Ofcom has put the responses on its website, at

http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/0845/responses/

I can't see any indication of when Ofcom will reach its conclusions.

~ Link updated by Dave

Conclusions are at

http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/0845/

~ Link updated by Dave

Yes, and it could not be more obvious now what the corruption is about. Ofcom now claim that they received 37 responses only to this consultation; (this is not unlike the previously claimed 25 for the prior consultation which was also untrue).

A group of us have proof that Ofcom were bombarded with far, far more responses than this. They have clearly deliberately "lost" something like over 200 others, all of which were complaining about the abuse of NGNs for Premium line purposes, and not being used for the originally intended proper purposes of NGNs. They have done this to avoid facing up to the real issues, because they "wanted" to come to the opposite conclusion from the one which is in the consumer's interest.

We are now looking at presenting our evidence to the Parliamentary Ombudsman and taking the case to the EU. Somebody at Ofcom (who was also employed within Oftel previously) needs to be exposed and removed, and their connections leading to this deliberate whitewash and concealing information need to be exposed. The truth is that they have had many thousands of complaints from consumers about these abuses of NGNs.

wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2004 at 3:40pm:

...Somebody at Ofcom (who was also employed within Oftel previously) needs to be exposed and removed, and their connections leading to this deliberate whitewash and concealing information need to be exposed. The truth is that they have had many thousands of complaints from consumers about these abuses of NGNs.

Ofcom as an organisation does not take to responsibility for errors or admit to errors. All it does is opens its investigations and consultations, where the majority of input comes from the phone companies. These companies are just trying to get round Ofcom, and are suceeding.

The changes they make are gradual, all of which are OKed by Ofcom.

I did not submit anything to the consultation because I was not aware of it at the time. I have subsequently written to Ofcom, but the reply just tells me what they are doing. Whether any points I made in my letters have been taken on board is anyone's guess.

Is there someone out there who could draft a good letter which we could all send to our MPs especially on the subject of government and public bodies such as the BBC using these NGNs

I think that MPs take little notice of what appear to them to be standard letters from an organized lobby. It may be more effective to write (gently and reasonably!) to one or two public bodies of your choice that use 0845/0870 numbers, pointing out that these are now much more expensive to call than 01/02 numbers, asking them to give you 01/02 numbers instead, and suggesting that they phase out the 0845/0870 numbers as soon as practicable. If you don't get a helpful reply, follow the body's complaints procedure to take it further.

Many thanks to hoxne for posting the link to Ofcom's July statement, which I had foolishly overlooked. My guess is that Ofcom have counted only letters from consumers that explicitly said they were responses to the April consultation, not general complaints. However, Ofcom do seem to have included in the July statement a fair summary of consumers' concerns. And they do say they will consult later this year on the whole principle of number translation services. Let's get ready to respond!

My own opinion, subject to correction by any readers who understand the technology, is that 0845 and 0870 should be phased out completely. Number translation should be sold at honest prices, fronted by 01/02 numbers, and not subsidized by call charges.

Hi Nicholas 43,

No, I was referring to specific responses to their supposed "consultation" submitted on the prescribed format via e-mail. Those I refer to were all submitted as specific responses, received acknowledgments of receipt from Ofcom (Geoff Brighton) and there is evidence of over 200 having been submitted to them. They have therefore deliberately "lost" over 160 responses, all of which of course were the opposite of what they wanted to hear. In addition they have been bombarded with thousands of letters of complaint, of the type you mention, via their complaint vehicles.

It is clear that this has been yet another attempt by Ofcom to sweep this embarrasing issue under the carpet, and to continue the pretence that not many members of the public are upset by these NGN abuses.

What many people miss about the issue is the key factor in generating large profits for the companies and entities abusing these, with Ofcom's support. There are millions and millions of pounds being generated each financial year. This is now very big business. When the New Telephone Numbering Structure was introduced it was decided to put all "revenue sharing" numbers in one category where consumers could recognise them easily as what they were (09). It was also decided that queuing should be banned with "revenue-sharing" numbers, since quite clearly there would otherwise be a propensity for operators to force callers to queue for as long as possible to much increase the revenue generated.  

When BT first commenced the abuse of revenue sharing with other NGNs and Oftel at that time effectively condoned it by default, it was then realised that here was the perfect way of circumventing the prohibition of queuing with revenue generation, so as to maximize the extraction of revenue from callers. The techniques of call extrapolation with queuing have since been developed to the present advanced level, using every conceivable trick in the book. The latest most advanced one for instance is that call centre management systems are now being programmed to drop-out callers who have been queuing for over a preset period (e.g. 15 mins.). This means that callers may be dropped out at peak times 3 or 4 times over, and thus the total queuing time they may have to endure just to get to speak to an operator may be an hour or more. This greatly increases revenue yield and is one of the very worst examples of this abuse, and the way in which it is now verging on covert criminality; (and you thought when this happened to you it was just an accident or hiccup!!!..........You did not realise that it was now being programmed in!?)

Ofcom still claim that they do not believe, nor have they seen any evidence to support any abuses with queuing on NGNs!!! Of course, if you close your eyes you will not see anything you don't want to see! The salient point is, if it was originally accepted that queuing with revenue- generating numbers would lead to abuse, how is it that now Ofcom argue that queueing does not lead to any abuse. This is the heart of the corruption. There is big money at stake here! The real money being made from this abuse is directly from queuing, and the fact that queuing  is not being prohibited as it was originally decided to do with revenue-generating numbers!

Well written dorf. You are a man with the words!! I agree wholeheartedly with your statements. It is criminal!!

Well said, dorf, from me as well.
I have written to my MP (got a polite reply saying he would look into matters and be in touch, I will make sure he does!), wrote to the Prime Minister (no response) and raised the matter with the Committe of Public Accounts (Chairman Edward Leigh MP) and from the Clerk to that Committe got a detailed reply which included the following :-

Ofcom's paper....does acknowledge the wide range of concerns raised by you and others.
It specifically mentions, for example, the concerns that NGN's are proliferating, including their use by Government departments, and the practice of keeping callers on hold in lengthy queues in order to increase revenue.
While the Committee (of Public Accounts) remains concerned about the use of NGN's, it is encouraged that Ofcom has already started to take action.
....the National Audit Office will keep this area under examination, including the specific matters you have raised....

Even the Government accept the iniquities, yet seem powerless against 'big business'.