics relating to the 07 category. If PNS is genuinely required which I doubt then it should be accomodated within the 08 series and charged at the same as geo rates. The only real reason it was ever coined was specifically for abuse.

wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2005 at 12:12pm:

If PNS is genuinely required which I doubt then it should be accomodated within the 08 series and charged at the same as geo rates..

Dorf,

It seems to me that if PNS is required and people are prepared to pay the extortionate rates then 07 PNS should be renumbered to 09 where it belongs.  It has no place on the 08 code.

NGM, If the current exorbitant rates were continued I agree 09 would be the only logical and permissible category for current 070 PNS uses.

However, my point was that if it is really required for its supposed purpose, which I doubt, it really is no different in the actual functionality offered to 087, or 084 etc. Thus if it really is a separate category which is required, for some reason which I do not understand, I feel due to its actual functionality this current service should logically be within the 08 category somewhere, charged at the same as geo rates.

wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2005 at 8:09pm:

However, my point was that if it is really required for its supposed purpose, which I doubt, it really is no different in the actual functionality offered to 087, or 084 etc. Thus if it really is a separate category which is required, for some reason which I do not understand, I feel due to its actual functionality this current service should logically be within the 08 category somewhere, charged at the same as geo rates.

Some PNS numbers (mainly k rate which is 35p peak, 25p offpeak and 12p at the weekend) offer diversion to international mobile numbers at no cost to the holder of the PNS number.  Until very recently calls to international mobiles have been very expensive (after they were regrettably split for international tariffing in many countries 5 or so years ago just as international fixed line call prices started to fall through the floor) so there is an argument this PNS variant should have been legitimately allowed on an 09 tariff.

However the key thing is that legislation needs to be passed to heavily revise BT's Call Diversion feature so that it is possible for it to divert calls using dial through numbers, and using indirect access prefixes like 1899.  If these things were made compulsory for fixed line operators like BT then the need for PNS would completely fall away.  But again those at Ofcom will not vote for doing anything that may prevent themselves getting another well paid job at a Telco when they leave Ofcom. :o ::)

NGM, if that is an option currently offered on k rate 07 PNS and possibly other rate PNS then you have a point. However, as you rightly observe to fix this as a monopoly function as at present is a violation of free competition. So I agree with you in this respect, where this is an included compulsory charge to the caller then such a service should be within 09.

However if it were offered as a non-monopoly service, as it should be, then it should be just another form of NTS, diverted via any telco carrier chosen by the called party, and charged at the normal geo rate to the caller. (In this case I feel it should be within the 08 category, and this option should in any case be available for all NTS.)

Norfolk County Council Trading Standards have responded to the "Way Forward" consultation here.

The main point they make is that it's better for companies to stay silent on pricing, rather than state a potentially misleading [BT] price.

Quote:

Even if the OCP makes a price announcement before connection, an offence is still committed by an advertiser who has previously stated that the price is lower than this. The price announcement merely reduces the consumer detriment.

This is interesting and is a reason to question allowing OCPs to charge more than their geographical rate with pricing announcements.

If Ofcom were to implement the proposals, then how does this fit in? SPs must display pricing information according to Ofcom's rules, but must not display them according to the law!

Should Ofcom have not seeked legal advice before going ahead and publishing this consultation?

I mentioned that in reply #96 and also in the trading standards thread here.

Norfolk Council themselves use 5ppm 0844 numbers but of course don't publish the cost anywhere so no one knows they are paying over the odds to call them compared to a geographical or even an 0845.

I can't see ofcom having price announcements implemented due to the cost involved for the networks but I do believe that for mobiles/payphones then price announcements should be implemented because there is a huge difference between upto 4ppm (0845)/8ppm (0870) and upto 40ppm to call either a 0845/0870.

By Ofcom's own admission, any call over 10ppm is considered premium rate therefore I can't see why they wont, at the very least, insist on call announcements from payphones/mobile networks.

As for landlines then they are generally around the same price as BT and BT still have SMP so therefore I think that ofcom should inforce the non-broadcasting side of the ASA's rules on 084x/087x and implement them everywhere including the broadcasting side of the ASA which so far has decided not to follow the rules of the non-broadcasting ASA.

We all know the simpliest answer is to move any revenue sharing number to the 09x range.  They could have an 09x range that cost the same as a 0870 currently costs now but with the added protection for us consumers of knowing that they are receiving revenue from the call and that call queueing is not allowed.

wrote on Oct 24^th, 2005 at 3:44pm:

I mentioned that in reply #96 and also in the trading standards thread here. By Ofcom's own admission, any call over 10ppm is considered premium rate therefore I can't see why they wont, at the very least, insist on call announcements from payphones/mobile networks.

Ofcom's attitude is that the mobile phone market is already subject to the white hot forces of private competition so there is no need.

Although clearly they don't seem to have factored in Vodafone or the fact that we have some of the highest landline to mobile phone prices in the western world.

wrote on Oct 24^th, 2005 at 4:21pm:

Ofcom's attitude is that the mobile phone market is already subject to the white hot forces of private competition so there is no need.

And of course this is the reason Orange are about to start charging for freephone calls.  ::)

wrote on Oct 24^th, 2005 at 4:27pm:

And of course this is the reason Orange are about to start charging for freephone calls.  ::)

And also the reason that Orange will no doubt be able to get away without any prominent announcements alerting its customers to this major change.

What can one really say of Ofcom the so called telecoms regulator that has spent quite a while encouraging the COI to make amended policy saying that 0845 is not as bad as 0870 for government call centres only to then propose rgeulatory changes that will mean 0845 will be much worse than 0870.

To say that the left and the right hand at Ofcom don't seem to talk to one another much is to put it mildly. ::)

wrote on Oct 24^th, 2005 at 4:54pm:

And also the reason that Orange will no doubt be able to get away without any prominent announcements alerting its customers to this major change...

Don't the mobile networks have to have call announcements for freephone calls that they are charging for?  If so, this would be the first indication that they are being charged for those that may miss it when Orange write to their pay monthly customers.

Yes but surely that is their deliberate strategy to satisfy their government controllers? More bamboozle and all part of the continued deception. If we confuse the general public they will not realise what we are doing?

wrote on Oct 24^th, 2005 at 5:01pm:

Yes but surely that is their deliberate strategy to satisfy their government controllers? More bamboozle and all part of the continued deception. If we confuse the general public they will not realise what we are doing?

Absolutely Dorf that is their strategy.

Why else produce two consultation documents where one would do and why produce 250 pages where 50 would have done!

As mobile networks have call announcements for 0800 calls then how hard or more expensive can it be for them to implement it for NGN's calls that they charge upto 40ppm for?

wrote on Oct 24^th, 2005 at 5:57pm:

As mobile networks have call announcements for 0800 calls then how hard or more expensive can it be for them to implement it for NGN's calls that they charge upto 40ppm for?

Ummm,

No more difficult that it would have been for all 0845 dialup ISPs to have to migrate their customers to 0844 so that 0845 voice callers could make calls at geographic rates. ;)

In other words such announcements would not be at all expensive to implement but would lose a huge amount in lost call revenue for mobile companies from their dumber customers who then suddenly realised they were being ripped off.  So again Ofcom prefer to be "Out of Touch" (or "In Touch" with what is good for the bank balances  of their old working colleagues) rather to be consumer focused. ::)

The issue about 0845 numbers staying as-is for 2 years is an important one which respondees must not overlook when backing Ofcom's suggestion that 0870 be aligned to geographical rates.

In my response, I will be mentioning the way in which Ofcom has come to the conclusion that queuing and revenue generating isn't a problem.

It has conducted an experiment by ringing companies on 0800, 0845 and 0870 numbers (see pages 169 and 170). It found no correlation between different number prefixes and waiting times. That is all well and good and I don't doubt that the results are valid for the question it posed.

However, I think that certain points have been missed out here. The issues are thus:
1) Does a company queue calls to make revenue?
2) As a consumer, if you are put in a queue/on hold, you are paying the company. It may only be a small amount, but nevertheless, money is being taken from your pocket and you have no control over this. This cannot be right!
3) The cost of the call itself, which can be broken down into the cost whilst:-
(a) on hold, which is dependant on when an operator becomes available.
(b) talking to the operator. With a truelly value-added service, this part is acceptable.

Ofcom has essentially asked the question "Do companies queue differently on different prefixes?" I don't think that Ofcom's 'mystery shopping' has covered all of the above.

It may have touched on point 1, but it's not really answered it. It's more a case of companies can put callers on hold.

When looking at the results, we should bear in mind that many SMEs use 0870s. They are small shops who may have a web presence. It is to be expected that such companies would answer the phone straight away.

It is usually call centre environments that manage many calls that have to queue, and it is these which Ofcom should be singling out to do some mystery shopping!

So to take an average where there are alot of SMEs is totally pointless as it just brings down the mean waiting time.

I would like to add that a while ago I made a complaint to Ofcom and was asked for my contact number.  As they (at that the time anyhow) used an 0845 number I gave them my NGN also.  The operator then had the cheek to ask do I have a geographical instead of my NGN?

I replied it was forwarded to my mobile.  This wasn't true but I wasn't prepared to give my geo number out to them due to the fact they aren't doing anything for us consumers with regards to NGN's.

Anyhow, why is it ofcom try and play down the significance of the cost of NGN's when their contact centre wanted my underlying geographical number?

Obviously they wanted the cheapest form of contact number for me so why can't us consumers ask the same from companies?

It's obviously ok for ofcom to try to avoid ringing NGN's where possible but us consumers have to put up with them!

wrote on Oct 24^th, 2005 at 8:25pm:

The issue about 0845 numbers staying as-is for 2 years is an important one which respondees must not overlook when backing Ofcom's suggestion that 0870 be aligned to geographical rates.

On page 158 of the consultation, paragraph A4.154 states:

Quote:

In the case of 0845, however, Ofcom was mindful of the effects on ISP services if 0845 numbers were required to revert to geographic rates, in the same timeframe as 0870. Ofcom also noted that wider public concern over 0845 charges was not as great as for 0870 and ISP services operating on 0845 are generally regarded as offering good value. In addition, the potential ISP migration costs would have been significant at a time when broadband penetration compared to pay-as-yougo dial-up internet access. Ofcom therefore proposes to review the situation regarding 0845 numbers towards the end of the two year interim period, to assess the level of continuing demand for pay-as-you-go dial-up internet access, before deciding whether to require 0845 calls to be charged at geographic rates for this range as well.

So Ofcom will leave 0845 as it is for at least two years because public concern is less for 0845 than 0870!

If this is the case then we must make reference to this and tell them that just because there is less outcry over 0845 doesn't make it right. More to the point, there are more services on 0870 and, as Ofcom admit, the majority of calls to 0845 are to ISPs which should be considered separately from voice calls.

wrote on Oct 26^th, 2005 at 4:58pm:

Ofcom therefore proposes to review the situation regarding 0845 numbers towards the end of the two year interim period, to assess the level of continuing demand for pay-as-you-go dial-up internet access, before deciding whether to require 0845 calls to be charged at geographic rates for this range as well.

So it isn't just that 0845 calls will revert to geographic prices one year after the one year deadline for 0870 call price changes that will take effect  when Ofcom finally publishes its response to the consultation and sets that date.  So perhaps say 8 months from now and that 's of course assuming that Ofcom don't decide to have another consultation on 0870 too. :o ::)

All Ofcom are in fact saying is that some nearly two years after that one year to 0870 price change clock date starts running Ofcom will merely look at how many people are calling 0845 numbers with dial up ISPs to consider if it perhaps might see its way to ending revenue share perhaps another  year later.  So 0845 will stay as premium priced calls outside call packages for at least another 3 to 4 years from now. ::)

0845 may well not be the headline today but they sure will be in 18 months or so time when they start to become far more expensive to call than most 0870s and when people really will notice that they are not what the useless Ofcom still incredibly currently allows to be marketed as being Lo-Call!  Also how is Ofcom going to then justify the advice it gave the COI that any government 0870 should be migrated to at least 0845 because it was not as expensive.

These proposals from Ofcom are totally intellectually incoherent and reflect nothing other than Ofcom's ability to pander only to whatever its director chums in the major uk isps and telcos tell Ofcom they want it to do.

Ofcom is a totally bankrupt regulator and if it goes ahead with these crazy proposals to make 0845 still premium priced non geographic calls while 0870 become geographic it is going to face the most enormous public backlash against its grotesque incompetence and inability to ever genuinely act in the public interest.

There are only two possibilities which are either (a) that Ofcom staff are so utterly clueless that they really can be bamboozled by the ISPs into believing it is actually difficult to migrate an 0845 customer to a cheaper 0844 ISP service or (b) that they know perfectly well it is not difficult but that their friends in the ISPs have told them that it will impact their own personal bonuses due to loss of all that lovely illicitly gained call revenue from ignorant 0845 users who don't realise what they are paying.  Now since I don't actually believe Ofcom staff are ignorant of the lack of any technical complexity in moving 0845 calls to 0844 my money is all on option (b) being the case.  Especially as the Ofcom consultation document actually admits that loss of revenue to ISPs is the primary reason for deciding not to end 0845 revenue share at precisely the same time as 0870. :o

So I wonder how Mr Stephen Carter plans to use his newly discovered Voip calling facility to make cheap calls to 0845 numbers in 2 years time?  Oh I forgot that as Ofcom is paying his phone bill for him he of course will be utterly clueless that this is even actually the case.  And no doubt back at home it is his wife who has to deal with the phone bills. ::)

I think that we should question the validity of Ofcom's research, especially the consumer research.

Quote:

A6.25 [...] The quantitative research found that the majority (79%) agreed that every individual has a choice whether or not to use these services.

Really ? ::)

Bear in mind:

Quote:

A6.27 Before the interview only 30% of consumers were aware that companies who use NTS prefixes share call revenue with telephone providers.

Quote:

A6.32 Overall, the qualitative and quantitative research indicated that residential consumers are looking for clarity in order to distil the confusion over call prices rather than being concerned about revenue share per se. ...

That would be reasonable as most consumers weren't aware of RS before being asked, so how can telling them that companies can RS brief enough on the issues to make an informed decision?


Quote:

A6.32 continued: ... When options were presented to respondents in the qualitative research there was no clear preference for a single option, although Option 2 (Ofcom's preferred option from the October 2004 Consultation – see Section 2, paragraph 2.12 for explanation) was the one that was preferred by most. This option was ‘safe’, in that it was most similar to the status quo so there were no further complications. ...

So maybe interviewees didn't really understand what it was the were 'choosing' and what the implications were. They just picked one from the list.


Quote:

A6.32 continued: ... Anything that was perceived to complicate matters, or introduced additional, or unfamiliar numbers, tended to be rejected by the focus groups. ...

Options 2 was to break up 0845/0870 into different pricing rates. This would obviously complicate matters and so Ofcom are right to not go along with this.

wrote on Oct 12^th, 2005 at 10:59pm:

What a farce to claim Ofcom is accountable to Parliament when the reality is that it is accountable only to a combination of a few vested interests in the telecoms industry

Isn't that what being Independent means 'though ?  
Independent of Government,
Independent of Society,
and free to  serve who it pleases

Has anyone thought of putting in an FOI to Ofcom as to how they conducted this market research and especially how they decided to ask their questions in a way that would not automatically be likely to prejudge the likely range of responses.

As far as I can see Ofcom asked questions like "as you know these 0870 numbers are charged at a higher rate than calls starting 01 or 02" so can you tell us how much per minute they do cost to call.  To which the confused questionees realised something was up and gave price answers close to 50p per minute, thinking that this was what Ofcom's clearly biased question was getting at (given that most members of the public are readily aware of 09 numbers costing 50p to £1.50 per minute even though some in fact cost less than this).  Whereas had Ofcom listen some 0870, 0871, 0844 and 0845 numbers in a long list mixed up with plenty of 01 and 02 numbers and asked people what rate they thought they were charged at they would have got the answers "local rate" and "national rate".

But because Ofcom are so blatantly biased that they even actually always announce their preferred solutions on various alternate proposals in documents they misleadingly call "consultations" I suppose it was almost second nature to them to rig the way the questions were asked to pull in the answers that would best suit the agenda of their telco chums at the NTS Focus Groups. ::)

wrote on Oct 26^th, 2005 at 7:17pm:

Isn't that what being Independent means 'though ?   Independent of Government, Independent of Society, and free to  serve who it pleases

Ofcom is only supposed to be free to serve the interests of uk citizens and consumers as it was originally instructed to do by Parliament.  Being nice to telcos and not harming their existing revenue streams is not supposed to be one of Ofcom's guiding lights.

This is clearly set out here:-

http://www.ofcom.org.uk/about/sdrp/

Ofcom's Statutory Duties
Under the Communications Act 2003:

" 3(1) It shall be the principal duty of Ofcom, in carrying out their functions;
(a) to further the interests of citizens in relation to communications matters; and
(b) to further the interests of consumers in relevant markets, where appropriate by promoting competition"

and

Ofcom will intervene where there is a specific statutory duty to work towards a public policy goal which markets alone cannot achieve.

Ofcom will operate with a bias against intervention, but with a willingness to intervene firmly, promptly and effectively where required.

Perhaps you would care to explain to me how not damaging the revenue stream of existing 0845 dial up ISPs serves the interests of uk citizens and consumers?  Especially when it also causes those same consumers to have to pay far more to make ordinary voice calls on 0845 numbers to people like the Inland Revenue and the local police forces for many years to come.

wrote on Oct 26^th, 2005 at 7:26pm:

Perhaps you would care to explain to me how not damaging the revenue stream of existing 0845 dial up ISPs serves the interests of uk citizens and consumers?  Especially when it also causes those same consumers to have to pay far more to make ordinary voice calls on 0845 numbers to people like the Inland Revenue and the local police forces for many years to come.

Wasn't a new number range set up specifically to allow chargeable, Dial Up,  Internet Access ?   Wasn't  it 0844...  ?  If memory serves, didn't even BTInternet use this initially.     But then a number of ISPs switched to using 0845.    0845 was specifically NOT set up for providing Internet access.   Any operators who may have ventured to use it for such, however unwittingly, should bear the consequences.
   So a number of users may be inconvenienced by having to change their Dialler numbers, if these ISPs are 'forced' to change their 0845 access number, by losing revenue share.    Anyone who doesn't know how to check/change their dialler number is already vulnerable to the scamsters who'll do it without their knowledge.
 Changing the Dial-Up access numbers would be a marvellous opportunity to educate the users for their own protection, as well as no doubt leveraging a lot of them off -dialup and onto broadband.
  I completely fail to see any credible reasoning to omit 0845 numbers from this review.      I can just envisage  the subsequent surge in demand for them ... as scamsters scurry for this last unregulated rock to hide under.

wrote on Oct 26^th, 2005 at 8:01pm:

I completely fail to see any credible reasoning to omit 0845 numbers from this review.      I can just envisage  the subsequent surge in demand for them ... as scamsters scurry for this last unregulated rock to hide under.

I hope you will be making this point in your submission to Ofcom as I will.  There are far too many submissions to Ofcom congratulating Ofcom on their 0870 proposals and totally missing the point on on their appalling 0845 proposals.  Whereas Ofcom should be totally slammed for proposing far too little too late and still not getting it right.

By the way all dial up ISPs were originally on 0845 at 4p peak and 1 to 1.5p per minute offpeak.  The creation of 0844 and 0871 number ranges with a variable charging range (1 to 5p for 0844 and 6 to 10p for 0871) but constant at all times call rate was a later development.  But only the more ethical ISPs decided to offer their customers a 1p per minute at all times 0844 number.

Ofcom are protecting the worst 0845 dial up scammer ISPs to the detriment of those dial up customers and to the even bigger detriment of all the voice based 0845 callers (eg calls to Police and Inland Revenue) who will get shafted as a result for many years to come.

This is utterly disgraceful and proves either that Ofcom are either grotesquely incompetent or that they are not fulfilling their statutory remit because their senior staff has been totally infiltrated with a range of telecoms professionals clearly not capable of acting in the public interest.

Yet most of the dumber members of the public responding to the Ofcom document will congratulate them on their 10 years too late proposals on 0870 numbers. :o

wrote on Oct 26^th, 2005 at 9:15pm:

I hope you will be making this point in your submission to Ofcom as I will.  ...

I'm just limbering up to it ..

wrote on Oct 27^th, 2005 at 10:58am:

I'm just limbering up to it ..

The thing is they always set the deadline weeks in the future so that there is a danger you will overlook it.

I know that this is what happened to me with the Patientline consultation. :(

Its best to respond today before you have a chance to forget about it.

Maybe I should just make a separate response for each point then.... as it occurs,   to avoid that danger of a masterfully crafted, substantive & comprehensive response, missing the boat.    It should add to the impression of a large response too.

wrote on Oct 27^th, 2005 at 11:19am:

Maybe I should just make a separate response for each point then.... as it occurs,   to avoid that danger of a masterfully crafted, substantive & comprehensive response, missing the boat.    It should add to the impression of a large response too.

Perhaps its best to stick all the points down quicky in four paras rather than as 10 page magnum opus response as I unfortunately did last time.

Sadly history shows that although Ofcom produces 250 page documents for other people to read they can't be bothered to read responses to their consultations of even 10 pages.

Or at least if they do they don't take any  notice of what is in them. ::) :o

Much as I hate being made to use these non-geographical premium rate numbers for calling UK organisations, they do have one useful application: they are used by Telestunt, Telediscount etc to give us cheap overseas calls.  What would be the effect on these companies and the services they offer, if these numbers were done away with?

Most use 0844 which ofcom are not touching for the time being.

They can use an 09x number but low cost around the same cost as they would use now but I'm not sure of the range of costs for 09x numbers.

But the one issue that you guys are missing and which must predominate in any rational response to Ofcom's consultations is that all of these uses of any 08 prefix as disguised Premium numbers (i.e with any form of revenue sharing to end subscribers or their cronies) are illegal according to their own NTNP. All Premium numbers must be in the category 09 with call queuing prohibited.

I must emphasize yet again that the root of all of this is queuing, because at present they can have queuing with illegal Premium numbers. That is what they do not want to stop. This abuse clearly is against the interest of the Citizen Consumer and as NGM rightly points out, it is supposed to be the predominant remit of Ofcom under the Acts to protect the interests of the Citizen Consumer. This is exactly what Ofcom are so blatantly refusing to do and as such they are actually breaking UK Law.

The strategy of Ofcom is to get you all worrying about where else in the 08 range or 05 range or whatever they could move these abuse, since their objective is to be able to continue these abuses in a similar form by just mixing things about. They do this to take your eye "off the ball". They do not want to face the real issue which is that all these abuses should be moved to 09 where they belong because then all their cronies would loose the queuing revenue! This is why they continuously fail to do their duty under the law to protect the Citizen Consumer, and why they will never undertake their legal remit until Parliament censures them and clears out the deadwood and corruption at the highest level within this organisation.

wrote on Oct 29^th, 2005 at 11:21am:

But the one issue that you guys are missing and which must predominate in any rational response to Ofcom's consultations is that all of these uses of any 08 prefix as disguised Premium numbers (i.e with any form of revenue sharing to end subscribers or their cronies) are illegal according to their own NTNP.

Dorf,

Can you give me the web address where I can read a copy of the NTNP?

Sorry NGM, I do not have a url for it to hand; but it was originally an Oftel document I believe, so you will find it on the Ofcom site probably listed under old Oftel documents?

A google search reveals here in .pdf format.

wrote on Oct 29^th, 2005 at 12:37pm:

Sorry NGM, I do not have a url for it to hand; but it was originally an Oftel document I believe, so you will find it on the Ofcom site probably listed under old Oftel dcoments?

It turns out to in fact be a current Ofcom document having been inherited from OFTEL but then maintained by Ofcom and last updated as recently as 11th August 2005.  Only a very brief 29 pages by Ofcom standards ;) so has to be worth a read given its relevance to this issue and to the 084/7 consultations too.

A quick check shows that 199 has not been assigned to any specific use in the current NTNP. 101 is plain dumb as a choice as it would obviously be confused with being a variant of Operator Sevices.

Now didn't all those Police forces who adopted an 0845 number maintain that the main advantage was that they wouldn't have to to change their number again in future? ::) :o

Sorry if I am being dumb but I just can't see....what are the addresses, email and postal, for responses to the consultation?
Thanks !

Yes but this is the problem. If Ofcom keep changing the plan then there is no plan. This is their gambit, a bit like Animal Farm. Intially: "All Premium numbers will be moved to 09 and queuing will be prohibited".

Later: "However, some Premium numbers are more equal than others so they will be moved back to other number categories and queuing will be allowed on those".

Later still: "Some telcos are more equal than others - one in particular the pig - so the more equal ones may abuse the spirit of the NTNP and we will alter the plan to suit their abuses. The pig telco will be permitted to do whatever they tell us we must allow and we will alter the original plan and the spirit of the plan to condone their abuses of it."

Much later still: "The pig telco has now contravened the plan so much that it does not have any meaning anymore and so we have decided to scrap it completely and go back to allowing any numbers to be configured as Premium numbers with queuing. This is because the pig telco has told us that they can make much more illicit revenue if they can fool the Citizen Consumers by them not knowing which numbers are Premium numbers like it was before we had this silly NTNP which stopped them doing it, and when the Farmer didn't have any inconvenient competition from pigs undercutting their prices. They have explained that it is so difficult now to make an honest crust in the telecoms business that we have decided to help them survive".

What is the point of having any plan if you do not stick to it? It is quite purposeless.

Quote:

Sorry if I am being dumb but I just can't see....what are the addresses, email and postal, for responses to the consultation?

Hi Mjk43,

For Ofcom's consultation summary document...(containing written address)...
http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/nts_forward/  

To See for yourself some of the responses to the Ofcom's consultation...
http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/nts_forward/responses

And to email Ofcom use this address: nts@ofcom.org.uk

Cheers
Garry

PS There's also several related threads on this forum regarding the current consultation.  Good luck!

For those that weren't already aware, Ofcom's consultation was split into TWO consultations:-
Number Translation Services: A Way Forward

and

Providing citizens and consumers with improved information about Number Translation Services and Premium Rate Services
So for those that may have already responded to Ofcom's 'A Way Forward' consultation don't forget the other consultation mentioned above!

I know I've mentioned this before but mentioned it again as it can be easy to forget about the other consultation.

THIS WAS MY REPLY FROM Ofcom, WHEN I SENT IN MY TWO-PENNETH!

Our Ref: 2553176

28 Oct 2005

Dear Mr Hicks.

Cost of 0870 Numbers  

Thank you for your recent correspondence to Ofcom regarding the above matter.  

As you have mentioned, Ofcom has recently announced that it is consulting on new proposals for the use of 0870 & 0845 non geographic numbers.

These measures aim to give consumers improved confidence in services using 0870/1 or 0844/5 numbers.  Ofcom believes that the new proposals will prevent inappropriate use of these numbers and deliver clarity for consumers without disrupting important existing services such as dial-up internet access.  Ofcom also believes that this approach will deliver greater certainty for telecoms companies carrying NTS calls.  

The deadline for responses to the consultation is 6 December 2005.  

Answers to frequently asked questions have been published at:

http://www.ofcom.org.uk/media/mofaq/telecoms/nts/

The full consultation document is available on Ofcom's website at:

http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/nts_forward/

I therefore suggest that you read the consultation in full and respond to the consultation with any additional points that you wish to be raised.  

Yours sincerely

::Leonard Martin
Telecoms Support
contact@ofcom.org.uk
 
::Ofcom
Riverside House
2a Southwark Bridge Road
London SE1 9HA
020 7981 3040
www.ofcom.org.uk


*****************************************************************
Ofcom is the independent regulator and competition authority for the UK communications industries, with responsibilities across television, radio, telecommunications and wireless communications services.

For further details and to register for automatic updates from Ofcom on key publications and other developments, please visit www.ofcom.org.uk

This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed.

If you have received this email in error please notify the originator of the message. This footer also confirms that this email message has been scanned for the presence of computer viruses.

Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifies and with authority, states them to be the views of Ofcom.
*****************************************************************

Maybe the point to push with regards the exclusion of 0845 numbers from Ofcom's proposals is that it will undermine consumers' perceptions of the telephone market, especially 08 numbers, when they find out that the reduction in [removal of premium from] 0870 has not happened to 0845. This seems to be the only sort of view that Ofcom understands. People will see it as "more changes", (that's after various phone codes have been changed several times in the last 10 years.

wrote on Nov 1^st, 2005 at 5:06pm:

Maybe the point to push with regards the exclusion of 0845 numbers from Ofcom's proposals is that it will undermine consumers' perceptions of the telephone market, especially 08 numbers, when they find out that the reduction in [removal of premium from] 0870 has not happened to 0845. This seems to be the only sort of view that Ofcom understands. People will see it as "more changes", (that's after various phone codes have been changed several times in the last 10 years.

Surely also we need to point to the fact that guidelines that Ofcom itself helped the COI create for it to supposedly be better for government contact centres to be on 0845 than 0870 are going to be blown completely out of the water for two years or more.

Most of the 0845 call centres were originally trying to act in the best interests of their customers by getting these numbers when they were at genuine BT local call rate, whereas 0870 call centres were not.  So how can it be fair to disadvantage all these honourably intentioned 0845 call centres for the financial benefit of a few ISPs who would be capable of migrating their customers on to other dial up phone numbers.

wrote on Nov 1^st, 2005 at 5:16pm:

[...] So how can it be fair to disadvantage all these honourably intentioned 0845 call centres for the financial benefit of a few ISPs who would be capable of migrating their customers on to other dial up phone numbers.

I think I've mentioned that in one of my 1000-odd posts somewhere. Oh and this is another post I've clocked up!

wrote on Nov 1^st, 2005 at 5:19pm:

I think I've mentioned that in one of my 1000-odd posts somewhere. Oh and this is another post I've clocked up!

Careful now Dave I think you need to get back on topic in this thread. ;D

The "Congratulations to Non Geographical Man.1000posts"  thread is another one altogether over in the Site Related section of the forum and found here:-

http://www.saynoto0870.com/cgi-bin/forum/YaBB.cgi?board=site;action=display;num=1129191818

And I wasn't the one who started it in case anyone was wondering.

Now how come I was the only person in the whole forum to congratulate you Dave on reaching 1,000 posts a few weeks back, some days before I achieved the same dubious honour.

And as for those wondering about this but still with some way to go (naming no names bigjohn ;)) no there were no flashing lights, no falling tinsel and no fanfare when I also then made that landmark number 1,000 post. :'(

But hey that's nothing as over in http://www.tivocommunity.com there are guys who have clocked up over 5,000 posts and I'm not one of them.  Not even got much past 500 there yet. :-[

But getting back firmly on topic it does seem odd that Ofcom has found a difficulties in ISPs migrating customers to new dialup phone numbers that no one else in the industry seems to have previously been aware of as being a significant issue.  A cynic might of course think that Ofcom were clutching at straws to find a way, by fair means or foul, to keep 0845 revenue share for a couple more years. That reason being to not upset their government paymasters.  Especially the Paymaster General who is ultimately accountable for all those Inland Revenue 0845 helplines. :o

Apologies everyone for intruding on this thread by mentioning another consultation but I think all of you wanting to respond to the Ofcom 0870 consultation will be even more keen to respond urgently (and by 8th Nov at the latest) to Ofcom's audacious and quite disgraceful attempt to hustle through in just two weeks a consultation that will legalise Patientline's current illegal use of 50p per minute 070 PNS numbers for hospital patients so long as Patientline give each patient their own individual number direct dial number to the bedside.

As we all know the thing that people were in fact most angry about with Patientline was not the extra minute they had to spend speaking to a switchboard and giving an extension number before being put through but the fact that they were paying 50p per minute for the whole call. :o

But as usual Ofcom has been too terrified to close down a big and powerful scamster so is proposing to legalise the scam but with one flea bite change that will have zero significant impact on this Scamster's disgraceful operations.

See this thread for details of how to complain to Ofcom and 40 members of Parliament who hate 0870s about this shameful behaviour by Ofcom.

http://www.saynoto0870.com/cgi-bin/forum/YaBB.cgi?board=news;action=display;num=1130334886

It is late and I've had a bad day so apologies for this stupid question  :P

Yesterday I read an excellent document (response to OFCOM) on this site from a Dr. Feltham (I think that was the name).

I thought it was excellent and wanted to take a copy and use it/forward it to others.

Why can't I find it again? Where the hell is it?

Apologies but I've spent 6 hours today on the phone to customer support so the brain is dead (but I did avoid the 0870 number due to the 'Alterantive Number' on this site ;D)

wrote on Nov 1^st, 2005 at 11:19pm:

Why can't I find it again? Where the hell is it? Apologies but I've spent 6 hours today on the phone to customer support so the brain is dead (but I did avoid the 0870 number due to the 'Alterantive Number' on this site ;D)

I suppose a regulator who actually welcomed views from the general public might have one of its most important consultations on its home page instead of trying to hide it away.  Anyhow here are the Responses.  Its R D Feltham that you want:-

http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/nts_forward/responses/?a=87101

Now would you like a Gin and Tonic and for me to clean your kitchen too. ::) ;D

Now despite what ofcom say that they believe very few are going to migrate to 0844 numbers.  I believe companies and some gov funded departments will.

Although during the daytime 0844 will be slightly cheaper than that of 0870, it'll be during the evening & weekends where it will cost significantly more than 0870 does.  The reason is that these companies that ofcom doesn't expect will move are likely to migrate to an 0844 costing 5ppm all the time.  This could well be more expensive than the 0870 at present.

EXACTLY WHAT HAS HAPPENED WITH DOCTORS SURGERIES NOW

In my experience it is the call queuing that rakes up the cost of the overall call more than the time you are actually speaking with a human which is especially true for call centres and large companies.  Therefore as ofcom aren't going to do anything with 0844 then at least they could stop the call queuing and then we would only pay for the time we actually got to speak to someone rather than the 20mins+ beforehand.

wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2005 at 10:17am:

Although during the daytime 0844 will be cheaper than that of 0870, it'll be during the evening & weekends where it will cost significantly more than 0870 does at the evening & weekend.  The reason is that these companies that ofcom doesn't expect will move are likely to migrate to an 0844 costing 5ppm all the time.

So for 7 days a week operators like Sky the drop on their revenue share from Monday to Friday will be made up by the hugely increased revenue share they will get on a 5p per minute 0844 number at the weekends, compared to 1.5p per minute 0870 numbers at the weekends.

I hope people will be making these points in their responses to the Ofcom Consultation.

wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2005 at 12:02am:

I suppose a regulator who actually welcomed views from the general public might have one of its most important consultations on its home page instead of trying to hide it away.  Anyhow here are the Responses.  Its R D Feltham that you want:- http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/nts_forward/responses/?a=87101 Now would you like a Gin and Tonic and for me to clean your kitchen too. ::) ;D

Thank you so much for that - it was a bad day yesterday!

Re Gin & Tonic and a cleaned kitchen - Yes please ;D

wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2005 at 10:22am:

I hope people will be making these points in their responses to the Ofcom Consultation.

I hope so as well.

wrote on Sep 29^th, 2005 at 3:38pm:

I suspect one hundred responses is going to be difficult. I wonder whether the individual that provided the http://www.freeweb.telco4u.net/rachelf/index.htm site will do the same again. Recognizing that this takes time and hard work, we probably need something along similar lines that cuts through the Ofcom BS and provides an easy means for people with concerns but little time to respond.

But aren't there already nearly 100 responses to this consultation with weeks left to go.  Unfortunately most of those responses do not make the right points though due to the clever Ofcom spin in the consultation though.

Perhaps other members of the forum would care to comment on why it has not been felt appropriate to offer a http://www.freeweb.telco4u.net/rachelf/index.htm site for this consultation?

NGM, I did mention that I had used the site you refer to produce my submission. That was in the thread "Help - how to respond to Ofcom".

Note the rearrangement of responses and improved alphabetical ordering by surname at http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/nts_forward/responses/ - a big improvement by Ofcom.

wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2005 at 12:01pm:

Note the rearrangement of responses and improved alphabetical ordering by surname at http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/nts_forward/responses/ - a big improvement by Ofcom.

Any improvement by Ofcom is clearly a rare and unusual thing to behold!

I am enraged at the complicity which OFCOM appears to permit in allowing Non Geographic numbers to increase to the current astronomic numbers.  I would have thought that it would be in the interest of all concerned to expunge the ubiquitous system and return to geographic numbers.  I strongly object to having to pay the phone bill for a large company AND help to line their pockets at the same time by being directed, redirected, held in queues and having music(?) played at me.  Why should I have to dial out to another area when the company concerned is local?  Why should I get the feeling that I am dialling "round the corner" and increasing the profite of not only the company concerned but the phone company also?   Biggles

wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2005 at 2:21pm:

Why should I have to dial out to another area when the company concerned is local?  Why should I get the feeling that I am dialling "round the corner" and increasing the profite of not only the company concerned but the phone company also?   Biggles

Hi Biggles,

And welcome to the forum.

Sadly the answer seems to be that you are forced to do this because both Ofcom and its predecessor OFTEL are morally bankrupt regulators incapable of correctly exercising the remit they have received and still have from Parliament to protect uk citizens and consumers.  See http://www.ofcom.org.uk/about/sdrp/

This has happened largely because there has been no bar or limit on the number of jobs at Ofcom given to professionals previously working at high levels in the telecoms and broadcasting industries and as a result they are almost entirely over-run with such people who seem to conveniently forget about their duties to uk citizens and consumers and only seem to understand about their duties to make rules that suit their old working colleagues in the telecoms and broadcasting industries and don't harm their profitability.

Things shouldn't be that way but unfortunately for the time being they are.

Perhaps it might be an idea to change the name of OFTEL to a more proper "OFFRIP" and challenge the thinking behind what is currently offered to us as help (?).  If there is some method of calling the powers that be to account for their slovenly drafting of legislation and removing their snouts from the trough it would be an advantage.  We should all benefit from less governing and more assistance, plus, we should also be wealthier owing to the fact that there would be less administrators with enormous pay packets to support.  It might be an answer to put them on performance related pay only, much as companies employ a sales force on sales commission only and no basic pay, this would focus their thoughts and actions in order to make a decent living instead of the expensive support they now enjoy.  Only a thought but it is Nirvana and unobtainable as long as we, and I count myself in this, are to lethargic to make any real complaints.  If we had any Colonels worth their salt we should have had a military coup years ago, but that is another line of thought, and unlikely.

Snouts in the trough is correct in respect of Ofcom.

It seems they are paid a fortune to ensure that we go on paying a fortune for BT line rental we don't need (I would happily make all my calls via voip and broadband) and for ripoff 084/7 phone calls.

Ofcom is allegedly accountable to Parliament but this seems to be more fantasy than reality.  You could at least try writing to your MP to set out your concerns.

You might also enjoy this site in relation to Ofcom.

http://www.newlabourscandals.co.uk/bodies.htm

You need to scroll down a little way to find the Ofcom write up.

I have to wonder where Off-Con got their metrics from, stating that in calling a call centre, they were put through to an operator within 13 seconds ?!?? (point 1.34 if you want to look it up)  What about the length of time it takes to get through their protracted marketing message, usually along the lines of "why not check out our website", then to navigate a complex menu of options?

Then again, I suppose the companies concerned would want to maintain the 0870 number as an alternative to a geographic number.  How many of us would phone a UK-based company that had a number starting with +91 22?

Still, if you can dial a UK geographic number in, say, Bristol, and be put through to a call centre in Dublin, then surely Bombay (or wherever else they so choose) should be no different?  Unless... oh, now I get it...  ;)  revenue sharing really is what they're after...

Welcom to the forum OverlordKain,

You have got it in one - it is the Premiums they are after!

wrote on Nov 4^th, 2005 at 5:32pm:

I have to wonder where Off-Con got their metrics from, stating that in calling a call centre, they were put through to an operator within 13 seconds ?!?? ...

How does Ofcom define of "call centre"? How many employees and what sort of companies?

wrote on Nov 4^th, 2005 at 5:32pm:

I have to wonder where Off-Con got their metrics from, stating that in calling a call centre, they were put through to an operator within 13 seconds ?!?? (point 1.34 if you want to look it up)  What about the length of time it takes to get through their protracted marketing message, usually along the lines of "why not check out our website", then to navigate a complex menu of options?

I have for some time been considering a Freedom of Information Act request to Ofcom asking how they chose the call centres tested and how they selected their random members of the public for this survey.  Also to question the objectivity of the questions used to ask how much Jo Bloggs thinks 087 numbers cost.  I haven't had a chance to get round to it yet.

May be someone else would like to pick this one up?

Over on the thread about the 070 personal numbers consultation, I have suggested that 070 numbers might be where companies such as those that install phone systems into university accommodation might go. The allowance of Patientline's systems in hospitals is very similar.

Whilst they might not charge 50p/min, they can still charge callers in the same way they do now with 0870, generating revenue, and get away with it. I cannot see that Ofcom can argue that student room telephones are different to hospital systems.

I haven't seen anything about what Ofcom refers to as a call centre; perhaps they're taking their cue from "The Call Centre Association", listed as one of their stakeholders (surprise surprise).  However, they do state that those provided by companies with turnover above £10m take 42 seconds... and that is supposed to include the time to navigate the menu system!

wrote on Nov 4^th, 2005 at 6:33pm:

Over on the thread about the 070 personal numbers consultation, I have suggested that 070 numbers might be where companies such as those that install phone systems into university accommodation might go. The allowance of Patientline's systems in hospitals is very similar.

Which brings in to question:-

(a) Whether 070 numbers should exist at all and whether all such services should not instead be forced to use 09 which will properly warn callers of high call prices via the mere prefix.  Whereas 070 sounds like its just another mobile numbers so mobile users with cross network bundled minutes will wrongly think these 070s are included and cost them 0p per minute instead of the 50p per minute they do cost (another complaint to make in the 070 consultation)

(b) Why most 070 call tariffs are so high when there is no revenue share to the end user and only the same call redirections options that are possible on 084x/7x.  But surely since no revenue share to the end user is allowed 070 numbers should actually be cheaper to call than 084/087.  So surely Ofcom should be investigating why market forces do not seem to be managing to lower 070 call cost rates.

wrote on Nov 4^th, 2005 at 6:41pm:

However, they do state that those provided by companies with turnover above £10m take 42 seconds... and that is supposed to include the time to navigate the menu system!

Surely if Ofcom were going to be economical with the truth they could at least have done so in a manner that was more plausible. ::)

Me thinks they clearly excluded alll the menu navigation time and only started the waiting count after getting into the "we are very sorry to keep you waiting" bit.  And as there are quite a lot of call centres that only keep you waiting a few seconds at that point I suppose that might have helped balance out the 10 and 15 minute wait merchants.  But there again what's the betting the Ofcom call centre sample was carefully structured to avoid all lengthly call queue exploiters. ;)

Also I bet they didn't count the 5 or 10 minute waits to speak to a supervisor after you had first got through or a 5 minute wait while a call centre adviser refers to their manager for advice.  But I forget they wouldn't have actually been calling with a real problem that they actually needed to get solved would they?  And no doubt Ofcom's brief was to make the figures look as good as possible. ;)

It would seem that a few FOIs to Ofcom might help resolve these points.

I know its a silly question but why doesn't Ofcom just make it illegal to charge callers before they get through to an actual adviser and instead get the company to pick up the call bills to that point on an 0800 style charging basis.  I bet you would soon find there weren't any queues if that was done. ::)

wrote on Nov 4^th, 2005 at 6:41pm:

I haven't seen anything about what Ofcom refers to as a call centre...

My point being that if they mean any 0870 number (at random), then they may well be more likely to get through to a small business, that has aquired an 0870 to make it look 'big' on the internet.

The person answering the call is quite clearly not going to say "please hold a minute". They may well be the business owner.

wrote on Nov 4^th, 2005 at 6:41pm:

Which brings in to question:- (a) Whether 070 numbers should exist at all and whether all such services should not instead be forced to use 09 which will properly warn callers of high call prices via the mere prefix.  ....

Whilst I agree and don't see the point of 070 because of the price to call them aspect, Ofcom don't see it that way and look at all those services provided on them.

The reason I brought the discussion on personal numbers over here is because, IMO, Ofcom are allowing the boundaries of what can't be used for to be eroded.

wrote on Nov 4^th, 2005 at 7:01pm:

Whilst I agree and don't see the point of 070 because of the price to call them aspect, Ofcom don't see it that way and look at all those services provided on them. The reason I brought the discussion on personal numbers over here is because, IMO, Ofcom are allowing the boundaries of what can't be used for to be eroded.

Ofcom only seem to exist to think of any way they can to legalise the continuation of all the abuses.

As for instance with allowing 0871 charges to continue as long as they are regulated by ICTSIS.  And then when/if many 0870 calls are moved to geographic rate callers will be hoodwinked into thinking 0871 cost the same.  Many people don't listen to any announcements as I know from my Answerphone which also gives my mobile number!

wrote on Nov 4^th, 2005 at 6:41pm:

... 070 sounds like its just another mobile numbers so mobile users with cross network bundled minutes will wrongly think these 070s are included and cost them 0p per minute instead of the 50p per minute they do cost (another complaint to make in the 070 consultation)

I had an 070 number when it came out in about 1997 or so.  At the time, there were two numbers available: 07020, charged at about 10ppm, or 07050 charged at about 35 ppm.  I think other 070 providers had a similar structure.  How is the caller to know what they were being charged, unless they had a list of all the 070 numbers and which were on what tariff?

However I had one cold call saying these (then-)new 070 numbers were like US 1-800 numbers; I told the salesman they were more like 1-976 (the forerunner to 1-900) numbers.


Quote:

Why most 070 call tariffs are so high when there is no revenue share to the end user and only the same call redirections options that are possible on 084x/7x.  But surely since no revenue share to the end user is allowed 070 numbers should actually be cheaper to call than 084/087.

Indeed.  A couple of years later, I looked at an NGN for my small business.  I managed to get an 0800 number at a cost of 4ppm (incoming), and was able to change the number to any UK landline, much the same as the 070 numbers.  So, there seems to be no difference between the 0800/0845/0870/070 numbers other than tariff (and tariff seems to determine the range of geographic termination).  It all, I guess, goes back to marketing; how much can the tele-con industry rip us off without us knowing we're being ripped off?


Quote:

So surely Ofcom should be investigating why market forces do not seem to be managing to lower 070 call cost rates.

But market forces have, somewhat, lowered 070 call cost rates; it's called 0870... imagine if student dorms all used 070 numbers (as has been suggested)?  There, market forces to counter the extortionate 070 rates come in the form of mobile phones.  But there are those who have carved a little monopoly niche within an environment with no mobile phones and no alternate telephony provider.  Did someone mention P******line? ;)

wrote on Nov 4^th, 2005 at 7:01pm:

...The reason I brought the discussion on personal numbers over here is because, IMO, Ofcom are allowing the boundaries of what it can't be used for to be eroded.

I agree.  Patientline are using the 07 personal range numbers as a premium rate number to gain revenue but by doing this on 07 personal number range means that they avoid the protection/guidelines of coming under the remit of ICSTIS.

.... I've continued this here...

Some of you participating in this thread might want to contribute to this other new thread on the user friendliness of the Ofcom Consultation Process which I have just started here:-

Click Here - for Responding to Ofcom Made Difficult by Design Thread

A quick point which is that many of you participating in this thread should also be sending emails to the Consumers Association/Which asking them why they did not bother to respond to the last Ofcom NTS Options for the Future consultation on such an important matter for consumers, and also demanding that they do respond to the consultations this time.

Send an email to Which Campaigns Director Nick Stace - nick.stace@which.co.uk and to their Chief Executive - peter.vicary-smith@which.co.uk demanding that they respond to the consultation and highlighting what you believe to be the main issues.

Sorry if I'm interrupting the current conversation but I'm preparing my reply to the Ofcom consultation and would be grateful of any feedback on these ideas.  Remember I'm a newcomer on the subject but these ideas do make sense to me at least!


Quote:

In addition to 0870 numbers, I would also urge Ofcom to restore the link between 0845, 0844 and 0871 call prices with 01 and 02 geographic call costs .  Otherwise your good intentions to reduce the cost of 0870 calls will simply be undermined by a move by companies to 0845, 0844 and 0871.  Alternatively any remaining companies who wish to revenue share must have their numbers re-classified as premium rate and so come under the rules for 09 numbers.  Perhaps to simply matters, firstly why not have just one generic non-geographic number (0870) whose charges are linked to 01 and 02 geographic call costs.  0845, 0844 and 0871 could then be removed as telephone numbers.  And secondly have one premium rate number (09)  for all other telephone calls involving revenue share. This would obviously clarify matters from the consumers' point of view. The one and only exception to this, however, would be 0845 pay-as-you-go internet access.  This is clearly a special case. However, I believe this itself is a very weak excuse to allow 0845 telephone calls to be left as they are.  Perhaps either 0845 should be exclusively used by 0845 pay-as-you-go internet access, or a special prefix is created for it.  Given fewer and fewer people use dial-up these days, your reluctance to change 0845 is disproportionate to the problems associated.

The idea of a new prefix, probably within 084, is excellent for the dial up stuff. Beware much industry whining about the difficulties of change. Users report that this is not the case, as, no doubt, do those that have downloaded rogue daillers.
Go for it.
Code changes are no longer necessarily a problem - when handled well, with advance warning and appropriate explanation.

wrote on Nov 6^th, 2005 at 3:21pm:

In addition to 0870 numbers, I would also urge Ofcom to restore the link between 0845, 0844 and 0871 call prices with 01 and 02 geographic call costs

My view is that 0844 and 0871 number users should be forced to move to new numbers in the 09 premium rate range at the appropriate pence per minute.  Since the codes were always set up for revenue share at rates controlled by the receiving party an error was clearly deliberately and/or accidentally made by Ofcom/OFTEL in allowing these codes to be used for this purpose in the first place.

0870 should become charged the at the same rate as national rate geographic and 0845 should become charged the same as local rate geogrpahic, bearing in mind that the BT Light User Scheme Standard Rates and call tariffs from NTL and various others do still offer a lower rate for calls in the local and neighbouring exchange areas.  Where a telecoms carrier has no local rate then 0845 would be charged at national geographic rates.

0845 dialup ISPs shoud all have to migrate to an appropriate 09 revenue share number, hopefully only charging a penny a minute.  Anhow PAYG dialup is now generally speaking a ripoff so it is important that its users are alerted to it costing them money and thinking about alternatives like 0808 subscription dialup or broadband.

To my mind 08 should mean free or normal geographic rate and all revenue share calls must be on 09.  For this reason I would also force all 070 PNS numbers to be changed to the 09 prefix code.

An overview and information on submitting your comments regarding the consultation, can now be found at:

http://www.saynoto0870.com/consultation

Thanks
Daniel

wrote on Nov 6^th, 2005 at 6:15pm:

An overview and information on submitting your comments regarding the consultation, can now be found at: http://www.saynoto0870.com/consultation Thanks Daniel

Thanks Daniel but isn't this the link you should have provided as this seems the most useful section of what you have written.

http://www.saynoto0870.com/consultation/nts_wayforward.php#WayForwardQues

Also I really think you need to be a lot harder hitting on this being Ofcom's third consultation in three years and that now they postpone further delay of at least 21 months on 0870 before any action (assuming 6 months before they announce anything after the consultation closes and with the consultation taking 3 months factoring in the xmas break) and are delaying action on 0845 for 3 to 4 years.

I think we really need to go to town on totally shooting down the totally unbelievable and telco loving reasons Ofcom have given for leaving 0845 revenue share in place for 2 years more, whereas if 0845 revenue share was abolished at the same time as 0870 it would then not be unfair to 0845 voice users and call centres and would encourage these luddite dialup ISPs to give their customers a 1p at all times 0844 number instead of the disadvantageous 3p per minute in the daytime they pay on 0845.

Lastly are you now going to send an email about your articles on the consultation to everyone you have registered in the forum database?  I am sure you would agree this issue is important enough that we must get some better quality responses sent into Ofcom, compared to many of those sent so far that actually merely congratulate Ofcom for taking negligible action on 0870 only 10 years too late! ::)

Daniel in general you only seem to summarise the Ofcom consulation (admittedly a laudable thing to do given their 200 page consultation document) but given that this is supposed to be a campaigning website and indeed is your website don't you think you should be a lot tougher on what is wrong with Ofcom's proposals.

If Ofcom get a lot of cricticism for what they have proposed they will have to think again on their attempts to delay any 0845 price change action for a further two years after 0870, which itself won't happen for at least 18 months.

Quote:

I think we really need to go to town on totally shooting down the totally unbelievable and telco loving reasons Ofcom have given for leaving 0845 revenue share in place for 2 years more....................................

The purpose of those web pages is to provide the information to visitors of this site, showing them how to make their views known.  I didn't think it was appropriate to include personal views on those pages - The best place for this is the discussion forums, as most people do at the moment.


Quote:

Lastly are you now going to send an email about your articles on the consultation to everyone you have registered in the forum database?

Yes, I was hoping to do this at the same time as the forum upgrade - Which was going to be done this weekend.  Since doing a live test this weekend, a couple more issues - including the previous loss of 'Notifications' have come to light, and need to be sorted out - Although hopefully I should be getting an email today or tomorrow with the answer these problems.

Once this has been done, it will be a lot easier for me to send out a bulk e-mail to ALL forum members regarding the Ofcom consultation.

I am also exploring other avenues to have the site and Ofcom consultation mentioned in a VERY large e-mail newsletter.

Thanks again
Daniel

wrote on Nov 6^th, 2005 at 6:42pm:

I am also exploring other avenues to have the site and Ofcom consultation mentioned in a VERY large e-mail newsletter.

Or perhaps Saturday/Sunday personal finance columns of the national newspapers?  Several more weekends between now and Dec 6th are left.

NEW OFCOM CONSULTATION NEW INFORMATION PAGES

I would suggest that some of the information given under the new "Ofcom Consultation New Information Pages" is somewhat misleading and understated if it is meant to assist those with limited knowledge about these scams to produce consultation responses. Just as one example, under the Number Translation Services: A Way Forward, it states:
"0870 - Cost 7.5p/min or more in the daytime. Ofcom proposes to reduce these to the same rate as geographical numbers and stop companies profiting from calls."

Well that will be misleading for any who do not know, since to respond on that basis will result in what NGM rightly calls a "telling Ofcom they are doing quite well response", and that is absolutely no use at all! The cunning point on this particular issue is that Ofcom do not mention in their short summary that their real plan is to allow the 0870 scam to continue as at present, provided that the scammers have an announcement giving the cost of the disguised Premium use of 0870 at the current and continuing 7.5 p per minute in the daytime. In other words no change, but an apparent sop to the consumer" This is the sort of wrinkle which must be tackled in an effective consultation response. Unless these points are clearly explained anyone who is unaware will just end up telling Ofcom what a good idea it is to bring the call charges for 0870 down to geographic rates.

And so on for the other points and other consultations. If any guide is to be of use in assisting others to make the consulation responses more easily then it must cover the hidden issues, namely those which Ofcom cunningly hides in verbosity and deliberate muddling in their consultation documents.  

Dorf,

As so often is the case you and I are of one mind on an issue.

Unfortunately I think Daniel is trying to be far too much of a gentleman here and has failed to observe that Ofcom do not play cricket but instead play hardball by writing their consultations and the questions in their consultations in such a way as to prejudge the result.  They behaved the same way over the methods by which they investigated call centre queuing times and the way in which they asked members of the public to say how much they think 0870 calls cost.

We need to level the score by starting off our item by saying "can you believe that Ofcom now plans to make so called "Lo-Call" 0845 numbers more expensive than 0870 numbers two years on the spurious grounds that by say mid 2007 when 0870 finally stops being premium rate, a small remaining band of 0845 dial up customers cannot be easily migrated to an 0844 or an 09 number (a 1p a minute at all times revenue sharing 09 is what I have in mind).

If we merely set out the issues and questions the way Ofcom have set them out, but in paraphrased form, then the consumer will be confused in the way that Ofcom intended all along and will not provide the answers that are in their own best interests.

One has to fight fire with fire and I find it a little disappointing that our forum administrator honestly believes that the average member of this forum (as opposed to us small band of rabid enthusiasts) will be able to comprehend all the issues which Ofcom has deliberately set out to make as hard as possible to understand.

We must tell the ordinary members of the public what is wrong with the Ofcom proposals and why they are so outrageous.  And if members of the public agree with us then they too may lodge some of those objections to with Ofcom.

But to suggest that they are going to achieve all this on their own without a large amount of help in telling them what are the issues that really matter here is, in my opinion, being more than just a shade over optimistic about human nature.

wrote on Nov 6^th, 2005 at 6:47pm:

Or perhaps Saturday/Sunday personal finance columns of the national newspapers?

Just out of curiosity which one would be the better one and have you an idea of the cost?

wrote on Nov 7^th, 2005 at 7:34pm:

Just out of curiosity which one would be the better one and have you an idea of the cost?

I mean in the editorial personal finance and/or consumer sections written by journalists which are free.  And the "best one" is as many papers as we can get to cover the story.

Its only advertising that you have to pay for and we do not have the budget to and nor do we need to do this as advertising.

For those that weren't already aware, Ofcom's consultation was split into TWO consultations:-
Number Translation Services: A Way Forward

and

Providing citizens and consumers with improved information about Number Translation Services and Premium Rate Services
So for those that may have already responded to Ofcom's 'A Way Forward' consultation don't forget the other consultation mentioned above!

I know I've mentioned this before but mentioned it again as it can be easy to forget about the other consultation.  This is especially true as I've been unable to find the responses so far to this second consultation.

Update:

I've now found where they were after ringing Ofcom.  At time of writing this only 8 people have responded to this second consultation.

I also noticed they weren't publishing the responses bbb.

I have a horrible feeling that no one has responded to the other consultation yet because Ofcom has been directing more press attention to the first one.

On the other hand perhaps there are loads of responses and the cock up theory by Ofcom applies.  Or perhaps they have been publishing all responses received to both consultations against the 200 page one? Which begs the question why they ran it as two separate consultations in the first place? ::)

Has anyone here yet responsed to the second consultation on greater information for the consumer about NTS call charges?

Is there any point in ringing tomorrow and just asking?  Even an approximate idea would be better than none.

wrote on Nov 8^th, 2005 at 7:27pm:

Is there any point in ringing tomorrow and just asking?  Even an approximate idea would be better than none.

You should call Vicki Nash the Consultation Champion.  Her phone number is listed in all currently running open Ofcom consultations.

Or I suppose you could email her with cc to Matt Peacock.

I have just received this Update email from Ofcom saying they have published their full research findings and methodology on the research work they did on consumer perceptions of 0800, 0845 and 0870 numbers.

Seems a bit late in the day to me considering that the consultation had already been running for 6 weeks and that a lot of people have already submitted their responses.

-----Original Message-----
From: Updates [mailto:Updates@ofcom.org.uk]
Sent: 09 November 2005 10:07
To: numbering@lists.ofcom.org.uk
Subject: Ofcom Update: NTS research

Ofcom is currently consulting on proposals to increase consumer protection measures governing the use of 0870/1 and 0844/5 numbers.
This consultation, 'Number Translation Services: A Way Forward', was published on 28 September 2005.  The document included findings from consumer and business research commissioned by Ofcom.

To supplement the information published on 28 September, Ofcom has today published the full research findings and methodology.

This additional document includes detail on:

* Consumer research to investigate awareness, usage and understanding of different 08 number ranges;
* Research on business perspectives to understand why and how businesses use different NTS numbers;
* Mystery shopping to measure and compare the length of time it takes to connect to an operator when using 0800, 0845 and 0870 numbers.

The deadline for responses to Ofcom's NTS consultation is 6 December 2005.

Number Translation Services: A Way Forward A report of the key findings of two research studies conducted by HI Europe and MORI on behalf of Ofcom

http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/nts_forward/ntsrsch.pdf

It appears that only 8 people have actually responded to the second consultation that ofcom released.

Therefore can I again remind people that the second consultation titled:-

Providing citizens and consumers with improved information about Number Translation Services and Premium Rate Services
also needs responding to along with the original consultation.  Both consultations have the deadline of 6th December.

You can view the responses to the second consultation here.

There are more responses to 'way forward' available today, and hopefully AJR will post the updated names shortly (a very useful service if I may add). The absence of 'corporate' responses is noticeable. Last time around, corporate responses were published alongside public responses. I wonder whether Ofcom is holding back the non-public replies until the consultation period is over?

Irrespective of the outcome, I really do not see how Ofcom can now ignore the overwhelming view from these responses that the public is fed up with NTS. Whilst some replies agree with Ofcom's proposals, there is a generic distaste for the corrupt numbering system. Whether Ofcom massages the responses into a general support for its actions remains to be seen, but I can't see how the general tone can be shelved.

Any thoughts?

Most corporate responses are probably only submitted on the last day because they have to sepnd a long time discussing the matter internally.

Even if they submit earlier they usually withhold the right to publish until the consultation has closed so as to not give their competitors an advantage when composing their consultations.

In this second consultation, as in the first, the submission from Dr R D Feltham is well worth reading.

Set aside a quarter of an hour, get yourself a cup of tea and then click here:

http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/nts_info/responses/feltham.pdf

wrote on Nov 9^th, 2005 at 5:51pm:

In this second consultation, as in the first, the submission from Dr R D Feltham is well worth reading. Set aside a quarter of an hour, get yourself a cup of tea and then click here: http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/nts_info/responses/feltham.pdf

Dr Feltham's submissions always seem remarkably in tune with many of the regular posters in this forum.  Almost as though he might be one of us. ;)

He is very good isn't he?

You just want to pin down OFCOM and ask:

'So what exactly is wrong with these arguments?'

And if nothing

'Why don't you damn well implement them then?

They really cannot help themselves, can they? It is a little off topic, but it shows the type of Corporate response we might expect.

The Australian Communications and Media Authority - which is roughly equivalent
to OFCOM in the UK - released a discussion paper in October 2004 reviewing
telecommunications regulation relevant to voice over Internet protocol (VoIP)
services. Its aim was to look at how well the current regulatory arrangements
deal with VoIP services and what adjustments in Australia - if any - are
required to accommodate this technique. Most of the major telcos replied -
including, of course, our dear scheming friends from BT.

BT is represented in Australia by BT Global Services, which is active in the
corporate sector among major companies who have an international presence.

Here is what was said in their submission about - yep, you guessed it - numbering issues.


Quote:

"In general, BT believes that non geographic numbers are more suitable for VoIP services than geographic numbers. Where a VoIP product offers trans-PSTN functionality, non-geographic numbers should be assigned and implementation of those numbering ranges by Other Licensed Operators should be encouraged. Such policy will allow providers to offer products with more innovative features and pricing that is more cost-based. Such numbers should also be used for converged mobile and fixed services. BT does acknowledge that there may be complications where suitable non-geographic numbers are not available, where there is a lack of support for non-geographic numbers across interconnection interfaces, or where allocation would adversely affect new entrants in terms of delay or costs."

More innovative features and pricing that is more cost-based? Where have we heard that before.....

So there we have it in a nutshell. Not content with completely - and almost
single handedly - screwing up the UK numbering system; screwing the public for
every penny it can get; and lying through its corporate teeth, it now wants to
repeat the exercise in Australia as well!

What an arrogant bunch they are!! I am afraid this who we are really up against.
It is probably not the regulator. Ofcom have been entirely seduced by the smooth snake
oil treatment, rolled over and now have BT tickling their tummy!. In many cases,
it is the same with the companies who have been sold on NGNs. I wonder what
selling pitch was peddled to them.....

(if you want to see the full submission, it is at
http://www.acma.gov.au/ACMAINTER.65674:STANDARD:1460051868:pc=PC_8002)

wrote on Nov 10^th, 2005 at 2:41am:

They really cannot help themselves, can they? It is a little off topic, but it shows the type of Corporate response we might expect. The Australian Communications and Media Authority - which is roughly equivalent to OFCOM in the UK - released a discussion paper in October 2004 reviewing telecommunications regulation relevant to voice over Internet protocol (VoIP) services. Its aim was to look at how well the current regulatory arrangements deal with VoIP services and what adjustments in Australia - if any - are required to accommodate this technique. Most of the major telcos replied - including, of course, our dear scheming friends from BT.

I really thought that you may have made this up, perhaps for a little light relief, but no, it is completely genuine. Staggering. Its tentacles stretch everywhere. Perhaps BT's global policy is to allocate six billion non-geographic numbers each with a unique charge point with some eligible for friends and family discount but others excluded. Not content with screwing up the UK system, it now wants to inflict its views on the Aussies. I hope it never gets its grubby corporate fingers on either Bell South or Cingular, the providers of my fixed and cellular lines respectively.

Hi mikeinnc,

Interesting that you make that conclusion concerning these abuses being in reality all due to BT, at least originally! A submission to the Ofcom NTS consultation by a Dr. R D Feltham is mentioned several times in this topic. I have noticed that there was a post on this forum under Geographic Numbers Chat back in Jul 2003 under "BT scam with non-geo Nos", and he or she has stated exactly the same as you conclude then. (The post is in two parts the second on the last page of Geographic Numbers Chat.)

So it does look as if you have a good point. We really have to awake perhaps to who the real enemy we are fighting is. It seems Ofcom are in effect just a puppet being manipulated?

Yes, I have long come to the conclusion that the real villain of the scam is BT. You see, it desperately wants to maintain its voice traffic revenue in a changing environment. What better way than convince the majority of business subscribers of the "benefits" of having a non-geographic number? Of course, this requires the acquiescence of an ineffectual regulator - and BT seem to have done an excellent job there, completely neutering Ofcom. It also takes a huge amount of corporate lying - an area that BT excels in. National rate? Local rate? How long have those lies been peddled!

But here is my real fear for the future. As most readers will know, BT is spending billions of pounds to build a 'New Technology' network, entirely dependent on the Internet Protocol (IP). Now we have to ask - why? Well, I'm not the only person feeling very uncomfortable about this. Some of you may never have heard of Vinton Cerf. He co-invented the TCP/IP protocols which are the backbone of the Internet. When someone like Vinton Cerf is concerned, I think we all have a reason to be concerned!

Here is an extract from an article at:

http://www.internetweek.cmp.com/showArticle.jhtml?sssdmh=dm4.157617&articleId=173601273


Quote:

Vinton Cerf, one of the founders of the Internet, urged on Wednesday a US House committee working on major telecommunications legislation to ensure that broadband operators do not "dictate what people can do online." Cerf's comments were submitted on behalf of his employer, search engine Goggle Inc., to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. Cerf could not attend the meeting, due to his receiving the Presidential Medal of Freedom on Wednesday at the White House. Robert Kahn, who with Cerf developed the Internet protocol TCP/IP that forms the foundation of the Internet, also received the award. Cerf's comments related to concerns that as more people switch from dial-up connections to broadband, telephone companies and cable operators would make it difficult for subscribers to access services on the public Internet, pushing them instead toward their own products on private networks. "As we move to a broadband environment and eliminate century-old non- discrimination requirements, a lightweight but enforceable neutrality rule is needed to ensure that the Internet continues to thrive," Cerf said. "Telephone companies cannot tell consumers who they can call; network operators should not dictate what people can do online."

(my bolding)


Now do you start to see why BT is spending up big on its IP network? Do you really believe in your wildest dreams that BT is going to allow you - the UK citizen consumer - to send your Vonage or Dixon's IP voice packets over its expensive network? You bet your life it is not! This article might be about US telcos - but the principle is the same in the UK. So where are he "Vinton
Cerfs" in the UK, arguing to Ofcom that this must also be the way in the UK? And - given the cosy relationship between incumbent telco and regulator, what effect would it have?

Given the total ineffectiveness of Ofcom as a regulator, you can see what is brewing for the future. The NGN scam is only a start. Having proven the concept; got its snout in the trough; and - worse - seemingly getting away with it, this has the propensity to make the NGN scam seem like small change!

Quote:

"Telephone companies cannot tell consumers who they can call; network operators should not dictate what people can do online."

Isn't this what certain mobile providers did/do with their GPRS/3G services? They only allow access to their own 'content'?

I can see that the end of POTS doesn't mean a fairer UK telecommunications market. BT is in the best position to make a head start, and that is what it is doing.

I agree with what you say mikeinnc, however, look at it from BT's point of view; it's now a profit making company and does what it sees as the best for its shareholders.

The question is, how do you expect any company to be happy to give up some of its market share to competitors?

Yes mikeinnc,

I feel, unfortunately, that you have entirely got the measure of this. It is a quite frightening prospect for the future, with the totally ineffective (puppet) regulator which we have.

about mikeinnc's interesting Vinton Cerf quote ...

All telecoms companies will be heavily investing in the parts of the market that they think will ensure their survival, but that is the paradox - running expenses and revenues are falling. Huge amounts of money have been invested and lost in telecoms, and the next round will be worse - that might be why they are trying to develop protectionist systems.

The only thing that I can say about VOIP and similar issues is I'm amazed how slowly it is happening; I predicted it 20 years ago. And apparently, the BT management took a lot of persuading of the business case for broadband - fear for the pstn revenues ...

Regarding Nongeographicalman's post concerning Dr R D Feltham's submission.  I have 'quicky' read the submission and as far as I can see it says exactly what I want to say, plus a great deal more.

Rather than re-invent the wheel, could you please advise if it would it be acceptable/a good idea to copy Dr. Feldman's submission in its entirety and send it to ofcom, at the same time asking Keith's questions?

Thanks Noel

Hi nthomas,

I do not think it would be a good idea to copy anyone's submission and send it verbatim to Ofcom, since if you do they will just discount it.

The best trick is to use the points and material that you want in other's submissions, but express them in your own words. Then it will seem like your own submission but with similar points which you are making.  

wrote on Nov 10^th, 2005 at 4:46pm:

The best trick is to use the points and material that you want in other's submissions, but express them in your own words. Then it will seem like your own submission but with similar points which you are making.

I agree dorf. Read some of the responses, form your own opinions (make notes), chew it over and write your own response in your own words.

Remember, it doesn't have to be several pages long, it will be as long as you need it to be to get across all the points you want to make.

Thanks Guys  Looks like I can't be lazy, I will have to do the work.

Thanks Noel

Mine's done now - Dr R D Feltham's submission was a good 'memory jogger' although I couldn't match him/her for grammar and content.

Never mind, another susmisison of some substance (some of them are really useless one-liners).

"..Ofcom has today published the full research findings and methodology.."

This has been reported in today's The Daily Telegraph under page 5 "In Brief":

Titled:

Customers left in 'automated hell' by businesses.

It then reads:

People telephoning companies with automated queuing systems typically spend 60 seconds being bounced around before they speak to a human being, a study shows.  Customers calling big businesses, such as banks, major stores and utility companies, took even longer - spending an average of 95 seconds in "automated menu hell".  If the firm has an income-generating 0870 number, it is making money from every customer before they speak to an operator.  However, the research by Ofcom, the telephone regulator, found no evidence that firms were keeping people hanging on in order to make money from their calls.

-- end of article --

Can we take this further with T.D.T.?  I am happy to try and prepare a response to T.D.T. so that they might consider developing this whole issue further in their columns, provided that someone else is willing to let me bounce a draft off them - please send me a private mail or answer in this thread if you are game.  BTW, I am a regular subscriber to T.D.T.

Quote:

I can see that the end of POTS doesn't mean a fairer UK telecommunications market. BT is in the best position to make a head start, and that is what it is doing. I agree with what you say mikeinnc, however, look at it from BT's point of view; it's now a profit making company and does what it sees as the best for its shareholders. The question is, how do you expect any company to be happy to give up some of its market share to competitors?

I agree entirely, Dave, but here is the rub. It is precisely because BT is frantically trying to hang on to market share that it has grabbed the NGN scam with both hands - and is obviously hanging on for dear life! I wonder how many expensive lunches or "exploratory" all-paid trips to "investigate telecommunications structures" in suitably exotic and far-off sunny climes have been handed out (and no doubt taken gleefully!) to Ofcom regulators recently? After all, we wouldn't want those nasty regulators to take away the trough, would we?

Of course, it is a dilemma because BT is a private company. However, there comes a point when ethics come into play. Yes, I know - there aren't many in business these days. The paradox is that as a private company, BT is required to increase shareholder value. On the other hand, consumers expect a level playing field - and Parliament obviously intended to ensure they got one. That - presumably - is why Ofcom was set up. The problem is, when the regulator is completely subsumed by the incumbent it is supposed to be regulating, the whole process breaks down.

I own shares in a major telco (no - not BT!) and so I know the dilemma that is faced. I am also a consumer and hate being ripped off. There should be a happy medium. That is the crux of the NGN scam. That is what the regulator is supposed to achieve. Currently, there is no happy medium. It is entirely one sided - and totally anti-consumer. I guess that's why we are all here!

All I am trying to say is that it might be worth emphasising these issues to Ofcom in any consultation document.  At least if Ofcom recognise that we realise what their game is, they might just finally bite the bullet and do something about it.

wrote on Nov 10^th, 2005 at 3:37pm:

The question is, how do you expect any company to be happy to give up some of its market share to competitors?

I would have thought by having an effective regulator who makes regulations that genuinely are in the best interests of uk citizens and consumers.  Instead what we have is a regulator massively infiltrated by senior employees of uk telcos who are seemingly working to make regulations that instead favour the entrenched business interests of established large telecoms market players.

wrote on Nov 10^th, 2005 at 7:25pm:

[color=Red]Can we take this further with T.D.T.?  I am happy to try and prepare a response to T.D.T. so that they might consider developing this whole issue further in their columns, provided that someone else is willing to let me bounce a draft off them - please send me a private mail or answer in this thread if you are game.  BTW, I am a regular subscriber to T.D.T.

Sonny a good idea I would say.

Go ahead and do it is my answer.  And if anyone else wants to do the same to The Daily Telegraph in their own words then so much the better.

NGM, and with reference to your previous point concerning an ineffective regulator, that it seems was the conclusion in The Money Programme this evening on BBC2 TV.

Yes, they really did give ICSTIS a hard time - would that we could get them to do the same thing for 0870 and Ofcom!!

wrote on Nov 12^th, 2005 at 7:57am:

Yes, they really did give ICSTIS a hard time - would that we could get them to do the same thing for 0870 and Ofcom!!

And ICSTIS actually does a better job than Ofcom! ;) :o

Yes I agree

dorf wrote on Nov 13^th, 2005 at 11:34pm:

Yes I agree

Dorf,

Why are you now listed as being an ex member?[smiley=undecided.gif] [smiley=shocked.gif]

Something to do with the the move to the new version of the forum software and a lost password on your part I fear?  You do realise that when you first become a forum member and get an email with one of those obscure unmemorable passwords you can then use your Profile to change it to a word you can remember.  If you ever do recover the password for dorf I would very strongly advise that as being a sensible course of action to take.

NGM.

Hi NGM,

There appeared to be some problem with the forum and I was ejected and became an ex-member. I thought intially that I might have posted something which a moderator had thought to be too contentious and had thus been zapped. But it might have had something to do with me making a load of continuous fatuous posts to attempt to avoid being downgraded, since it seems the new threshold may be 500? However Daniel appears to have sorted it now so I am afraid you will have to put up with me again as an ex-member restored. (I did not lose my PW.)

I noticed that the same thing seemed to have occurred with Dave being listed as an ex-member and he appears to have been restored now?

Dorf,

I would not support you making fatuous posts purely to reach the magic 500 now required to become a Supreme Member of the forum.  In fact I would wholeheartedly support a moderator removing any such posts with no genuine content.

One has to accept the fact that with the increased popularity of the forum that the stakes have been raised and that only a few of us will therefore be accorded this mighty honour. ;)

[smiley=vrolijk_1.gif]


But being serious Dorf if you keep posting two or three posts a day then in just over two weeks time you should be with us in the Supreme Member camp.  Although speaking as one of them it does not seem to be a particularly great or overwhelming honour. :-/

On the password matter I believe I am right in saying that you have mislaid them in the past and my thought was that surely you could overcome this by always changing your password in your member profile to one that you could easily remember? [smiley=wink.gif]

dorf wrote on Nov 15^th, 2005 at 12:04pm:

I noticed that the same thing seemed to have occurred with Dave being listed as an ex-member and he appears to have been restored now?

Fortunately for them this did not happen in my case.  However I would assume that your historic PMs are also still back to front?

Hi NGM,

You say "fortunately for them..". Who is them? I do not understand.

I do have a memorable password for my log-in. I cannot think what you can mean?!

You are right - my PMs are all back to front now. That really is a bit weird. Is this a result of the new SW?

NGM, in stating that you do not support me in my feckless response to being downgraded, it seems that you are demonstrating a somewhat "dog-with-a-bone" position as a new "Supreme" member. I admit that my strategy may have been somewhat unusual, perhaps even unacceptable to some, perhaps even futile, but I have noticed looking back that some of those with the highest number of postings on this forum have posted quite a few one liners from time to time!

I have also noticed that the same individuals from time-to-time indulge in a practice of posting part of a specific instance of contribution as three or four sequential posts instead of one, so as to get a count of three or four instead of only one on their contribution record. This is a lesson which I will seek to learn immediately to cover the miles more quickly!

Dorf

NGM, I have also now noticed that, checking on a number of caches, I have been further downgraded in the reinstatement of membership, and have lost a count of about 10 or 11 posts since being ejected from membership and made into an ex-member.

So I have even further to go now!

dorf wrote on Nov 15^th, 2005 at 1:50pm:

Hi NGM, You say "fortunately for them..". Who is them? I do not understand. I do have a memorable password for my log-in. I cannot think what you can mean?!

I think "them" must be Daniel (admin), Dave and DaveM in this context.  As to passwords I thought you did have some difficulty with this matter in the past but that may have been under another forum user name? ;)  Perhaps you have now learnt the lesson on that and so have adopted a memorable password for dorf

Since we now have a Global Moderator concept in the forum it seems clear that the software must also support Section Moderators as well?  So my vote, based on considerable experience, would be to only make DaveM a moderator of the Geographical Requests and Cheap Call Providers sections whilst allowing Dave to be a Global Moderator.  It is just that when moderating in the more political forum section (Geographical Numbers Chat) DaveM often seems to find it hard to separate his own personal views from the independent and impartial judgement that a moderator is clearly required to demonstrate.  Whereas if you need someone who knows how to work the system to track a geographical number down then DaveM is clearly a veritable technical expert.

I hope this clarifies the situation.

dorf wrote on Nov 15^th, 2005 at 1:59pm:

I have also noticed that the same individuals from time-to-time indulge in a practice of posting part of a specific instance of contribution as three or four sequential posts instead of one, so as to get a count of three or four instead of only one on their contribution record. This is a lesson which I will seek to learn immediately to cover the miles more quickly!

I don't know who you can mean here since I myself am frequently noted for the length of my contributions and also for my relatively complex arguments, although of course all of us post one liners at times.  Also with respect to making more than one response in sequence this appears legitimate when responding to two different posts from different individuals or even when responding to two different posts from the same individual with entirely different  subject matter (what is not legitimate is a load of posts in a short period all saying thinks like just "I Agree" and "A Good Point").  I must say I had no idea that it was so important to you to be near the top of the tree in terms of numbers of postings in the forum as this was never my goal at the outset and is merely a bi-product of my interest in this subject and having the time available to make the posts.  Also clearly some of our longest and most informed members like Tanllan have never targetted being judged by the number of their posts they make and have preferred instead to make just one or two well placed contributions a day.

I do know of a forum member who joined some months ago who was quite clearly targetting becoming the top forum poster given the brevity and frequency of the posts made.   However it appears that the individual concerned may latterly have found some other interest that has sidetracked them from this quest as in recent months their posting tally has fallen off most remarkably.  But you will note who it was who in a tongue in cheek manner started the thread to congratulate me on reaching 1000 posts in the forum. ;) [smiley=laugh.gif]

I believe some other forums have terms such as Guru and Forum Deity for those with the greatest number of posts but this is really all too childish and what is most important is the value of the arguments that one puts forward.  For instance Juby clearly does not believe in joining the race to be top of the posting league but his posts always count and are some of the most memorable in the forum.

Come-come NGM. Are you seriously suggesting that I would have more than one forum user name currently in use? How on earth could that be and why would it be likely? I think we must separate fantasy from fact surely?

You aren't starting to stalk me like someone else did you, or trying to expose me are you? Shame on you! [smiley=vrolijk_1.gif]  

I do admit however, that 3 previous user names which I used on this forum I had to abandon, because my auto log-in became corrupted in all 3 cases successively and I had not noted the passwords. The e-mail addresses which I had registered with became defunct because I changed my isps. I was therefore unable to retrieve my password on each occasion due to this via the forum auto function. However, I paid the price dearly, since I ALSO LOST THE COUNT OF ALL MY PREVIOUS POSTINGS towards my membership grade! So if it had not been for that I would at the moment be a "Supreme Member" up there with you!  :'(

So don't chastise me too greatly for my oversight. I have indeed already paid a great price for it. The punishment has indeed made me repentant and I now do not forget my password. Mind you it was a near thing when I got ejected!  :(

Dorf I feel your last post would possibly be enhanced in tone by the use of a number of our exciting new forum Smilies.  [smiley=bath.gif]

As to your other forum names that you had to abandon it is always a mistake to ask an ISP to close one's account completely if one can avoid doing so without paying.  In fact apart from AOL and Compuserve and BT most ISPs let you go on collecting mail on your old ISP account by just downgrading to pay as you go dialup as I did with Plusnet.  AOL and Compurserve (two sides of the same Bertelsman coin) have always had an evil policy of using propietary mail systems and refuisng to let you go on collecting mail unless you continue to pay them.  But Freeserve/Wanadoo merely require that you reactivate the account every 3 months if you continue to collect mail through your broadband connection with another provider.  But they do not wipe out your mail when your account with them becomes temporarily dormant due to not having collected mail on one of their dialup or broadband connections.

As to your other forum identies I do note that three letters in your own current user name may perhaps also have featured in some of those other accounts on a possibly somewhat repetitious basis. ;)

The difference between me and andy9 though is that I am a friendly poster despite perhaps occasionally pulling your leg.  Whereas andy9's motivations stem from a poison pen of the most acidic kind.  If of course you start calling me Cllr instead of NGM the fact is that I won't really mind.  But to give more than an actual clue to those other forum members who care and to actually name names would naturally be going too far.

NGM,

I was not suggesting that it was of any concern to me to make posts so to get to the top level of this or any forum. It certainly is not. However what is of a concern to me is when rules are suddenly changed and one is precipitously with no warning nor any explanation downgraded, as if one's previous contributions were no longer so important. So when you state "I must say I had no idea that it was so important to you to be near the top of the tree in terms of numbers of postings in the forum as this ...." that is not so and the idea which you had was slightly askew to the truth, from my point of view.

So my point is that the level of achieving the level of what you previously referred to as the "glass-ceiling" is not of any importance; after all there is no reward nor any physical recognition of any sort for it. However, to be suddenly downgraded for no stated reason without prior warning is one thing only - a snub, whichever way you look at. Anyone with even a modicum of intelligence will interpret it as such if it is perpetrated on them.

To attempt to illustrate the point - many years ago, when I was promoted into my first management role I subsequently experienced a snub. After about 6 months the previous encumbent of the role which I then held decided that he wanted to return to the company. The company re-employed him, did not inform me and then slily gradually began to pass my responsibilities one by one back to him. I left shortly afterwards and found myself a better job!

In my opinion, if it was decided to increase the number of postings required as the threshold for each particular level of membership, which was a good idea since many of them were too low, members should have kept their previous status, regardless of whether or not they had met the newly imposed thresholds. It is that which concerns me - not reaching any particular coined or designated level.  :o

Sorry we have gone wildly off topic here. It was all the Clr's fault!  :D

So the future of 0870 numbers - if, as has been indicated earlier before we went off topic, the real culprit is BT and to a lesser extent other telcos, then what can we do to address the problem effectively? Ofcom are likely to go along with what they demand, just as they always have. So do we have to face the fact that there is, as the Clr has suggested I seem to recall, likely to be a last minute influx of fake responses from cronies, associates and "volunteered" employees of telcos, stating how they are happy with what Ofcom propose and what good fellows they are.

Surely we need to be objective and now consider what, when the inevitable occurs, we can do next? Would it be more effective to target the telcos, MPs and MEPs and ignore Ofcom? (Most of all those MPs who have already expressed their objections to the scams.)

dorf wrote on Nov 15^th, 2005 at 3:14pm:

In my opinion, if it was decided to increase the number of postings required as the threshold for each particular level of membership, which was a good idea since many of them were too low, members should have kept their previous status, regardless of whether or not they had met the newly imposed thresholds. It is that which concerns me - not reaching any particular coined or designated level.  :o

Dorf,

I do not think most forum software, especially the Freeware YaBB forum software, is clever enough to do what you would like it to.  Namely impose a new hurdle to pass to graduate to the next level for all forum members who have not yet got there whilst still allowing those who had got there under the old targets to retain their position.  Also if one takes an analogous but reverse situation such as as New Labour moving the goalposts so 50% of GCSE and A level students get an A it is true they do not then uprate my old C grades at O level to the A grades they would now undoubtedly be worth if they were to review the matter retrospectively.  But in my opinion this would in fact be a fairer situation were it to happen as it would also if my 1985 university degree grade was increased from a borderline 2:2 (about 1 mark short of 2:1) to the high 2:1 it would now be worth in modern currency.

Clearly what has happened here is that Daniel has changed the name of the top class of ordinary forum membership from Superior Member to Supreme Member and also changed the number of posts required.  But perhaps Daniel didn't even do this and it was in fact Carsten, Spike and co over at www.yabbforum.com who have made these changes in YaBB v2.1  And perhaps Daniel has not chosen to or is in fact unable to change where the bar has now been set to qualify for these various classes of membership.

Assuming that there may not be an option to add extra classes of membership then as the posts total grows the only option is to raise the level of posts required before a particular membership level is granted.  Now of course in a school exam scenario you would still have the old qualification in your file but in this web environment, which does not repspect history or yesteryear, if a new pass level is required then we must all fall into line with it.

If you do not like it I suggest you make an On Topic post on the matter over in Site Related as I fear that if we continue the discussion here it will not be long before Dave and/or DaveM appear in this thread blowing their moderator's whistle and demanding that we continue this discussion elsewhere and not in the Future of 0870 thead.

Being a Supreme Member I can honestly say it is no different a feeling from being a Superior Member or even a Senior Member was.  The only matter which I do probably derive some small satisfaction from is having the most posts in the forum.  But as I said before I do hope that other forum members would not hope to takeover that mantle by cheating with short posts and would only get there because they have even more than I to say than I do about all matters related to legitimate discussion in this web forum.

dorf wrote on Nov 15^th, 2005 at 3:44pm:

Surely we need to be objective and now consider what, when the inevitable occurs, we can do next? Would it be more effective to target the telcos, MPs and MEPs and ignore Ofcom? (Most of all those MPs who have already expressed their objections to the scams.)

I concur with the learned holder of a PhD in respect of his latest opinions.

I also concur with the Clr with respect to the lowering of educational standards and thresholds which has occured. I can give him an even better example: I took a DMS when was at a standard which required either 3 years part time or one complete year full time. They have now reduced the same qualification to 1 year part time and 4 months full time and abolished the two stage examination hurdle which previously existed, so that there are now no examinations at all. They then claim that standards have not been lowered!

However, I still do not feel that the issue of downgrading on this forum is the same as that with educational standards.

Nevertheless even though the Clr may concur with my point about future strategy for fighting the NGN scams, my post was also initially a question:  " Surely we need to be objective and now consider what, when the inevitable occurs, we can do next?"

So what suggestions are there for what we can do next, when as sadly anticipated Ofcom will again fail to perform their principal duty, being to protect the Citizen Consumer, and will again cave in to the requirements of the telcos, ensuring that all the scams can continue in a slightly different but unfettered form, to the continued detrement of the Citizen Consumer?

Well Mr Matt Peacock their Communications Director suggests that Ofcom will be most likely to listen to us and do something if we only say nice things to Ofcom and are friendly to them but I regret to say that he and I are not at all of like minds with regard to the said suggestion.

My own suggestion is that if Ofcom do not listen to us that more aggressive means of campaigning must be engaged that involve making formal complaints to outside bodies and Parliament about the failure of Ofcom to fulfil its duties to uk citizens and consumers under the Communications Act 2003.

wrote on Nov 15^th, 2005 at 7:38pm:

Well Mr Matt Peacock their Communications Director suggests that Ofcom will be most likely to listen to us and do something if we only say nice things to Ofcom and are friendly to them

If they started listening to us consumers more and actually started doing something about it rather than have consultation after consultation and only coming up with very, very short term answers to our concerns then we would have nicer words to say to them
[smiley=2vrolijk_08.gif]

Here, here bbb_uk, they seem to think that having consultation after consultation is the best way now to prevaricate and procrastinate further. Most of us can see through this smoke screen though, and some of us begin to see that responding to their continuous consultations perhaps plays into their hands and supports their position of parrying and delay. It will probably never convince them to change their position of doing the opposite of their statutory duty no matter how long we continued to respond to their successive consultations. Particularly if they have now stooped to resorting to intiating and encouraging fraudulent responses giving the opposite views of the only real citizen consumer responses which they receive!

So perhaps if these latest consultations produce the results which the most realistic of us expect (in our pessimism) we must in future ignore Ofcom and concentrate our efforts on exposing their failure to exercise their statutory duties and direct our salvos at those responsible for censuring and able to censure Ofcom.  

Can I remind those that haven't already sent in their responses to ask why the ASA guidelines on the issue of 0845/0870 description and not remaining silent on the call cost only applies to non-broadcast adverts and not TV (broadcast) adverts?

This doesn't make sense why guidelines that Ofcom have said they are working with ASA/CAP with should be only adopted by ASA's non-broadcast area and not the TV (broadcast) area.  A TV advert has a much wider coverage than a non-broadcast advert like magazine or paper so if anything it should apply to them more than the non-broadcast side of the ASA.

Can I just ask three simple questions please - sorry to get back to the point everyone!

I want to send a simple complaining email to every relevant person in OFCOM.

Question 1 - who do I send it to?  A full list of email addresses would be great.

Question 2 - What are all the relevant questions and what are the preferred answers?  I shall obviously put the answers in my own language, but the arguments would be nice.

Question 3 - There seem to be two places (consultation papers).  Does the same answer go to both destinations?  If not, what are the preferred responses to each one.

Once I have this I shall send the complaining email(s) and also show how, and what to do, to as many people as I can.

This will ensure that more people can unravel this complicated issue.

P.S. I have just read this thread from page 1 to 17 to find the simple answer to my questions, and can't, but maybe I am not looking in the right place?  :o

Cricketer,

You can read the brief key points and/or summary of the 'NTS - A Way Forward' Consultation here, and the 'Providing consumers with improved information about Number Translation Services (NTS) and Premium Rate Services (PRS)' Consultation here.

Both links above should provide you with details you require a response questionnaire & coversheet and also the email address.

There is no preferred answers because ofcom may not treat the response seriously because they'll know it's just been copied from this site as they (ofcom) do read/monitor this site.  Basically though, if you are unhappy at paying more than geographical rates for these numbers and in fact in most cases earning the company (and government department in some cases) you are calling a revenue of upto 4p/min from the call, then I'm sure you could put in your own words whether you are happy with this.

I plan on letting ofcom know that I'm not happy with this and want all non-geographical numbers to lose their revenue sharing and any company that does still want to use these "stealth" premium rate numbers should move over to 09x numbers where us consumers get clearer pricing, call queuing is prohibited so you are not paying a fortune to be kept on hold for over 20+ minutes before finally getting to speak to a human being, etc.

If you have any further questions then post here and we'll help you any way we can.

For the avoidance of doubt, and to make sure that I am going down the same lines as other repliers, would you be kind enough to let me know if there are any other bits of information that I need to add, including the extra email addresses?

I have no wish to be verbose, but I do not want to miss any MAJOR points.

Number Translation Services: A Way Forward Consultation
Reply emailed to: nts@ofcom.org.uk and   and    and   and   and   and ???

Question 1: Do you agree with our proposal that revenue sharing should no longer be allowed on 0870 calls if the link between 0870 call prices and prices for 01 and 02 geographic calls is restored?
Answer 1: Yes.  I assume that calls to an 0870 number will be included in any carrier ‘tariff packages’ that include free calls to 01 and 02 numbers.

Question 2: In connection with Option B4 and B5, do you agree with Ofcom’s initial view that 0870 calls should be removed from the scope of the NTS Condition if the geographical link between 0870 calls and geographical calls is restored?
Answer 2: No

Question 4: What do you think of our proposal to extend the rules controlling premium-rate services using 09 numbers to include 0871 numbers?
Answer 4: I agree

Question 5: Do you agree we should insist that any adult entertainment services using 08 numbers have to move to the 09 numbers set aside for this type of content?
Answer 5: Yes, apart from freephone 0800 and 0808 numbers.

Question 7: Do you agree that the package of measures we propose to introduce will tackle most of the problems with Number Translation Services? If not, what else do you think we could do and why?
Answer 7: No.  It must be clear to a caller, before they make a call, to a 08, 07 or 09 number what the pence per minute rate will be.

Providing consumers with improved information about Number Translation Services (NTS) and Premium Rate Services (PRS)
Reply emailed to: Geoff.Brighton@ofcom.org.uk and   and    and   and   and   and ???

Question 1: Do you consider that these proposals are reasonable and are likely to be effective in improving the information available to citizens and consumers about Premium Rate Services (PRS)?
Answer 1: No.  It must be clear to a caller, before they make a call to a PRS number what the pence per minute rate will be.

Question 2: Do you consider that these proposals are reasonable and are likely to be effective in improving the information available to citizens and consumers about NTS (Number Translation Services - those numbers beginning 08x/09x) call prices?
Answer 2: No.  It must be clear to a caller, before they make a call to a PRS number what the pence per minute rate will be.

Question 3: Do you agree that there should be mandatory guidelines for codes of practice in dealing with consumer enquiries about Premium Rate Services (09x numbers) and Number Translation Services (084x/087x numbers)?
Answer 3: No.  If it is clear, before a call is made to a NGN, what the pence per minute rate is, then there is little need for dealing with consumer enquiries, as there will be no misunderstanding.

Question 4: Do you believe there are any other options Ofcom should have considered?
Answer 4: Yes.  Simple pricing, readily available, that users can know, so that they can make an informed decision about calling a NGN.

Question 5: Do you agree that landline and mobile network providers’ codes of practice should be available on request and free of charge to their customers?
Answer 5: Yes.

Question 6: Do you agree that the proposed modifications to the code of practice and Dispute Resolution and associated guidelines are sufficient to address the issues relating to NTS (084x/087x numbers) and PRS (09x numbers), described in this consultation?
Answer 6: No.

The bottom line with 0870 numbers is that OFCOM have condoned the surreptitious proliferation in use of these numbers. Why have they allowed the situation to arise without condemnation, knowing that the public are being additionally charged for a service they already pay for.

What excuse is there for using an 0870 number, I don't believe that the appearance of being professional is an excuse (not a reason).  It costs nothing to instigate NTS and there is no excuse to charge for anyone calling a number that is translated, so I don't agree that there is any reason to inform a caller that the call is charged at an alternate rate as there is not reason to charge at a rate other than the standard call rate.

The situation has been supported by OFCOM simply by its continued use.

Note, I notice BBC Watchdog has now reverted to a standard telephone number. I wonder if you complained like I did. Maybe they will do an article on it now they have stopped using 0870 numbers. Now that would be interesting.

Phil

I don't know whether it's been mentioned yet, but Ofcom has published some research it carried out during the year, since the last consultation. This has been published in [yet another] Ofcom document covering nearly 40 pages. Why didn't it publish this with the consultation? Has anyone actually read this?

From what I've seen of the summary of research in Annex 6, it asks questions like what do consumers think of RS, and how much do they think the calls cost. Complete nonsense as the average consumer cannot understand the ins and outs; the size of the document tells you that!!!

So with those 40 pages, that's nearly 300 pages of consultation/information to read!!  :o :o

I've started a new thread on it here, this formatting of this research seems to be wrong. There is a blank page so that the contents is on the right, but no blank page between the contents and page 1. The numbering will be in the middle rather than at the edges of the pages.

Hi Cricketer (re your reply No 255)

You may change your reply to Q1, to “NO”, when you dig a bit deeper into Ofcom’s proposals and realise that they intend to allow 0870 to continue at a premium rate of 7p/8p etc.,  provided a caller is given a pre recorded  message.  Most respondents are led to believe that 0870 will be removed to a normal charge band.  Ofcom’s real proposal provides a  loophole for the scam to continue - which it will.  The sort version of Ofcom’s over long and over complex full consultation document does not highlight this fact and is (deliberately?) misleading.

If you have time, take a look at the Ofcom response of  “Feltham R D”  who, amongst others, highlights this fact in robust terms.

Hello

I admire your campaigns valiant attempt to save consumers money by alleviating the need to call 0870 numbers and advising of alternative geographic numbers.

But some issues need to be highlighted before tarring all sevices/numbers  with the same brush.
Some of these services actually provide content which will otherwise be unavailable at such a low rate in comparison to it's benefits. 0870's are not about revenue generation.

As has been suggested a simpler solution would be to have a timed limit or recorded message advising of call charges at beginnining of call and one at regular intervals every ten minutes or so to give consumers a choice rather than depriving them of the benefits of some of these services.

I understand that people should not be left on hold, but if the duration of their actual call is providing some benefit for a small out lay, ie information service, why shouldn't the number at least pay for the cost of producing/updating the service offered.
It seems it is only since the advent of reduced call charges that people have started to jump on the bandwagon and actively complain as they see a difference in the call charges now.

Admittedly there are some horror stories out there such as being on hold waiting for technical support. I agree this is wrong but this is down to problems with service levels which need addressing within the relevant departments( i know this from personal experience having worked in such a department) ,rather than anything intrinsically wrong with an 0870 numbers rates.

People did actually have a choice to pay a reduced charge monthly fee for broadband in exchange for paying more for their calls when technical support is required, and real premium rate calls are only charged when the caller is connected. Again due to the competitiveness of the telecom market, these charges are being replaced with 0845 numbers, and now I have actually received irate calls from customers who were annoyed at paying 3p per minute for support! God knows what happens when everyone is using VOIP and they have to call a standard geographic number.


So instead of rejoicing over the money they are saving  now due to the competitiveness of the telecom market, they are feeling ripped off. Only a few years ago when BT had a monopoly I was spending hundreds of pounds per quarter more than I am now,so the savings due to local loop unbundling etc have initiated a competitive market and effectively make any calls i may make to some very worthwhile 'premium rate' services 'Free'!

I do not actually derive any monetary benefit out of 0870 numbers at present, but had planned to offer a valuable information service using voice recognised technology,so that there would be NO waiting. However i will be unable to offer this service because organisations like saynoto0870  seem keen on cancelling out any potential return which may cover the cost of the technology involved to provide  and update the service. Either by elimination of revenue altogether or by a compulsory warning of 'National Premium Rate' which they are not. This will only confuse the customer.

All this whilst generating revenue yourselves on the saynoto0870.com website by advertising 0870 co's and their offers to make money on calls via their numbers on your website using google advertising.

A bit hypocritical don't you think ! (Below the send button on the contact page , believe it or not) http://www.saynoto0870.com/contact/

Best Regards

Peter Callender

Newcastle upon Tyne

Peter,
If you are intending to offer some 'value' service, then why not on an 09 number??
The customers will then BE AWARE you are charging them extra for your 'service' and can make a choice.
The objection to 0870 is that it is a covert premium rate where, (because of the use of terms like 'national, local, LoCall, etc), customers have been totally bemused and thus wide open to fraud.
To have only 09 as a prefix for revenue share would solve the confusion.  Then all 08xx would be 'normal', and could be included in normal 'packages', any 09xx would mean extra cost - simple.
We are not wanting to stop your income, just make it transparent that a service is being charged for!

And, Peter, the 'old chestnut' about advertising 0870 numbers on this site has been raised and discussed and explained on many posts.  Have a look.

petec2 wrote on Nov 24^th, 2005 at 5:47am:

Hello I admire your campaigns valiant attempt to save consumers money by alleviating the need to call 0870 numbers and advising of alternative geographic numbers. Best Regards Peter Callender Newcastle upon Tyne

Peter
The "valiant attempt" to which you refer saves me £80 per year in 0870/0845 call charges.  SAYNOTO0870's service does not cost me a penny.
Enough said, my good friend.
Sonny

Hi,

I'm new here and most impressed with your site/service and all this information.

I have a quick query about this consultation. I apologise if it's already been answered - I've been skimming through this 18-page thread and couldn't find it but I hope you'll appreciate it's a bit of a daunting reading task and let me off if I've overlooked it :)

I was just wondering, with respect to the proposed 0870 number changes (bringing their costs in line with geographical national numbers), if anyone knew approximately when this change would happen (if approved)? I think I saw it say there would be a one-year transition period but I wasn't sure when that would start (and therefore when it would end).

Apologies again if this is a silly/repeated question! Thanks in advance for any help you can offer.

Quote:

I was just wondering, with respect to the proposed 0870 number changes (bringing their costs in line with geographical national numbers), if anyone knew approximately when this change would happen (if approved)? I think I saw it say there would be a one-year transition period but I wasn't sure when that would start (and therefore when it would end).

No, Paul, this is a very good question.

As I understand it, the soonest this proposal could come in is Spring 2007, which is 12 months after the current consultation reports (expected next spring).

The 'headline' of ending revenue sharing on 0870s is, however, misleading and I believe is subject to a key condition.  Others will correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe these proposals include a very significant loophole - if a company wishes to continue using 0870 AND charge more than the geographic rate, then it must include a cost annoucement at the beginning of the call!!!!!  Yeah, kind of undermines the whole proposal if you ask me ! :'(

I've been puzzling over this clause and I'm not sure I understand how it would work.

Could someone correct me if I'm wrong? The way I've understood this is that the decision about how to charge 0870 would rest with the phone operator ie BT, Telewest, Onetel, 1899. They could decide to continue charging at 8p per minute as long as they make an announcement about the cost.

Companies that use these 0870 numbers ie British Gas, DVLA, Alliance & Leicester and so on, will get a share of the revenue if the phone operator sticks at 8p and makes the announcement. But if another operator, such as 1899, cuts its charge for 0870 calls to the standard rate for geographic calls (ie 3p per call) there will be no extra revenue to pass on to the company called.

So take an example where BT sticks to 8p but 1899 reverts to its 3p per call with no time charge, as for its geographic calls. If you use BT and you call British Gas you'll be paying 8p per minute and British Gas will take a cut. But if you use 1899 and you call British Gas, you'll be paying a fixed 3p and British Gas will get nothing.

So if you care about how much you pay for this type of call you'll pretty soon switch away from BT and use 1899 instead. The resulting loss of business will eventually (about 10 years if competition from Mercury in the 1990s is anything to go by!) force BT to cut its prices to match 1899.

Is this right? Or have I misunderstood how this would work?

AJR wrote on Nov 24^th, 2005 at 4:47pm:

Could someone correct me if I'm wrong? The way I've understood this is that the decision about how to charge 0870 would rest with the phone operator ie BT, Telewest, Onetel, 1899. ...

That is correct AJR. All 0870 numbers will be charged at the same rate on any particular tariff, just as they are now.


Quote:

...They could decide to continue charging at 8p per minute as long as they make an announcement about the cost.

Presumably they could charge whatever rate they wanted, just like mobile providers charge for freephone numbers now.


Quote:

Companies that use these 0870 numbers ie British Gas, DVLA, Alliance & Leicester and so on, will get a share of the revenue if the phone operator sticks at 8p and makes the announcement.

I disagree with that. There is nothing in the document that suggests that will happen or will be able to happen.

Thinking about it logically, for that to happen there would have to be an agreement where the originating provider (ie the telco the caller makes their calls with) pays the 0870 telco. Why would they want to do that? The originating provider wants to keep the price to the caller as low as possible anyway.

I think with BT charging geographical rates for 0870, other (landline) providers will have to follow suit. Can you really see another telco charging more for 0870 than geographical?

Regarding Ofcom’s  two sets of proposals for consultation.

“Number Translation Services: A Way Forward” and
“Improved Consumer Information about NTS & PRS”

For each consultation, Ofcom have produced a full consultation document, a summary “in plain English” and a set of consultation questions.

The full consultation documents, by their length and complex construction are unintelligible to most readers unless they are willing to spend a week or so poring over the document and related references. When I read them, I was left wondering if I has lost my sense of reason.

The short summary “in Plain English”  leaves out vital information as to the general thrust and intent of the full document, and can not claim to be a summary, but a misleading statement of Ofcom’s true intentions. This is the document on which most will rely as an aid to answering the consultation questions.

The consultation questions, which Ofcom will use to support its findings, are misleading and are designed to produce answers compatible with Ofcom’s proposals.

Question 1: (from “NTS:  A Way Forward”)  Do you agree with our proposal that revenue sharing should no longer be allowed on 0870 calls if the link between 0870 call prices and prices for 01 and 02 geographic calls is restored?

On the face of it, the obvious answer is “yes”.  But few respondent (except the well informed) will realise that Ofcom’s intends to allow 0870 to continue to be charged at 7p, or so, provided the organisation makes an announcement as to cost. This will negate the whole purpose of the proposal and the absence of the mention of this essential loophole in both the summary document and the questionnaire, renders the consultation pointless and bogus.      

Why is an “if” needed in the middle of the question - it should be an “and”.

Does  “... link between 0870 call prices and prices for 01 and 02 geographic calls is restored?”  mean that customers using “BT Option 3" or “Call1899" etc. will be charges 0p/min for the call, or will they be charged 3p/min.

My short comments on the rest of the proposals:

0871 should be changed to an “09" premium number, as should ANY number which charges more than the consumers normal rate.  

0845 should be restored to the same pricing as 01 and 02. (0p/min for Option 3 etc).

0844 should be restored to the same pricing as 01 and 02 (0p/min for Option 3 etc).  
(0844 numbers cost more than 0870 numbers during off peak periods and cost more than 0870 numbers, at all times, from a pay-phone and are just as evil, or more so, than 0870 numbers).

The fact that some 084x numbers are used for internet dial-up, should not be used as an bogus excuse for failing to moving 084x (voice) numbers to the 01 and 02 class of call charges.  The sets of 084x  numbers used for internet dial-up could continue to be an exception to the general rule.

As for the consultation on “Improved consumer Information about NTS and PRS” the solution is simple and clear.  

All calls that charge more than a customers normal rate ("normal rate" including Option 3 etc at 0p/min) should be reclassified as a premium rate numbers and be consigned to the  “09" classification, with a pre announcement and warning as to cost.  Keep it simple.

If you have sent Ofcom a response to the Ofcom Proposals, and after further consideration you feel that you have further comments to make,  send in a second amended response.

KK                        

kk wrote on Nov 27^th, 2005 at 4:58pm:

Question 1: (from “NTS:  A Way Forward”)  Do you agree with our proposal that revenue sharing should no longer be allowed on 0870 calls if the link between 0870 call prices and prices for 01 and 02 geographic calls is restored? On the face of it, the obvious answer is “yes”.  But few respondent (except the well informed) will realise that Ofcom’s intends to allow 0870 to continue to be charged at 7p, or so, provided the organisation makes an announcement as to cost. This will negate the whole purpose of the proposal and the absence of the mention of this essential loophole in both the summary document and the questionnaire, renders the consultation pointless and bogus.

kk, I think that you have misunderstood Ofcom's proposals here. It is the telco (eg TalkTalk, BT, Onetel, NTL) who will decide if it wants to charge more than the geographical rate and not the company operating on the number.

So if, for example, Vodafone decided to charge above the rate of a call to a geographical number for all 0870 numbers then it would have to make an announcement.

This does not allow service providers (eg British Gas, DVLA, Sky) to say that they want their 0870 charged at a higher rate. So all 0870 numbers will be charged at the same rate on any one particular tariff (as they are now).

Hi Dave

Re my post #267 and your comment #268

Your comment may well be true, but an organization wishing to charge for 0870,  only needs to change to, or join, a telecom provider that offers that service to maintain the scam.  In effect it is the organisation who decides.  Your comment does have force, if all telecom providers refuse to offer revenue sharing on 0870.

kk wrote on Nov 28^th, 2005 at 10:13am:

Your comment may well be true, but an organization wishing to charge for 0870,  only needs to change to, or join, a telecom provider that offers that service to maintain the scam.  In effect it is the organisation who decides.  Your comment does have force, if all telecom providers refuse to offer revenue sharing on 0870.

A call may go through one or more telcos on its way from caller to destination. The telco the caller is with is the originating telco and the telco that provides the 0870 to the company in question is the terminating telco.

It is the originating telco who can 'opt out' and thereby provide an announcement and not the terminating telco. For a terminating telco to make the announcement they would have to know what rate the call was being charged at, which they wouldn't as they don't originate the call!

Why is it that questions 1, 4 and 5 in the summary version are completely different to that in the full version? Are they not relevant to those who have read the full version? It seems that it is assumed that the industry will read the full version and general consumers will read the summary, although that does not excuse the fact that questions in the summary are not in the full version.

I am annoyed by, and totally opposed to, the practise of placing your call immediately on hold and inflicting music(?) on you.  I fail to understand why I should be expected to pay for this privilege when I could be being dealt with by an operator, they could at least call me back when they are able to talk.
Also annoyed by Fat cats who live off the cream, for which I am expected to pay, but are seemingly unproductive and cannot even give you a straight answer to the most innocuous question, they always procrastinate.
I strongly object to making an 087/4 call and finding that I am in another country's call centre where the language is a barrier.  An example of this was from last Thursday when I asked to speak to a named emoployee only to be assured that she did not work there.
What really annoys me is that I am expected to pay the phone bill for a company from whom I am expecting a service, I had always understood thak it was a criminal offence to "obtain money by false pretences" and surely, that it what it amounts to when you come down to it.  If a company is unable to build the phone bill cost into their prices they ought not to be in business.
If Mr. B.Liar (whoops Blair) and his cohorts do not see what they have allowed to happen they should bee booted into the dustbin of history.  Of course, he could employ a panel of experts from the LSE to explain to me where I have gone wrong with my thinking.  After all, it would cost no more than cancellation one aircraft for the Royal Air Force and we all know where he stands on that.  I am in my 70s and remain working, due in part to the legalised theft from pension funds perpetrated by Reisch Chancellor Brown (sorry done it again, exchequer).
Perhaps it might be possible to regain the initiative from politicians if THEY were paid on a "results only basis".  It might sharpen up their thinking and give the rest of us a bit of a break.
If a football team is not doing well there is always the cry "sack the manager" I wish that could apply to government also as it could liven up the thoughts of our elders and betters (?)

Hi biggles,

You are quite correct of course, and I think the root of the problem is that impeachment and treason (although still on the statute book) are never invoked any longer sadly. If politicians knew that if they commit treason (which most prime ministers and cabinet ministers now glibly do) they could actually face the death penalty and if impeachement even were implemented when deserved, such as for a certain leader's lies over weapons of mass destruction and related issues to justify joining the US in war against Iraq, you would find much more responsible and careful and less corrupt politicians would govern this country.

Come to think of it if there were more serious penalties enforced on the senior management of Ofcom for their failures we would probably have a public telephone system being run for the benefit of the citizen again in the UK also!

Dave wrote on Nov 28^th, 2005 at 11:54pm:

Why is it that questions 1, 4 and 5 in the summary version are completely different to that in the full version? Are they not relevant to those who have read the full version? It seems that it is assumed that the industry will read the full version and general consumers will read the summary, although that does not excuse the fact that questions in the summary are not in the full version.

Either way the questions asked are heavily loaded (eg asking is putting 0871 under ICSTIS regulation a good idea instead of asking shouldn't all revenue share numbers on 0844 and 0871 have to move over to 09 prefixes) so I would not recommend responding to them and instead simply saying what one thinks Ofcom should have proposed instead of the garbage they have come up with.  If you do respond to the questions please do it at the end of your response after you have stated your main views.  If you answer the questions at the beginning there is a high probability your response will never get read.

I am very suspiscious of all the many Name Withheld Yes, Yes, Yes responses now received and strongly suspect that some telco or NTS number vending merchant has been leaning heavily on everyone they know or employ to respond in this way.  For instance NTS number vending merchants can live with what is proposed (especially the replacement of 0871 with 0844 as an almost as profitable loophole) but could not live with a proposal to force all revenue share NTS use to move to 09.

Yes the withelds are suspicious, I have been mentioning this in AJR's thread "Read all...", since I made a point of reading each new 'batch' as AJR listed them.
It makes me think Ofcom will take no heed of any of us.  They will count up the 'Yes' answers and ignore commenets and just say "x% agree with us, so that is what we do" !!  End of story.
I'm just an old cynic as well.
By the way NonGeographicalMan have you done your report on that workshop at Ofcom? Love to see it sometime.

Ofcom will try to ignore us unless we continue to shout very loudly to our MPs (especially the 45 MPs who have now signed the Parliamentary anti 0870 motion at http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetails.aspx?EDMID=28872%09%09%09%09%09%09%09&SESSION=875) whilst they are considering the consultation responses.

It is obvious that the questions in the consultation were all spun so that it was impossible to answer No to them unless one thought very deeply about the matter.  However Ofcom left out many questions they should have asked (eg should all micro payment and/or revenue share services be compulsorily moved to 09 and should all remaining 0870 and 0845 numbers be immediately priced at 01/02 rates instead of years down the road) and thus their questions were not fair or unbiased.

My summary of the Ofcom Workshop meeting/seminar is about to appear but in many ways what that reveals will be more useful to our actions after the consultation closes than beforehand.  I must however disagree with Sonny's statement that "revenue share" and "micro payment" are in fact the same thing.  After considering matters more carefully it is obvious to me that a "micro payment" is what you are left with on any 0870 number that continues to charge above geographic rates and has a call price announcement once "revenue share" is abolished.  A "micro payment" clearly goes to the telco for phone services provided (including services given in turn to the call centre for "free") whereas a "revenue share" goes into the pocket of the actual final recipient of the call.  This is the basis on which the Patientline scamming is also being allowed to continue by Ofcom because there will only be a big "micro payment" (more like a "macro payment" is you ask me) to Patientline but no revenue share with the callee (hospital patient).

Excellent response by the Premium Rate Association which is about one of the best examples of dam*ing with faint praise I have seen.

www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/nts_forward/responses/sz/prem_rate.pdf

Still no sign of my response or BT's etc.

And an utterly disgusting response as one would expect from Vodafone the biggest charger of and hider of all of inflated NTS call prices excluded from all of their normal geographic call packages.  Also a company that fullstop will not let any Pay as You Go customer know how much a phone call has cost them after the event and is also seemingly incapable of giving them accurate NTS call prices in advance.

www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/nts_forward/responses/sz/Vodafone.pdf

Vodafone considers that Ofcom should control prices to 0845 and 0870 numbers from BT lines because BT has a dominant market position but does not seem to think that the same is true of its own excessive dominance of the uk mobile phone industry which sets a precedent for its smaller competitors ::) :o

Clearly Vodafone stands to lose a fortune on its current 084/7 ripoff if these proposals go through.

wrote on Dec 9^th, 2005 at 2:31pm:

Excellent response by the Premium Rate Association which is about one of the best examples of dam*ing with faint praise I have seen. www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/nts_forward/responses/sz/prem_rate.pdf Still no sign of my response or BT's etc.

Your response, together with that from BT and a few other corporates, is now shown on the Ofcom page.

I now have some reading matter this evening!

idb wrote on Dec 9^th, 2005 at 11:11pm:

Your response, together with that from BT and a few other corporates, is now shown on the Ofcom page. I now have some reading matter this evening!

I see these two private individuals have submitted 15 page responses which make interesting reading:-

www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/nts_forward/responses/sz/shersby.pdf

and

www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/nts_forward/responses/af/bottom.pdf

Although neither of them can match BT's 42 page epic on the subject:-

www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/nts_forward/responses/af/BT.pdf

BT seems to have weakened its position against NTS though since its last consultation.  This seems odd given the strong pronouncements made against NTS abuse in the interim by the Head of BT Retail - Ian Livingston.

There are still responses that I know have been submitted which have not yet appeared.  Or if they have appeared perhaps they are under Name Withheld?  A lot of the Name Withhelds seem to arise because people have not made a formal declaration that their response may be published in full and not because people actually wanted any anonymity.

And this pathetic effort saying almost nothing is all the BBC could muster after their many years of deliberate and cynical 0870 viewer and listener abuse:-

www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/nts_forward/responses/af/BBC.pdf

It would seem the BBC are finally running scared and will I assume stay on their current 0870s when they are cut to only costing geographic call rate.

wrote on Dec 10^th, 2005 at 1:39am:

And this pathetic effort saying almost nothing is all the BBC could muster after their many years of deliberate and cynical 0870 viewer and listener abuse:- www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/nts_forward/responses/af/BBC.pdf It would seem the BBC are finally running scared and will I assume stay on their current 0870s when they are cut to only costing geographic call rate.

Yes, I am also somewhat underwhelmed by the Beeb's submission.

wrote on Dec 10^th, 2005 at 1:26am:

Although neither of them can match BT's 42 page epic on the subject:- www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/nts_forward/responses/af/BT.pdf BT seems to have weakened its position against NTS though since its last consultation.  This seems odd given the strong pronouncements made against NTS abuse in the interim by the Head of BT Retail - Ian Livingston.

This was also my conclusion after a very fast read of BT's response. I'll have a more thorough look at this document over the weekend.

It's also interesting looking at the responses from some of the NTS scamming industry. They really are worried about being deprived of revenue. Shame.

idb wrote on Dec 10^th, 2005 at 2:06am:

It's also interesting looking at the responses from some of the NTS scamming industry. They really are worried about being deprived of revenue. Shame.

For instance this one from Neil Sherring of Windsor Telecom who writes to Clive Hillier and Gareth Davies as Dear Clive/Gareth and who has also been tipped off by the said gentlemen it would appear about our representation at the Ofcom meeting:-

www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/nts_forward/responses/sz/WindsorTelecom.pdf

I have just emailed him to advise that all three representatives of SayNoto0870 at the Ofcom meeting seemed to be on the right of the political spectrum because we despise the distortion of the free market in telecoms prices causes by companies such as his.

wrote on Dec 10^th, 2005 at 2:45am:

For instance this one from Neil Sherring of Windsor Telecom who writes to Clive Hillier and Gareth Davies as Dear Clive/Gareth and who has also been tipped off by the said gentlemen it would appear about our representation at the Ofcom meeting:- www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/nts_forward/responses/sz/WindsorTelecom.pdf

A disgraceful response. One of the first paragraphs states:

<<
Firstly it must be made clear that consumers do have a choice as to whether or not they decide to dial non-geographic numbers (79% of the research sample agreed with this). In the commercial sector, consumers can choose to dial alternative suppliers. In the public sector there are ways to source the underlying ‘geographic’ number. In fact many bodies will provide consumers with alternative numbers on request.
>>

Pure BS. Downright lies, so beloved by the NTS scammers.

More garbage:

<<
The second question is ‘Can 0871 numbers be dialled from abroad?’ Of course they cannot. How will businesses that rely predominantly on international trade continue to succeed if they are forced to
migrate onto a 0871 main contact number? It will not look professional if a 0871 number is advertised internationally and callers cannot be connected.
>>

Well, WT, I live abroad, and can't even call the wretched 0870 numbers, let alone your extreme rip-off 0871 variants. Foreign networks will generally treat any +44 8 number in exactly the same way and will charge, assuming termination is possible, a +44 871 number exactly the same as a +44 844 number.

Windsor may be able to fool Ofcom with this crap, but it can't fool me! Why do the responses from the majority of NTS suppliers appear to be written by people that do not seem to be particularly intelligent?

http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/nts_forward/responses/mr/RedstoneTelecom.pdf

<<
However, the way to address this is not by forcing a re-alignment with local or national call rates. A better approach would be to provide more measures to ensure consumers (and their elected representatives) are aware of the cost of the calls and of the revenue sharing model. This means more consumer education and better public relations activity (jointly by Ofcom and the industry) to ensure they are aware of the costs, and the benefits the revenue sharing model brings to them by enabling the service provider to offer the service more cheaply, or in many cases, by enabling them to offer any such service in the first place. Redstone supports the proposal to ensure that these numbers can no longer be marketed as being ‘local rate calls or ‘national rate calls”. Redstone is happy to support proposals which would mean that consumers are aware, before they start paying for the call, of the likely cost of that call.
>>

No, no, no Redstone. The consumer is not interested in the revenue-sharing model (as illustrated by the overwhelming rejection in the public's response to NTS Way Forward). All we want is to be able to carry out our day-to-day calling without having to pay $8 per hour for contacting our bank or TV provider. It really is that simple. Try to understand this as it is not a complex concept.

Exactly what benefit does Sky's 0870 number offer to consumers where a typical wait can be over sixty minutes? I see no benefit as a consumer, but the NTS provider/scammer will obviously receive a significant benefit.

Cut the BS please.

And even more from Redstone:

<<
Redstone does not believe that there is an issue with revenue sharing on 08 numbers, providing this is understood by consumers. We do not believe that there is an issue with long Call Centre waiting time. Redstone understands the concerns about the use of NTS numbers by essential public services, but believes that there is a role for the use of these numbers in the public sector, providing they are used appropriately.
>>

Unbelievable! They really are out of touch with the wishes of the public. Long call center wait times not an issue? Are these people brainwashed?

I find it somewhat depressing reading the responses from two charities, the RNID and the RSPCA who both indicate a preference for a continuance of the NTS model to generate revenue. These two charities, that both do excellent work, find it necessary to exploit potential callers. It is doubly sad in that they themselves have been exploited by their NTS providers. I just can't take any organization that uses 0870 seriously and therefore, even though I may potentially wish to contribute, the use of NTS indicates to me that my wishes are irrelevant, and that overrides a desire to support the orgz. 0870 equates to cluelessness and deceit. Perhaps a little extreme, but that's the way it is.

The Vodafone response is a total disgrace, yet to be expected by this greedy company. At least BT recognizes the public concerns about NTS, and goes some way to meet such concerns. Vodafone is only concerned about its revenue. As one of the biggest scammers in terms of charges for terminating the public's calls, it stands to lose a lot of money if Ofcom's proposals are carried out. What a shame.

Clearly the people at Windsor Telecom like playing with statistics. The fact that 70% of people are unaware of revenue sharing taking place shows that their illusion works for the majority.

More on Redstone and the 'services' operated on its numbers on Grumbletext.

I think there is growing concern amongst the smaller terminating telcos (that are those who provide the non-geographical numbers). It is my opinion that the RS model has allowed/drawn those companies into the marketplace at the direct expense of the consumer.

idb wrote on Dec 10^th, 2005 at 12:47pm:

The Vodafone response is a total disgrace, yet to be expected by this greedy company. At least BT recognizes the public concerns about NTS, and goes some way to meet such concerns. Vodafone is only concerned about its revenue. As one of the biggest scammers in terms of charges for terminating the public's calls, it stands to lose a lot of money if Ofcom's proposals are carried out. What a shame.

As I highlighted in my response to the "More Information for Consumers" etc Ofcom consultation Vodafone is one of the main reasons such a consultation is necessary and also why all disclosure rules should be statutory and involve large fines for breaches.

Vodafone refuses to provide any sort of call by call cost itemisation for its Pay as You Go customers and even on request or in return for payment you cannot get a properly itemised bill from Vodafone on Pay as You Go if you dispute the reduction in your calling credit.  All they send is a meaningless computer dump (and then only after going to their Chief Executive) separated by control characters which it is impossible to interpret.

Also following a letter to their Chief Exec complaining about 0845 and 0870 charges not being displayed my letter was referred to some female numbskull in customer services who told me there was no separate listing on their website as these calls cost the same as other 01/02 calls.  Only when I pressed the issue again on the phone was I connected to a person in their "Technical" department who knew all their 084/7 NTS rates.

wrote on Dec 10^th, 2005 at 1:01pm:

Vodafone refuses to provide any sort of call by call cost itemisation for its Pay as You Go customers and even on request or in return for payment you cannot get a properly itemised bill from Vodafone on Pay as You Go if you dispute the reduction in your calling credit.  [...] Also following a letter to their Chief Exec complaining about 0845 and 0870 charges not being displayed my letter was referred to some female numbskull in customer services who told me there was no separate listing on their website as these calls cost the same as other 01/02 calls.  Only when I pressed the issue again on the phone was I connected to a person in their "Technical" department who knew all their 084/7 NTS rates.

Two other areas Ofcom must get to work on to have a fair marketplace.

Pay as you go mobiles don't just benefit the telcos by getting their customer's money first, they are also good at hiding call charges. Of course, no-one at Ofcom has twigged onto this one because they won't be using PAYG!

Pricing information is another area. FleXtel seem to put in good responses to "Way forward" and the Personal Number one that criticise Ofcom for not enforcing price transparency.

The whole industry seems to be built on weak regulation. The fact that most are unaware seems to make it OK, to those telcos who are taking advantage, at least.

idb wrote on Dec 10^th, 2005 at 4:09am:

I find it somewhat depressing reading the responses from two charities, the RNID and the RSPCA who both indicate a preference for a continuance of the NTS model to generate revenue. ...

They should use a 09 premium rate number then!

Whilst I can understand that they don't want to have to pay for NTS, they can't have their cake and eat it! Do they not understand that the current setup allows telcos to charge pretty much a fixed price, therefore there are no market forces driving down these prices? Do they not understand that typical revenue payments would be a tiny proportion of the overall call cost and that they (as a charity) are forcing their donors to line the pockets of their telco?

Dave wrote on Dec 10^th, 2005 at 1:37pm:

Whilst I can understand that they don't want to have to pay for NTS, they can't have their cake and eat it! Do they not understand that the current setup allows telcos to charge pretty much a fixed price, therefore there are no market forces driving down these prices? Do they not understand that typical revenue payments would be a tiny proportion of the overall call cost and that they (as a charity) are forcing their donors to line the pockets of their telco?

The key issue seems to be that again due to massive failure and incompetence by OFTEL and now by Ofcom there is no NGN code with NTS facilities on the PSTN network.

Were there to have always been an NGN code with normal geographic call charges and no revenue share or micro payments then the number owner would merely have been charged a reasonable fee for the range of NGN facilities they used.  And because they were paying the bill prices would have been driven as low as possible by market forces.

But with the NGN system we have bodies like the RSPCA who perceive they get the service for free and this allows the telcos to trouser massive extortionate charges for providing the NGN facilities quite out of proportion to the underlying costs and a healthy profit margin.  Unfortunately people like the RSPCA seem to have people of limited intelligence and vision with purely selfish motivations running these telecoms systems, who don't seem capabale of looking at the bigger issues.

So where are the responses to these consultations from Daniel - or Martin Lewis then?  They are not published so far on the Ofcom website. :o  Or do Ofcom still have some left to publish (they only published my responses and BT's on Friday evening)?  I can see no possible reason for either Messrs Lewis or - asking for their Name to be Withheld on their Response? ::)

Also Dave perhaps you could let some of your old friends on here know by PM which is your response to the consultation since you would have obviously submitted something very worthwhile.

I see Messrs - and Lewis didn't respond to the previous NTS: Options for the Future or Call Termination Market Review consultations either did they? [smiley=thumbdown.gif]

Can we please have a statement from Daniel about what has happened to his consultation response?

wrote on Dec 10^th, 2005 at 2:04pm:

Can we please have a statement from Daniel about what has happened to his consultation response?

Irrespective of whether he has submitted a response in his own name, I find it very surprising that a generic response from saynoto0870.com has not been provided. As a campaigning body (or a bunch of anarchists as one NTS scammer described it), it is vital that a 'corporate' response is submitted. So far, nothing. Remember that Ofcom will, to its credit, entertain late responses, so the DEc 6 deadline, whilst passed, is not to be taken literally.

Straight question - will there be a sayno submission? Yes or no?

idb wrote on Dec 10^th, 2005 at 2:27pm:

Irrespective of whether he has submitted a response in his own name, I find it very surprising that a generic response from saynoto0870.com has not been provided. As a campaigning body (or a bunch of anarchists as one NTS scammer described it), it is vital that a 'corporate' response is submitted. So far, nothing. Remember that Ofcom will, to its credit, entertain late responses, so the DEc 6 deadline, whilst passed, is not to be taken literally. Straight question - will there be a sayno submission? Yes or no?

I have reminded the Communications Director of Ofcom about their late response tolerance in respect of its own Consumer Panel, which is in danger of being severely embarassed.

On the point of a SayNoto0870 response that is an impossibility as things stand as we are purely a grass roots movement bound together by website postings and we do not have any of the formal quarterly meetings or AGMs or membership fees so essential to forming a corporate body.  If such a body was formed it would need to become more than SayNoto0870 and become a Consumer pressure group on all telecoms issues.

I also think that as most of our supporters who just look up alternate numbers on this site (but do not post in the forum much or at all) clearly do not consider the matters with the same intellectual rigour as you or I that we should have given them a much clearer message not to answer any of Ofcom's questions (which were rigged) and to instead make our own points on issues such as there being no suggestion to move 0871 and 0844 to 09 and failing to make 0845 geographic rate at the saem time as 0870.  But unfortunately instead a whole lot of rather thoughtless Yes, Yes, Yes responses just using the Plain English questionnaire have been sent that don't achieve very much.  In my opinion only the ones that express opinions of their own should really be counted by Ofcom.  The other ones are from people who are against 0870 but don't understand the comeplexity of the issues or how to express their views on them.

So long as we don't have any AGMs or quarterly meetings etc then inevitably this website is to a large extent anarchic in the conventional sense and there cannot be an overall SayNoto0870 view.

wrote on Dec 10^th, 2005 at 3:15pm:

So long as we don't have any AGMs or quarterly meetings etc then inevitably this website is to a large extent anarchic in the conventional sense and there cannot be an overall SayNoto0870 view.

On reflection, you're probably right. It would have been nice to have an overall response, but I agree the absence of a structure makes this impossible.

idb wrote on Dec 10^th, 2005 at 3:20pm:

On reflection, you're probably right. It would have been nice to have an overall response, but I agree the absence of a structure makes this impossible.

In effect the only view possible as SayNoto0870 would have been one from Daniel who owns the site.  It is my understanding that Daniel, Dave and DaveM have never met one another in person.

It is important to give reasons why you hold the views you do. Hopefully Ofcom will read the Yes/No answers and see no reasoning doesn't give firm basis that the person writing it understood or even thought about the question, and so the answer should be treated dubiously.

Methinks Ofcom will grab any 'Yeses' they can find and count them towards their "They agree with us" tally!!

An Interesting and much more intelligent response from Totem Communications who appear to be a TCP and say that 65% of their income is derived from Terminating call payments to 08 numbers before any revenue share is handed to the Service Provider (presumably implying that 09 numbers are significantly less profitable for them due to the much lower level of use).  They say that 90 to 95% of their income comes from NTS numbers sold by resellers and that their largest reseller for such numbers is the rather less intelligent Windsor Telecom Ltd.

See www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/nts_forward/responses/sz/TotemCommunicationsLtd.pdf

They say the changes suggested by Ofcom would have a serious impact on their business model.

But to do them credit they don't suggest its all a fuss about nothing and there is no need for Ofcom to change anything.

Mind you on the Page 9 they were expecting Ofcom not to publish on the website they do disclose "that those who make the most noise" (i.e. this website and its members) may "ruin a perfectly good business model" for them.

But I respect a company that at least in its public view is inclined to express its views in a relatively intelligent way.  And Page 9 does make very interesting reading for so long as it remains there.  I think I have captured most of it above as and when it disappears.