http://www.ofcom.org.uk/telecoms/groups/nts_focus/notes/nts11july05

<<
Agenda item (2): Update on NTS Policy Review and the NTS Call Termination Market Review (Ofcom)
Gareth Davis provided a status update on the NTS policy review. The policy has not been finalised and could be subject to further revision. Headline results from the market research had been received, but not the detail. Ofcom's market research department was currently reviewing the results.

Gareth said the NTS team would present their initial proposals to the Ofcom Policy Executive on the 18 th of July and then the Ofcom board on the 26 th of July. A full twelve week consultation is planned, with the consultation document expected to be issued on the 3 rd of August.

Gareth outlined Ofcom’s initial proposals, explaining that the remedy differed depending on the number range.

0870

Withdraw regulatory support for revenue sharing, after 12 month interim period
All operators then required to charge no more for 0870 calls than for national geographic calls, or to make a pre-announcement
During interim period, set maximum BT charges through the Numbering Plan (7.6570/4.0054/1.4579ppm)
Andy May said BT would not be allowed to discriminate between BT Retail and alternative providers. Gareth confirmed that BT would not be able to discriminate.

0871

Change definition of Controlled PRS to bring 0871 calls within ICSTIS remit
They would then be subject to ICSTIS CoP requirements:
Display price info on adverts
Adult services must be on 09
Diallers subject to Prior Permissions Regime
Unreasonable delay provisions could be used to tackle extended call centre waiting times
Andy May asked how this change would impact on the retail uplift charge control. Gareth said that under the proposal after the interim period the retail uplift would cease to be relevant for 0870.

Rickard Granberg asked if originator would be able to include 0870 within call packages (including packages which zero rate calls). Gareth said this was the expectation.

Gareth went on to outline the proposals for 0845 and 0844:

0845

Use Numbering Plan to introduce new standard rates from BT lines (BT Together rates 3.3045/0.912/0.836ppm), to apply for 2 years
ASA/ CAP requirements to display price info on adverts
Then carry out further review, to consider case for restoring link to geographic tariffs in the light of:
Speed of decline in dial-up internet market
New services and technical developments associated with 21 CN

0844

ASA/ CAP requirements to display price info on adverts
No other changes
Toby Higho asked if these proposals would require a change to General Condition 14 (as there are 3 provisions in the GC14 already). Gareth said that a change in the guidelines accompanying GC14 would be required.

Nancy Saunders asked if communication providers would need to seek re-approval for their Code of Practice. Gareth confirmed that would be required (the consultation would address the issue of CoPs and GC14).

Andy May said the proposals would require a substantial change to the way ICSTIS works given the volumes and services available. Gareth said that ICSTIS had come a long way in the past 12 months clearing much of the backlog.

Tim Stephens asked how the requirement to charge geographic call rates for 0870 calls or make an announcement would be enforced. Gareth said that the numbering plan would be used (there was a precedent relating to 0800 traffic).

Chris Pace said that there had been issues in the past with ICSTIS relating to the pricing transparency for PRS. Gareth said that ICSTIS now had a good relationship with the ASA and the consumer research has so far indicated much better pricing awareness for 09 numbers.

continued...

...

Clive Hillier ran through some of the initial market research findings:

NTS service provider information request
First 250 valid returns analysed
Indicates 40-50% of calls locked in (ie. no choice but to use the number)
Only 100 respondents get an explicit revenue share
Revenue share important to about one third of 087 users
If revenue sharing on 0870 was withdrawn
two thirds would absorb the loss of revenue or find some other charging mechanism
Mystery Shopping
No evidence of artificial extension of call holding times
Most callers connected immediately (80%)
Most of the rest connected within 1 minute
However, large organisations (turnover >£10m) do take much longer to connect callers to an agent
Consumer quantitative research
Price perception similar to previous research
0845 – 26ppm
0870 – 36ppm
Strong support for return to geographic charging on 0845 and 0870, but also some support for revenue sharing
Mixed views on announcements
Most consumers think they should be provided
But 60% think they would be annoying
Rickard Granberg asked what proportion of calls to Ofcom contact centre related to actual 0870 call charges rather than incorrect perceptions of call charges. Clive Hillier said that Ofcom didn’t have this breakdown.

Chris Pace and Fabienne Dischamps said that Ofcom’s initial rationale for conducting the review (Pricing Transparency, Price V.s Value, Public Service use and Call centre waiting times) had identified only the issue of pricing transparency as a consumer problems and asked why Ofcom hadn’t suggested a remedy to combat this issue.

Andy May asked why Ofcom was proposing to restore the geographic link on 0870 and not 0845? Gareth Davis said that there would be fewer benefits and more costs involved in restoring the link on 0845.

Colin Scott said that if these proposals were to be implemented following the initial 1 year period 0845 would be more expensive than 0870 on some call plans. Gareth said that pricing guidance on 0845 would mitigate this problem.

Andy May said that many companies questioned by Ofcom aren’t likely to know the additional costs they will face if revenue share is removed (ie. The costs of intelligent call routing, call stats etc will need to be recovered).

Karen Wray asked if consumer perceptions of 0871 were very different from 0870. Clive Hillier said he couldn’t quote the research findings chapter and verse but the research indicated that 0871 was less expensive than PRS but more expensive than 0870.

Karen Wray said that if 10% of 0870 users moved their services to more expensive 0871 services which would mean a worse outcome for consumers, would Ofcom plan to initiate another consultation? Gareth said that no further consultations were planned.

Fabienne Dischamps asked if a public information campaign was planned. Gareth Davis said Ofcom weren’t planning to launch a campaign but he hoped the industry would inform consumers of the changes and noted that Ofcom intended to propose a modification to General Condition 14 to require OCPs to give more prominence to NTS call charges.

Gareth said that following the consultation a statement would be published, most likely in January 2006.

Karen Wray made the point that Ofcom originally launched the NTS Framework re-examination project as an access and interconnection review, however these concerns seem to have been replaced by a consumer based review.

Alex Cheetham asked if Ofcom had an update on the call termination market view. Gareth said that Ofcom still planned to publish in early August.

Agenda item (3): 0844 / 0871 Short Duration
Rob Day provided the background to this issue. Rob said that OCCNs had now been issued to all operators with the relevant 0844 & 0871 numbers. Of the 41 chargebands are affected, only 16 have live traffic. For those services with no traffic to sample, the average durations have been used. BT would also be issuing NCCNs to amend 0844 / 0871 charges for BT terminated traffic with effect from 1 September 2005.

The effective date on the OCCN is the 1 st of September 2005. Rob said that BT would also accept retrospective invoices for revised 0844 and 0871 traffic back to the 1 st of October 2004 for BT Originated traffic, with retrospection to 1 October 2004 provided on a reciprocal basis.

The OCCN contains details on the methodology used by BT. Rob said that BT were planning to conduct quarterly reviews on the rates.

Chris Pace asked why October 2004 had been picked. Rob Day said that in BT’s view volumes weren’t material prior to this as volumes increased markedly at the back end of 2004, hence October was a reasonable offer. A debate followed on what could be interpreted as material.

Mike Barford said that he would take an action to co-ordinate views from FG members on a start date for long/short on 0844 and 0871 and then pick this up with BT.

continued...

...

New Action #U/1: if anyone believes that their 0844 termination volumes prior to October 2004 are material they are to contact Mike Barford directly.

Agenda Item (4) – NTS INCA Billing update
Mark Amoss said that an updated slide pack would be issued (Action #T/2: BT to provide an INCA CLI update at the next NTS FG – closed). Mark said that timetable for the INCA update is as follows:

Timescales
30th June - EBC data sample files available
8th July - CP Solution Guide Issue 1 available
31st July - EBC data test files & Transit data sample files available
30th Sept - Transit data test files available
3rd Oct (latest) - Launch notification issued minimum 56 calendar days
Mid Nov - EBC charging reference data available
30th Nov - Launch date NCD Mechanism removed and current CLI based mechanism replaced with new model
1st Dec 2005 - New charging model commence, appearing on bill sent out 1st Jan 2006
1st Jan 2006 – First live Transit data file available for Dec 2005 bill
Mark said the NTS levy invoice would be issued quarterly.

Dominic Carney asked if there would be a period of parallel running. Mark said that no parallel running was planned (the Direction didn’t specify it and BT’s systems couldn’t accommodate it). A three month (1 st December – 28 th February) bedding in period to iron out any issues had been allowed for (to cushion the impact of any possible system delays).

Mark Amoss also raised the issue of the process of updating the CPL and the number of rates required to be published in the CPL (following the move to CLI billing for NTS). Mark said BT were hosting a meeting to discuss the issue on the 21 st of July in central London. Operators should contact mark.amoss@bt.com for details.

Agenda Item (5) – Review of remaining outstanding actions
Mike Barford provided an update on action #T/1 - to establish an NTS FG working group with the aim of resolving the NGNP issue. Mike said that he had attended the NGNP process group. The NGNP group had roughly half the attendance of the NTS FG and was made up of the same companies (albeit represented by a different individual). The NGNP Process Group agreed to track the issue. Action #T/1 ongoing.

Agenda item (6) – Any Other Business
Dominic Carney asked if there were any plans to discuss the outcome of the TSR within the NTS FG. Mike Barford said it would be a more relevant issue if ASD were to sell call origination. Alex Cheetham said that under the proposed structure ASD wouldn’t sell call origination. The group agree that it might be a useful topic to consider at a future meeting.

Date of Next Meeting:
Thursday 11 th August – 2.00pm Ofcom – Riverside House, London
Remaining Focus Group meeting dates for 2005:

15th September
27th October
8th December
Summary of New and Outstanding Actions:
# T/1:
Mike Barford to establish an NTS FG working group with the aim of resolving the NGNP issue

# U/1:
Operators who believe that their 0844 and 0871 volumes are significant prior to October 2004 should contact Mike Barford.

[end]

Attendance:

Colin Scott  THUS (Chair)
Gareth Davies  Ofcom
Caroline Chandan-Roels  Ofcom
Karen Wray  C&W
Clive Hillier  Ofcom
Dirmuid Jennings  Reality Telecom
Nancy Saunders  Kingston
Dave Simpson  Easynet
Chris Pace  IV Response
Rickard Granberg  Opal Telecom
Toby Higho  Centrica
Tim Stephens  C&W
Jim Ashton  C&W
Andrew Wileman  Telewest
Helen Morgan  Energis
Andy May  Energis
Rickard Granberg  Carphone Warehouse
Kath Embleton  BT
Rob Day  BT
Mark Amoss  BT
Alex Cheetham  BT
Dominic Carney  Your Communications
Sarajane Amey  NTL
Fabienne Dischamps  Band-X
Mike Barford  Tiscali
Richard Anderson  COLT

NTS Focus Group - 19 May 2005 notes also available:

http://www.ofcom.org.uk/telecoms/groups/nts_focus/notes/nts19may05

<<
Agenda item (2): Update on NTS Policy Review and the NTS Call Termination Market Review (Ofcom)
Gareth Davis said Ofcom would provide a brief update on the status of the policy review (a full update and discussion was given at the NTS Workshop on the 10 th of May). Clive Hillier said the qualitative research (Focus Group output) was due back at the end of May and the quantitative research (call centre waiting times) was expected in early July.

A policy recommendation would be put to the Ofcom Policy Executive and the Ofcom Board at the end of July with the statement and further consultation published at the beginning of August. It is currently Ofcom’s intention to publish the call termination market review on the same day.

Ofcom said they did not have much more to add to this, other than to say that a number of individual meetings had taken place with stakeholders and more were booked for the next few weeks.

Clive Hillier said that Ofcom would circulate the questions asked of NTS users to Focus Group members and provide communication providers with a list of the customers they intended to contact in advance (1 week ahead of Ofcom approaching the customers).

Nancy Saunders asked if Ofcom had received feedback from the Call Centre Association. Clive Hillier said they hadn’t yet, but were still hoping to.

Andrew Wileman asked if the recent Energis NCCN 500 referral fitted into the Call Termination Market Review. Gareth Davis said that they were being treated as separate projects with some overlap (as some Ofcom staff were working on both pieces of work). Gareth said that the publication of one wasn’t dependant on the other.

Dave Simpson asked if Ofcom were planning a statement or consultation on the NTS policy work. Gareth Davies said a statement with further consultation was planned.

Andy Martin asked if there would be an opportunity to contribute further comments once the document was published. Gareth Davies said that further comments would be sought.

Nancy Saunders asked if the recent information supplied by communication providers under Ofcom’s formal powers was exempt from the Freedom of Information Act. Clive Hillier said this issued had been raised previously in another area and Ofcom could confirm that such information was subject to a statutory exemption.

continued...

...

Agenda item (3): Update on the NTS Retail Uplift second stage consultation
Geoff Brighton said that Ofcom had received responses on the retail uplift consultation from Tiscali, Energis, BT, UKCTA and a confidential response from Wanadoo. Geoff said Ofcom hoped to get the final statement published by the end of June (however it would definitely be out by August at the latest).

Becky Hewlett asked if Ofcom decided to go for Option 3c, would a further consultation be required. Geoff said that Ofcom lawyers had advised that because option 3c was discussed in the original consultation, a further consultation wouldn’t be required.

Agenda Item (4) – NGNP interaccounting (Mike Barford)
Mike explained that this issue related to the differentials between POLOs in portability scenarios – made acute since the introduction of NCCN 500.

Mike said he had received feedback from BT asking for the issue to be raised at the Number Portability Commercial Group, however Mike had asked for the SoR to be accepted and now had confirmation back from BT that the SoR was now working its way through the process.

Mike said he was keen to keep discussion on this topic within the NTS FG. Colin Annette said he believed the Number Portability Group were the appropriate experts to deal with the issue.

Richard Anderson said he had attended the Number Portability Commercial group and despite its name, it mainly focused on processes (not commercials).

Tim Stephens said given the issue was raised at the NTS FG, would it not be appropriate to keep it within this Group. Colin Annette suggested a sub-group of the NTS FG.

Debbie Mulloy asked if BT had no commercial issues. Colin Annette said the issue needed to be resolved.

Mike Barford agreed to organise a NTS FG working group to liaise with BT over the issue.

New Action: #T/1 : Mike Barford to establish an NTS FG working group with the aim of resolving the NGNP issue.

Colin Annette said the outcome of the work would need to be fed back to both groups. Mike Barford said that in the meantime the SoR would still be progressed by BT.

Agenda Item (5) – Long and Short on 0844 / 0871
Rob Day said following the NTS FG in April he had given operators two weeks to come back to him with comments on the proposed methodology for distributing the minimum call fee on 0844 and 0871 services. No feedback has been received and the methodology had now been put forward in a paper to the BT Pricing Board for formal approval. Once the paper had been agreed within BT (expected in the next two/three weeks) a formal industry notification would be issued.

Becky Hewlett asked when the methodology would apply from. Rob confirmed that the date was still to be established (ie. when volumes were material) but this was sometime before Christmas ’04.

Fabienne Dischamps asked if the retrospection would apply to transit traffic. Colin Annette said it would not.

Tim Stephens asked what review mechanism BT would implement over the calculation. Colin Annette said it would probably be conducted at the annual review in April. Tim asked how the retrospective overpayments would be recovered – would BT accept an invoice. Colin Annette said the normal process for retrospection would be followed.

Chris Pace asked how much of an uplift Communication Providers could expect. Rob Day said it varied depending on the chargeband and average duration – anything between 2% - 15%, but as the bulk of calls (98%) were long duration – the uplift wouldn’t be significant.

continued...

...

Agenda Item (7) – Review of remaining outstanding actions
No actions were outstanding.

Agenda item (8) – Any Other Business
Debbie Mulloy asked if the FG could get an update on the INCA CLI project. Colin Scott said Colin Rochester provided an update at the last FG. BT agreed to provide an update for the next meeting.

New Action: #T/2: BT to provide an INCA CLI update at the next NTS FG.

It was suggested that members might want to delay the next FG by approximately 10 days to allow Ofcom to present the market research agency data to the group. A provisional date of the 12 th of July was agreed (Post meeting note: no room was available on the 12 th of July, the next FG is now scheduled for Monday the 11 th of July). Other 2005 Focus Group dates remain unaffected.

Date of Next Meeting:
Monday, 11 th July – 2.00pm Ofcom – Riverside House, London
Remaining Focus Group meeting dates for 2005:

11th August
15th September
27th October
8th December
Summary of New and Outstanding Actions:
# T/1:
Mike Barford to establish an NTS FG working group with the aim of resolving the NGNP issue

# T/2:
BT to provide an INCA CLI update at the next NTS FG.

[end]

Colin Scott  THUS (Chair)
Gareth Davies  Ofcom
Caroline Chandan-Roels  Ofcom
Geoff Brighton  Ofcom
Clive Hillier  Ofcom
Simon Slater-Thomas  Reality Telecom
Dirmuid Jennings  Reality Telecom
Anne McCardle  MCI
Dave Simpson  Easynet
Chris Pace  IV Response
Andy Martin  IV Response
Nick Turley  Centrica
Tim Stephens  C&W
Karen Wray  C&W
Andrew Wileman  Telewest
Helen Morgan  Energis
Becky Hewlett  Energis
Rickard Granberg  Carphone Warehouse
Colin Annette  BT
Rob Day  BT
Richard Anderson  COLT
Nancy Saunders  Kingston
Debbie Mulloy  NTL
Sarajane Amey  NTL
Fabienne Dischamps  Band-X
Mike Barford  Tiscali
Ray Copeland  Opera

Thanks idb. That must have been some hard work!

juby

Yea thanks for that idb.

I know these results aren't final and are subject to change but it read to me that they are removing the revenue sharing on 0870 only and leaving 0871 and 0845 and in fact increasing the daytime cost of this from what I can tell.

As it is still possible to get revenue from some providers offering 0845 numbers that means most firms will move to 0845 or 0871.  I'd be surprised if they went back to geographicals.

Just two bits stand out to me:

market research findings:

If revenue sharing on 0870 was withdrawn two thirds would absorb the loss of revenue or find some other charging mechanism.

. . .


if 10% of 0870 users moved their services to more expensive 0871 services which would mean a worse outcome for consumers, would Ofcom plan to initiate another consultation? . . . no further consultations were planned.

I can't believe these are the Ofcom proposals.  They are a totally useless, completely ineffective and morally bankrupt organisation living almost totally in the pockets of the telcos.

Their proposal to allow 0845 to cost more than 0870 is just utterly, utterly insane given the profiling of 0845 vs 0870 call centres.  Ofcom haven't a clue.  They come up with a dogs breakfast proposal that will satisfy no one but is designed not to be too damaging for their call centre industry chums who they also tip off in advance at the NTS Focus Groups.

BT had a clear proposal to abolish revenue share on 0845 and 0870.  That was a clear and straightforward proposal.  It made sense.  It had a rational and logical basis.

If 0845 and 0870 became the same as geographic call prices and 0844 and 0871 were allowed to still revenue share with compulsory call price announcments it would have been a reasonably logical and morally defensible solution.

But no Ofcom take 9 months to investigate the matter and then propose no action for 12 further months.  And the action proposed is totally and utterly insane and completely ineffective.

Ofcom you have proven you are totally and utterly untrustworthy and completely out of touch with what the general public want.  I only hope that Stephen Carter has enough political intelligence to stop these quite appalling proposals dreampt up by Geoff Brighton and his telco loving cronies conducting the NTS review.

wrote on Aug 16^th, 2005 at 10:32pm:

I can't believe these are the Ofcom proposals.  They are a totally useless, completely ineffective and morally bankrupt organisation living almost totally in the pockets of the telcos.

That's a pretty good summary!

On the surface, some aspects of these proposals seem to be beneficial, but looking deeper at the whole scheme, it is a complete balls-up. After all this time, including public consultation, this 'dog's dinner' is the best that Ofcom can come up with. Quite staggering really. It will be interesting to see what will be published.

Where is the consultation document, expected August 3? More Ofcom delay and dithering.

Interesting point from May 19 meeting:

"Nancy Saunders asked if the recent information supplied by communication providers under Ofcom’s formal powers was exempt from the Freedom of Information Act. Clive Hillier said this issued had been raised previously in another area and Ofcom could confirm that such information was subject to a statutory exemption. "

The rip-off providers are so afraid of the true extent of the scam from being made public that they have to hide behind exemptions.

Incidentally I had to ask Ofcom for these minutes. It did not respond to my requests, so I submitted a FOI request for the minutes. This seemed to wake-up the public servants who now stated that the minutes were about to be published anyway. I withdrew the FOI request but the notes still did not appear. A further request on Monday yielded the result.

The minutes of the August 11 meeting will be interesting. I'll make another request for these in due course.

I also chased Geoff Brighton for the publication of these minutes and cc'd Matt Peacock and Stephen Carter

I actually find it rather amazing that they publish these minutes at all and have not yet found a way to declare the entire proceedings commercially confidential.  The tone and nature of the discussion at these meetings totally give the game away on which side Ofcom seems to think its bread is buttered and that side is certainly not that of the general public interest.

I have felt that the content of a certain section of the minutes of the July 11th NTS Focust Group would probably benefit from rather wider circulation so as to bring pressure on Ofcom to come up with proposals that more strongly defend the interest of uk telecoms consumers.

Well, for all we know they may already have applied "redactions" to what they have published!

However, all I can say is why are there any expressions of surprise? What else did you really expect. Their way of appearing to take some action it seems will just be to move the whole scam onto other prefixes at least one of which will be even more expensive. That message is probably supposed to imply "that's what you get for campaigning; now keep quiet or we will make it even worse for consumers next time!"

The most important feature of all is that as expected they evidently do not intend to prohibit call queuing on revenue-generating numbers! This continues the deliberate and blatant contravention not only of the National Numbering Plan, but also above all of the principal established as part of the National Numbering Plan that call queuing should not be allowed with revenue-generating numbers, because if it were there clearly would always be a propensity for revenue-generating call receivers to protract the duration of such calls as much as possible!

I can only draw your attention to my sign-off at the bottom of this posting.

So why should 0845 service providers who don't want to charge over the odds have to move to another number, but those on  0870 who will "do without" the revenue sharing can continue without changing number?

It is those on 0870 who are the greedy ones anyway! National rate, by definition, disadvantages those who are local to the company (if such a thing were to exist).

Where do/did they think that the 'additional' pennies were going!!??  ::)

wrote on Aug 17^th, 2005 at 8:11pm:

So why should 0845 service providers who don't want to charge over the odds have to move to another number, but those on  0870 who will "do without" the revenue sharing can continue without changing number?

Because leaving 0845 charges as is wouldn't cause any disruption at all to the unethical extraction of revenue from mainly elderly people by dialup ISPs who charge them £1.80 per hour to connect to the internet in the weekday daytime.  Far better to let millions of telecoms consumers be overcharged for their 0845 voice calls than to let a single member of the telco bretheren lose a pennypiece in revenue.  The fact that 0845 may now cost more than 0870 doesn't matter to bandy kneed Ofcom.  What matters is that no telco should ever give up a single penny piece of revenue it had before.

As for the 0870 changes they are a sham as surely you don't expect a single uk 0870 call centre operator to give up the current weekday daytime 7.51p per minute.  It is obvious that to a man they will all now just have a call announcement saying calls cost 7.51p per minute and they will then go to endless lengths to block any incoming calls to their geographic number not routed to it by the NTS call forwarding number.

I believe Matt Peacock said Ofcom were going to "suggest" these people all publish their geographic number as well but I am sure that this suggestion will be taken about as seriously by the call centres as any customer's suggestion that they stop using an 0870 number.

Assuming all this becomes the final proposal . . .

I presume it would be the call originating telephone carrier who has to make the call charge announcement, if the call cost is different on 0870 from normal geographic calls, so that the caller has the option to discontinue the call before it is connected.

If this is the case then a lot depends on which way BT would go (either call cost announcement or no difference from geographic call costs) as many of the CPS companies would probably follow their lead.

I would have though that it is in BT's interest to get to a state where they can include 0870 in their inclusive call packages as they will then sell this package to more consumers (at least to those who don't know about or don't want to change to other carriers). So that would mean no call cost announcement on 0870 and no call cost difference for BT customers.

In time, of course, all the companies will switch to 0871 and 0844.

I don't think any present users of 0870 will switch to 0845 - much better, from their point of view, to switch to 0844 to get the constant revenue rate 24 hours a day 7 days a week.

I have difficulty, as a VERY technical and experienced person, understanding how this proposal could possibly ever be implemented, when one of the things which Ofcom have never done is to enforce any common cost for any NGN calls regardless of carrier? There are manifold call carriers now out there, and some of these calls (such as with 18866, 1899 and 3U) may be partly routed outside the UK in the course of arriving at a UK NGN destination.

For a receiving subscriber's or call centre system to automatically determine all within in a few milliseconds exactly which carriers have been involved in an NTS call over its routeing and thus what the rate of charge to the caller would be for that call if it is a revenue-sharing scenario or not, and to then automatically announce this BEFORE any premium charging if applicable commences I believe demonstrates blind unrealism and a complete failure to even begin to understand the total mess and manifold variables which now exist as a direct result. It would not be feasible for the originating carrier to make this announcement since until the call is switched to the final subscriber it would not be known whether this was to be a revenue-generating call or not!

If there were one enforced charge rate for each NGN then it might be feasible - otherwise it looks like nirs2 and the proposed biometric ID system all over again! (see today's issue of Computing).

wrote on Aug 18^th, 2005 at 3:45pm:

There are manifold call carriers now out there, and some of these calls (such as with 18866, 1899 and 3U) may be partly routed outside the UK in the course of arriving at a UK NGN destination. If there were one enforced charge rate for each NGN then it might be feasible - otherwise it looks like nirs2 and the proposed biometric ID system all over again! (see today's issue of Computing).

Dorf,

Forgive me if I have missed something glaringly obvious but don't 1899 and 18866 make call price announcements for all the destinations they carry calls to and don't those destinations include 0845 and 0870?

So if two call companies operating on almost no pofit margin at all can afford to make these announcements, and know what the call price is when they make the announcement, then why can't the rest of the call carrying companies?

All that is required is for these companies to assess what price they need to charge in order to consisently make a profit when carrying calls to 084x and 087x numbers and charge a price that ensures this will happen.  Of course this may well be by why 18866 needs to charge 9p per minute instead of 7.5p per minute for carrying a call to an 0870 number  It may also be why 18866 doesn't carry calls at all to 0844 and 0871 numbers.

NGN,

You have a very good point.  Both Call18866/1899 do carry tariff notifications at the beginning of each call (which can be turned on or off by their customers - us) and like you say still manage to do this on what must be a lower profit margin.

Now I don't know how sophisticated their equipment is but I'm guessing its not at all that sophisticated (ie. expensive) for them to only charge 2p per call.

BT and the other networks once they implement this could also do a feature like *#1234# turns it on and something similar turns it off.

wrote on Aug 18^th, 2005 at 6:24pm:

BT and the other networks once they implement this could also do a feature like *#1234# turns it on and something similar turns it off.

But of course the charging announcement should be turned on by default unless the account owner specifially chooses to turn it off using the PIN number that BT will I hope require to be used to do this.

This same PIN number could be used to turn on access to 09 calls costing more than 19p per minute and in this case the default should be that access is turned off.  Although of course some of BT's call prices for international calls (especially international mobiles) are so alarmingly high that its hard to know just what should be turned on and what should be turned off by default.

One alarming aspect of the whole 07/08/09 NGN revenue share game is that it is bound to hinder progress to true Voip calling identities in place of phone numbers, because making such a move might mean loss of revenue for the company currently using an NGN service.  As I said call centres are going to be the last people in the uk to implement voip calling identies instead of phone numbers.

I think you have missed the point that if these proposals were put into place not all 0870 calls would be revenue sharing. Thus those which were not would not require any announcement. However those which were would require an announcement.

I believe that to accomplish this therefore would require system data feedback to determine whether or not the call was a revenue sharing call at termination if the announcement was to be made by the originating carrying telco. Where the carrying route was across continents this could become very complicated. If the announcement was to be made by the receiving carrier it would be equally complicated. I believe you are missing the element of complication introduced into this system by the variable of "revenue sharing call or not?".

wrote on Aug 18^th, 2005 at 8:02pm:

I believe that to accomplish this therefore would require system data feedback to determine whether or not the call was a revenue sharing call at termination if the announcement was to be made by the originating carrying telco. Where the carrying route was across continents this could become very complicated. If the announcement was to be made by the receiving carrier it would be equally complicated. I believe you are missing the element of complication introduced into this system by the variable of "revenue sharing call or not?".

Dorf this seems to be Ofcom and the Telcos problem to sort out and not ours.  The Telcos have special privileged access to Ofcom at the NTS focus groups which the rest of us do not enjoy.  Therefore I am sure that they can thrash this out there and come up with a solution.  Since Ofcom have proposed this solution, based on talks with the telcos, the solution must surely be capable of being implemented.  I would have thought a database could be set up that would hold the relevant information for the telcos.

I believe that how the call is routed is irrelevant as it is where it terminated and the amount charged by the terminating call party that determines the price.  Surely so long as a database exists that indicates who is the terminating call party for any specific 0870 number then it is easy to determine the call cost before the number is dialled.

British Gas do not know how much it is going to cost them to buy gas every day of the week but their occasionally revised customer tariff charges a price adequate to let them make a profit regardless of daily fluctuations in wholesale gas prices.  Similarly under the new arrangements your telco will not charge you a different price to an 0870 number every day of the week depending how it routes.  They will instead charge a price that lets them make a profit with all calls to that terminating call party and on some days they will make more profit out of what you are paying them and on some days less.

But of course it is too complicated.  The simple solution was make all 0870 and 0845 calls priced at geographic rates, except for legacy 0845 ISP numbers that would be charged at the old BT standard rates (no new dialup ISPs could set up on these old 0845 numbers).  And then 0871 and 0844 would become a another 09 prefixed set of numbers regulated by ICSTIS.  All ICSTIS regulated numbers would then have price announcements in place in this consumer centric solution.

Ofcom's solution seems to deliberately rely on making things so complicated that the public won't understand it all and so the lie will be able to continue that 0870 numbers are supposedly ordinary national rate calls, even though many will not be.  Surely you can see that the whole point of the new arrangements is precisely so that Jo Public will find it all too difficult to cope with.  Whilst at the same time good old Ofcom will have been seen to have done something.

NGM, Indeed it would be Ofcom's problem to sort it out as you say, but my point is that I do not believe that they fully understand what would be involved in implementing this proposed scenario, for sometimes 0870 calls to be charged as GNs and at other times for them to be charged as Premium (revenue-sharing) calls.

I do not agree that what you claim, that it is ".....where it is terminated and the amount charged by the terminating call party that determines the price...". The very reason that different originating carriers charge different rates for these calls and that Ofcom have done nothing to regulate the cost or maximum cost which may be charged for these calls is indicative of this not being true!

The routeing only becomes important as I have attempted to explain if there is a decision to allow some 0870 calls to be carried at GN costs and others to be carried at current Premium rates. This is because of the resulting need then for data feedback to specify whether the call is being carried at a normal GN rate or at a Premuim rate. That can only be indicated at the call temination, never by the originating carrier. This is the nub of the problem.

I believe once Ofcom have these problems explained to them technically by the telcos who would have the problem of implementing this complexity, they will accept that this type of solution is not economically feasible and it will be changed.

Looks like no reversion of 0870 to national rate then and instead just settling for some call price announcements.  Then they could also have call price announcements on 0845 too and they wouldn't end up making 0845 being more expensive than many 0870 numbers which really would be a public relations disaster on Ofcom's part.

But actually it would be possible for the Telcos to know what the price is going to be in advance for 0870 numbers.  How else do you think different rates are charged on different 0844 numbers and different 0871 numbers, all of which begin with the same code.  The only reason that many of BT's competitors charge more than BT for 0870 calls is because Ofcom changed the rules a while ago to let BT charge its competitors more for terminating an 0870 call than it charges itself (Ofcom called this competition!).

When you dial an 0870 number the billing platform of your service provider knows in a trice how and to where it is going to be routed and there is time to give you a call price announcement before your call is connected.

The one problem area with call price announcements are automated switchboards that answer the call straight away and have no ringing time.  With many of these numbers 18866 and 1899 don't manage to give you a call price announcement before the number answers.  But as most of these switchboards are 0870 numbers I of course never use 18866 to call them and indeed these days I hardly call any 0870 numbers.

Although I am thinking of trying to see if I can win the TalkTalk £500 challenge by making £5 worth of calls in a month to just 0870 and 0845 numbers and routing all my other calls with 18866.  That should leave me with a TalkTalk monthly bill where BT would be cheaper and so I would win the challenge!!

Unfortunately talk-talk have already though of your idea, condition 5 says:

5 The challenge is not open to anyone who is not currently a customer of TalkTalk or to customers who have more than one line, and excludes calls to the internet, 0870, 0845 or premium rate numbers.

wrote on Aug 18^th, 2005 at 11:34pm:

Although I am thinking of trying to see if I can win the TalkTalk £500 challenge by making £5 worth of calls in a month to just 0870 and 0845 numbers and routing all my other calls with 18866.  That should leave me with a TalkTalk monthly bill where BT would be cheaper and so I would win the challenge!!

Well, that has made my day. Away to dream happily of a properly regulated world   :)

wrote on Aug 18^th, 2005 at 11:53pm:

Well, that has made my day. Away to dream happily of a properly regulated world   :)

Are you saying this is an unwinnable challenge Tanllan?  Then how are TalkTalk allowed to offer it.

By the way how are you getting on with that Riiing SIM card.  Letting friends make a call to you on your mobile anywhere in Europe for only 4p a minute and and with it costing you nothing at all to receive the call.  Now that's what I call a real saving.

EDITby NonGeographicalMan The contents of the original version of this section of the post have been removed as they were causing an employee of Ofcom personal distress.  Whilst I am still sharply critical of the regulatory effectivness of Ofcom over the NTS issue and over several other issues I would not wish to cause unnecessary offence in this manner.END EDIT

wrote on Aug 18^th, 2005 at 11:53pm:

Unfortunately talk-talk have already though of your idea, condition 5 says: 5 The challenge is not open to anyone who is not currently a customer of TalkTalk or to customers who have more than one line, and excludes calls to the internet, 0870, 0845 or premium rate numbers.

The current Talk Talk conditions seem to be different from the ones your quote.  Clause 4.8 says only "Any customer who receives their Services from any third party operating under license from Talk Talk is excluded from the TalkTalk £1,000 Challenge (also known as the £1,000 Guarantee).  Any calls made using International Access are excludes from the TalkTalk £1,000 Challenge.  Customers of our indirect access services (whether under the "Talk Now" brand or otherwise) are not able to make or receive Eligibile Calls and are therefore excluded from participating in Free Calls"

I can find no other reference to rules governing the £1,000 challenge in TalkTalk's current Terms and Conditions.

ok found the specific terms and conditions of the £1,000 challenge now at:-

http://www.talktalk.co.uk/talktalk/servlet/gben-voice-PageServer?ARTICLE=GUARANTEE

Clause 5 says:- The challenge is not open to anyone who is not currently a customer of TalkTalk or to customers who have more than one line, and excludes calls to the internet, 0870, 0845 or premium rate numbers

So what about 0844 and 0871 then?  They aren't premium rate within the normal definition.  Or will TalkTalk always charge the same as BT for 0844 and 0871 as the call rate is set by the terminating telecoms network.

Good morning. No I was not saying that it was impossible and am now sad to learn that it is. Merely a +ve thought with which to go to sleep.

Have tested my Riiiing card here and incoming OK, but no access to 089 etc. Must charge it a little more before I leave. Used Tryctil to unlock.

and Focus Group? Sorry, I thought that that was scouse: Foc us

Tanllan 089 works fine on my Riiing SIM card to get a free balance on the phone as does 088 for recharge.

Or did you mean 087 when you said 089? You would not of course normally use Riiing for outgoing mobile calls in the uk.

I think it works better to run an extra mobile for your Riiing SIM.  You can get unlocked mobiles very cheaply from The Link or Carphone Warehouse stores in London, Oxford Street.

087/089 whoops, sorry.

Yup.

Waiting for new Nokia 1100 to come out. Then a trip to W1  ;)

It appears that my previous now edited comment has come to the attention of Ofcom and they are personally distressed by it due to the manner in which some of their own work colleagues have been killed in the past.

On reflection perhaps I could have conveyed my unhappiness with some aspects of Ofcom policy in a more subtle manner.

NGN I agree.

No where in that para does it say "go do X and Y to Z"

Why don't we set up a "focus group" to discuss Ofcom's "objection" to this comment and then invite them along   ;D

Of course if we're going to follow Ofcom's model on "focus groups" we will have to pack it with members from this site!!!

I personally would not have used such an analogy; but Ofcom's anger is nothing compared to my anger at Ofcom for failing to protect the British public from the huge multi-million pound 0870 rip-off.

Among the people being scammed are thousands of hard working police; nurses; bus/tube drivers etc... all who took the brunt of the aftermath of the terrible London bombings. Not to mention all the worried folk who were forced to PAY a nasty sum of money by having to call the casualty line 0870 number.

If you're reading this members of OFCOM: grow up and concentrate on your job - which is protecting ME and the rest of the British population from the telecom companies who are effectively trying to STEAL and SCAM money from us.

Thank God for freedom of speech.

I think perhaps we should have a consultation, after applying the necessary redactions of course to all published information except to members of this forum. But wait a minute .....!

Does this support my previous claims that Ofcom representatives and certain telcos keep an eye on what is posted here? Is that why someone was offended?

wrote on Aug 19^th, 2005 at 10:04pm:

Does this support my previous claims that Ofcom representatives and certain telcos keep an eye on what is posted here? Is that why someone was offended?

The Communications Director of Ofcom himself monitors posts made in this forum but claim he does not make any posts of his own.

I am not actually convinced that the Communication Director of Ofcom actually sleeps so intense a one man band of activity does he appear to be.

If other members of Ofcom staff were as conscientious perhaps the 084/7x ripoff would not have been allowed in the first place.