You can read the comments made to Ofcom on 0870 and 0845 numbers here:

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

When you've read what others are saying, set aside five minutes to e-mail your own comments to: nts@ofcom.org.uk

Or send comments to:
Clive Hillier
Competition and Markets
Fourth Floor
Ofcom
Riverside House
2A Southwark Bridge Road
London SE1 9HA.

Fax: 020 7783 4103

There were 59 comments by midday 24th October.


(Thanks to idb and joe65 for identifying this information in other threads.  In case anyone has missed it I thought it needed to be highlighted in a new topic.)

Thanks, AJR, this thread is a really good idea.  Seeing other people's comments gives you confidence and reminds you there are many more people out there who consider these  0870 calls to be excessively expensive and misleadingly marketed.

I'll be making my thoughts known - for sure  ;)

Hey AJR, There's something faulty with the link.
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/

Thanks, Joe65 - I've changed the link.

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.

having read them all, I liked rdfeltham response. http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/nts_forward/responses/rdfeltham.pdf

I have sent in my response, I notice it hasnt been published, I will follow it up why.

wrote on Oct 20^th, 2005 at 4:09pm:

Hey AJR, There's something faulty with the link. 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 original link is fine as long as the browser is refreshed however I agree that the alternative quoted is much neater. I have no idea what suffix /?a=87101 means - perhaps someone can advise?

The Browser Refresh button didn't do it.

The guy at Ofcom came back this morning though, recommending the 'Ctrl +F5'   refresh, which indeed duid the trick.

37 responses now, glad to see mine there!

Is there any chance we can get the responses into the hundreds or thousands?

Cheers, Des.

Quote:

Is there any chance we can get the responses into the hundreds or thousands?

Quite agree, Des.  I wonder is there any chance that this site could do a mailout to its 4,800+ registered forum members not only inviting them to have their say in this consultation but also encouraging them to email their friends, relatives or colleagues to do likewise?

[glb]Must be worth a try?
That way numbers really could increase![/glb]

Cheers
Garry

Of the now is it about 111 Responses published so far,   why is it that only 1 (from Norfolk Trading Standards) appears to be from anything other than private individuals ?
   Are the industry being coy with their responses ?

   It's now getting very hard to recognise new responses, from the alphabetic layout of the OfCom Responses page.

Quote:

Why is it that only one response (from Norfolk Trading Standards) appears to be from anything other than private individuals ? Are the industry being coy with their responses ?

Good point, Joe65.  So much for an open discussion!  

Perhaps the telecoms industry have opted to keep their responses confidential? Can such a choice be made ? (I remember certain individuals making a point that their response is NOT confidential).

As for the alphabetical ordering, I agree again that it does make it hard work deciphering which are the latest responses etc.  Ideally it would be useful if Ofcom gave the user the ability to list by name and by date received.  Then again, it wouldn't be Ofcom if it was clear and intelligible!!!!  ;)

I've just thought of another idea to keep track of the responses so far.  Perhaps we could create a new thread (similar to this) which lists the respondee and which once clicked takes you to their response.

e.g A Cade points to
http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/nts_forward/responses/cade.pdf

I wouldn't mind having a go at this (when I've got the time!) but how do you create a word which itself is a link.

Any assistance with the know-how would be appreciated!

Cheers
Garry

wrote on Oct 27^th, 2005 at 7:00pm:

Perhaps we could create a new thread (similar to this) which lists the respondee and which once clicked takes you to their response. e.g A Cade points to http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/nts_forward/responses/cade.pdf

Garry,
           Isn't that exactly what the Responses page at OfCom does :-
http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/nts_forward/responses/
eg.  
A. Cade  ?
  What is it that could be added by replicating that here ?
  I have distilled the 111 URLs out of OfComs Responses page, but I don't see how we can make it any easier to find New Responses .   Perhaps you could explain a little more.
This B.B. only lets me post about a third of them though [otherwise the list's too long]
I'll remove it Dave, if it's a problem...
A Cade
A Cain
A Grant
A Lee
A Morgan
A Ross
A Welby
A Wood
B Dalton
B Fuller
B Gardner
B Gardner
B Houghton
B Ray
B Woodroffe
C Gardner
C Hillyard Melia
C Scott
D A Boughton
D Abbott
D Butcher
D Lawton
D MacPhail
D McClymont
D Munday
D Murray
D Rose
D Stening
D White
E Ekevall
F Auld

The completely weird thing is though surely that the order is relative to Christian names only.

Trust Ofcom to be completely out of step with the rest of the world?

Quote:

Isn't that exactly what the Responses page at OfCom does :- http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/nts_forward/responses/

Hi Joe65,

Thanks very much for making a substantial start on creating a thread with links.  As you say, in one sense, it is merely a duplication of the ofcom website.

I was thinking, however, that I could then print out the list on this site and then compare with ofcom site.  That way, because both lists are in the same (very-strange-first-name) order, I can easily spot the new additions.  These could then easily be added to the thread.  To be effective, this thread would have to contain all the responses on the ofcom site but perhaps this could be achieved by a twice weekly update?  

I also think that having the list on the forum does somehow bring it closer (psychologically) and therefore more accessible to users of this site.  I think it'd be best if this list was right at the start of a new thread (which itself could be locked so it remains on the top part of the chat forum) and could include a brief introduction something like, "if you're interested in responding to the ofcom consultation but are unsure where to begin, take a look at the responses so far...".

Such a new thread could further generate discussion on the issues raises so far too.

I think it would be helpful if there was a link to this thread from the countdown clock on the homepage.  And, as I've raised elsewhere, I think this countdown clock could be duplicated on the search screen so it gets noticed by more people.

What do other's think about these points?

Would it make any sense to write a letter to all the major daily newspapers pointing out that Ofcom has a consultation in place and if 'you hate paying for 0870 / 0845 numbers etc etc you should put in a response now before it is too late'? (or words to that effect)

Or do you think that it would  never be published because too many media outlets themselves use NGN?

Hi Mikeincc,

Well, of course it would make sense. It could be possible that your letter would not be published, but hey what have you got to lose?

All publicity for the cause is good, whatever!

Go on - do it (but make sure you send one to every newspaper).

wrote on Oct 28^th, 2005 at 8:36am:

Thanks very much for making a substantial start on creating a thread with links.  As you say, in one sense, it is merely a duplication of the ofcom website. I was thinking, however, that I could then print out the list on this site and then compare with ofcom site.

I have the whole list.    The problem is in posting it in this forum.   It won't allow posting such a large file (probably for a very good reason)  & I'm reluctant to clog up the site with with a list that would have to be spread over at least 3 posts and would always be out of date, while the current list is just one click away.    I don't see an easy way to help with identifying new posts.    It's probably just as well for users to download the list themselves from OfCom to keep for comparing later.

Quote:

I have the whole list.    The problem is in posting it in this forum.   It won't allow posting such a large file (probably for a very good reason)  & I'm reluctant to clog up the site with with a list that would have to be spread over at least 3 posts and would always be out of date, while the current list is just one click away.

Thanks again Joe65 and completely accept your point.  Thanks for trying though. Cheers Garry

That's 126 Responses so far, by today [Fri. 28 October].  

Keep them coming...


wrote on Oct 20^th, 2005 at 12:05pm:

You can read the comments made to Ofcom on 0870 and 0845 numbers here: http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/nts_forward/responses/ When you've read what others are saying, set aside five minutes to e-mail your own comments to: nts@ofcom.org.uk Or send comments to: Clive Hillier Competition and Markets Fourth Floor Ofcom Riverside House 2A Southwark Bridge Road London SE1 9HA. Fax: 020 7783 4103 There were 59 comments by midday 24th October.

These are new submissions between 26th and 29th October. Haven't yet worked out how to include the links, though.

A Cain
A Grant
A Lee
A Morgan
A Wood
B Gorman
B Houghton
B J Edwards
B Woodroffe
C Gardner
C Hillyard Melia
C Scott
D A Boughton
D Abbott
D Dixon
D Lawton
D MacPhail
D Staple
D Stening
D Wilkinson
D Wood
E Bultitude
E Ekevall
F Auld
G Cole
G Speechley
H Clayton
I Tyabji
J Aitkin
J Dunning
J Fuller
J Horan
J Kilner
J Mortimer
J Sharpe
K A Phillips
K Baker
K Morgan
M Andrews
M Casells
M Grant
M J Bidwell
M McClements
M Morley
M Parker
M Rawlinson
M Reeves
M Rosen
N Hollins
Name Withheld 2
Name Withheld 3
P Bhargava
P Hicking
P Smithson
R Cottrell
R Danielian
R Lodwick
R Nazir
R W Shacklock
S Barrow
S Brown
S Howells
S Trousdale
S Walton
T Sliwka
V Mackenzie
V R O'Neill

I must observe is that my response has not yet been published pn the Ofcom website, although I specifically gave them permission to publish it.

I have suspected previously with their other consultations extremely strongly that Ofcom do not publish and indeed do not count all of the submissions to their consultations within the mickey mouse numbers of supposed responses which they claim afterwards. This is cunningly so that they can then claim that only a few consumers complained. I suspect that the number of respondents whom they conceal is as much a one quarter of the number which they receive! It may be an even greater proportion?

Quote:

I must observe is that my response has not yet been published pn the Ofcom website, although I specifically gave them permission to publish it.

How long has it been since you submitted your response, Dorf?  And is it possible to get Ofcom to confirm receipt of your response, even if it hasn't been displayed?  Possibily they also give an average time between receiving (and vetting?) and posting responses, and how do they decide responses that don't indicate either way if they're happy to be published or not?

Hi gdh82,

Ofcom evidently do not confirm receipt of any responses.

However mine has been published now so no problem any longer.

Hi Dorf,

Glad to hear you response has finally been posted - perhaps another example of Ofcom monitoring this site  ;)

:o Shock ! Horror!  Ofcom seem to be getting organised!!!!!

In line with the rest of the world Ofcom has belatedly listed replies to the current consultation in surname order including alphabetic splits (a-f, g-l, m-r, s-z), after intially listing responses by first initial of first name!?

Common sense prevails ?  Or has big brother Ofcom been watching us ?  :-X

There are 31 new submissions on the Ofcom website today (Nov 3). This is a list of the new ones.

Anker J
Beath I
Blackmore J
Cryer A
Futter J
Greenstein R
Gregg R
Gupta S
Hunt S
Hutchins N
Kelly D
Kemp A J
Maddocks D
McDonald M
Mcloughlin W
O'Rourke B Dr
Ogilvie G A
Oracle Financial Services
Orton B P
Pengelly H
Perry H G
Renton C
Rice A
Richards M
Rolfe P
Shiekh M
Soffe M D
Stokes S
Sykes P
Thurley K
Underwood R

wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2005 at 4:04pm:

There are 31 new submissions on the Ofcom website today (Nov 3). This is a list of the new ones.

Thanks for providing this list - it is invaluable in identifying new responses.

I just love this one:

http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/nts_forward/responses/af/futter.pdf

which includes the following:

<<
Therefore I am at a loss to understand why Ofcom have still not taken action, it is 12 years since this all started and no action has been taken whatsoever. Ofcom are there to protect the consumer but seem to have done nothing for the consumer in these 12 years.
>>

So true!

Yeah, great job AJR - thanks for helping keep track of the latest responses.

ive been waiting 2 weeks for my response to appear!

Im getting to the point of sending another response, but this time a personal response and not one as an elected member... mind you my response was a bit directed at the overpaid head of ofcon.

mc661, I have the same problem. I submitted my response over 2 weeks ago and it has not appeared in their list.

I therefore sent another yesterday stating this and that I was sending it again in case it had got lost.

I might be too cynical, but I wonder whether this could be a technique Ofcom use to keep down the number of users they have to declare as responding to their consultations - just conveniently lose some of them? I think you could have a point, in that if this is so they probably choose those like yours which are particularly castigating?

There are 27 new submissions on the Ofcom website at lunchtime today (Nov 4), making a total of 184. The new ones are listed below.

Actually, Ofcom could easily identify the new ones by colouring them in, say, green to override the existing pre-set red style.

Agnew G
Fantini G
Fegen R
Fewtrell B
Hall A
Harris D
Hayes J
Hobbs P
King M
Kirton M
Levy D
Lovett A Cllr
Millar-Craig E
Moore P
Name Withheld 4
Norman P
Norris I
Olins F
Owen B
Parnell J
Philp C
Pollard V
Read J
Rhodes A W
Swarbrick A
Ticehurst R
Turner C E

Cllr Anthony Lovett

ah goody nice to see at least some councillors have finally responded, or have had there responses published.

oh by the way ive noticed ofcon have divided the pages into A-F, G-L, M-R, S-Z now.. So all the previous direct links no longer work

Thanks for that mcc661,

I had been saying this since yesterday morning, in the thread "Where are the Responses?".
But I got the impression only myself was having trouble!!

If, as in the case of some site members, there is a delay of two weeks before their submission appears in the Ofcom listing, then in the final two weeks of the 'consultation time' Ofcom can safely ignore submissions, as no one will ever know if they were 'registered' or not.

We need to encourage people to submit very early, so that they will see if there response has been credited.  Subtracting 14 days from the 'no. of days remaining' on this site clock might hurry contributors along??

I don't think it makes much difference if they are two weeks behind or not.  All it means that in two weeks after the consultation has ended then every response should be up there.  Even if you have asked for your name&address withheld, you would be able to remember what you wrote so two weeks after it closes if it still doesn't show then you know they are withholding some responses back.

I haven't done mine yet.  Neither of the consultations to be honest but I'm holding mine off until just before the deadline in case I think of a few things to add. If I have already submitted them I'll be too late.

My thinking was that if you had not seen your own response, in that two weeks,  then it would be beyond the date and you couldn't even re-send it, as the consultation would then be closed.

Anyway mine are both in (but not showing yet...????).

wrote on Nov 5^th, 2005 at 12:53pm:

My thinking was that if you had not seen your own response, in that two weeks,  then it would be beyond the date and you couldn't even re-send it, as the consultation would then be closed.

In defence of Ofcom, it does accept late submissions and seems to be flexible to some degree in this respect. I actually believe it does want to receive public views about this topic.

wrote on Nov 5^th, 2005 at 12:58pm:

In defence of Ofcom, it does accept late submissions and seems to be flexible to some degree in this respect. I actually believe it does want to receive public views about this topic.

idb,

I wouldn't go as far as saying they want responses to the consultations as otherwise they would be sending out press releases to the national newspapers asking them to print articles about the consultation and the main bullet points in it and also the email address to respond to.  The indigestible 250 page and 50 page consultations and the failure to list all their currently running consultations on their home page says to me they are not very keen on responses.  And that they prefer only to have responses from the regular "stakeholders" that they like to work with, who are mainly in the telecoms industry.

However I do not believe that they will not publish the responses they do get in the end, even though it may take a couple of weeks because their IT section is busy with many other things.  Also one can actually send one's email asking for a read receipt and if one doesn't get a read receipt within a day or two of sending it one can can call up Clive Hillier or Geoff Brighton to ask them what has happened.

So they will publish all the responses they get on their web site in the end but to claim they actually welcome or encourage getting responses from the public is I think to go too far!  In fact if their Consultation department was a business and paid by the number of responses they received for any of their consultations I think they would long ago have gone bust due to lack of sales of their consultation response services.  Unfortunately the Fat Cats like Mr Stephen Carter continue to draw their large salaries no matter how poor a job Ofcom does.

And before i get an email in high dudgeon from the Ofcom Communications Director complaining about calling Mr Carter a Fat Cat and saying that this is not courteous talk I must say I really do think being paid 60% more than the prime minister as a civil servant who is not taking any business risks does make the said postholder very Fat Cat indeed.  Whereas I as a local governmental community representative at £3.5k per annum am a very Thin Cat indeed!

Lastly I wondered why none of you had commented on the fact that the shorter of the two Ofcom NTS consultations (only 50 pages instead of 200) does not have a Consultations link.  Does this mean no one has bothered to respond to this consultation or is Ofcom only publishing responses to both consultations in one place.  See http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/nts_info/ which has no responses section.

Also some of you asked why no body or company other than Norfolk Trading Standards had responded so far?  The answer to this is simple in that no company like NTL or BT responds until the last couple of hours on the last day because they do not want their commercial competitors to be able to see what their submission is when they are writing their own submissions to Ofcom.  So many such bodies will make submissions but you won't see them till the consultation has closed.  Or I think they can ask Ofcom to hold off on publication till the consultation is closed.

Lastly though many of you should be sending emails to the Consumers Association/Which asking them why they did not respond to the last consultation on such an important matter for consumers and demanding that they do respond to the consultation this time.  Send an email to Which Campaigns Director Nick Stace - nick.stace@which.co.uk and to their Chief Executive - peter.vicarysmith@which.co.uk demanding that they respond to the consultation and highlighting what you believe to be the main issues.

Quote:

Lastly though many of you should be sending emails to the Consumers Association/Which asking them why they did not respond to the last consultation on such an important matter for consumers and demanding that they do respond to the consultation 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.

Good idea! Thanks for providing the email addresses too - I've given Which? my electronic kick up the backside!!!

On this subject, I wondered what others thought about contacting more local authority Trading Standards/Consumer Protection Offices (mine being Birmingham) so to encourage them to participate in the consultation?  Just a thought?

There's one new submission on the Ofcom website at 4pm today (Nov 7), making a total of 185.

The new commments are from Giles D.

How many submissions did ofcom receive to the old NTS consultation?

Unfortunately this was before I joined this forum and I was therefore unaware of any consultation otherwise ofcom would have gotten an earful from me as well.

wrote on Nov 7^th, 2005 at 7:11pm:

How many submissions did ofcom receive to the old NTS consultation? Unfortunately this was before I joined this forum and I was therefore unaware of any consultation otherwise ofcom would have gotten an earful from me as well.

You can find the last consultation and the responses here:-

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

About 80 responses in total last time and about 30 from companies like BT and NTL plus various Associations and Consumer Groups.

So we are way past that already with over a month to go.  Could easily hit the 1,000 mark this time.

There were around eighty or so published responses to "Options for the future" at http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/ntsoptions/Responses/ and around twenty published responses to "NTS termination" at http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/ntsctmr/resntcctr/

wrote on Nov 7^th, 2005 at 7:18pm:

About 80 responses in total last time and about 30 from companies like BT and NTL plus various Associations and Consumer Groups.

Glad to see we are making a lot of progress. Ofcom will need better excuses this time round if they plan on not doing much.

wrote on Nov 7^th, 2005 at 7:30pm:

Glad to see we are making a lot of progress. Ofcom will need better excuses this time round if they plan on not doing much.

Except that a lot of responses just say well done Ofcom on doing something about 0870.  Even though that something won't happen till one year after whatever date Ofcom announces as being the start of the one year to end of 0870 revenue sharing clock date (so perhaps they will announce next July that the one year clock will start to run down beginning in December 2006 and ending in December 2007 ::)).

Also most people completely miss the 3 to 4 year delay on 0845 outrage and fail to say it is a total outrage that 0844 and 0871 be retained as revenue share codes and are not forced to move to 09 where they belong.

Also people fail to say it is an outrage that 07 PNS isn't reviewed within this NTS consultation.

I wonder if Ofcom employees have been asking all their friends to respond saying how great these proposal are.  After all we know how Ofcom always likes everything to turn out the way that best suits the interests of the telecoms industry. ::)

wrote on Nov 7^th, 2005 at 7:46pm:

After all we know how Ofcom always likes everything to turn out the way that best suits the interests of the telecoms industry. ::)

That is true.  It's probably because of the clever way they have written their summary report.  Unless you read the 200+ document you don't know the whole truth and ofcom knows that most people aren't going to read a 200+ page document.

wrote on Nov 7^th, 2005 at 7:49pm:

It's probably because of the clever way they have written their summary report.  Unless you read the 200+ document you don't know the whole truth and ofcom knows that most people aren't going to read a 200+ page document.

Aren't they the supposed to be the Communications Regulator though.  The way they behave anyone would think they were the legal regualtor as all of their so called consultation documents are masterpieces in obfuscation and not communicating!

There are 96 new submissions on the Ofcom website at 5pm today (Nov 9), making a total of 281. The new ones are listed below.

(And here's a reminder of where you can read the comments: http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/nts_forward/responses/)

Abayomi-Cole B
Allely N
Alton WS
Anderson A
Anderson C
Ansell J
Archdale G
Ashton M D
Atkins A
Baker T
Bassett Herron
Bell C
Birkin R
Bligh S
Bobroff D
Borrinsky J
Brewer H
Buckland Q
Catlow Dr R E  (but listed alphabetically as Dr R E Catlow)
Chamberlain B
Chambers K
Clark P
Cline P
Coady T
Cohen I
Cooke K
Coughlan T
Cox D
Cunningham D
Dakin N
Darkwolf K
David E
Dawson A
Dunning A
Dyer S
Emery L
Fawthrop L
Foy D
Garland R
Gaselee J
Giles D  (again)
Grossman R
Hamilton-Meikle G
Hartley B
Heaps D
Hough B
Hubbard J
Jay SA
Kaltz M
Kirkham R
Lopiate D
Lowden I
Macdonald A
Marriott J
Masson T
Mccarten J
Morris-Coole M
Murphy V
Name Withheld 5
Nethersole P
Newton M
Ormerod A
Peacock K
Pedrick C
Pitts D
Radford C
Raja M
Reilly S
Richardson K
Robinson G
Russell S
Seale I
Scott G E (but listed alphabetically as G E Scott)
Sedman C
Sim N
Skerrit R
Smith J
Solanki K
Stocking Z
Syree L
Taylor C
Taylor P
Terry A J
Thomas T
Trimmer BJ
Trotter M
Tuttle G
Tye C
Waldman P
Walker C
Warman BM
West H
White BJ
White T
Whittles P
Wilson G

wrote on Nov 9^th, 2005 at 5:20pm:

There are 96 new submissions on the Ofcom website at 5pm today (Nov 9), making a total of 281. The new ones are listed below. [...]

Thanks again for providing the updated names. You're doing something that Ofcom should do! Very helpful indeed.

Quote:

There are 96 new submissions on the Ofcom website at 5pm today (Nov 9), making a total of 281. The new ones are listed below.   (And here's a reminder of where you can read the comments: http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/nts_forward/responses/)

Thanks again for your useful posts, Ajr!

The total number of responses increased by nearly a hundred since last count - quite a jump. Hope it continues and some more!!!! ;)

There were 309 submissions on the Ofcom website at 2pm today (Nov 10), an increase of 28 since 5pm on Nov 9. The new ones are listed below.  

(And here's a reminder of where you can read the comments: http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/nts_forward/responses/)

Alder I
Atkins G
Bird R
Dovey M G
Flanders J
Forbes L
Grogan B
Hadi F
Harley L
Hedderly J
Hilton M
Hitchins J
Irwin J
Johnson A
Josephs J
Kerfoot A
Knight R
Leckie H
Lee P
Main-Ian B
McNulty R Y
Mistry D
Name Withheld 6
Name Withheld 7
Pennington J
Plumbe M
Robson T
Robson T

It seems to be heading for the thousand that I was hoping for, rather than a bit over a hundred as others suggested.

I hope you are right andy9, and that your hoped for target of 1000 is met. That would be extremely good, and I suspect most of the contributors to this forum would be very pleased.

wrote on Nov 10^th, 2005 at 3:43pm:

I hope you are right andy9, and that your hoped for target of 1000 is met. That would be extremely good, and I suspect most of the contributors to this forum would be very pleased.

Indeed. Five hundred would be good, but a thousand is certainly more than I envisaged.

One encouraging aspect is that the responses are not all boilerplate replies.

well, an increase of 30 a day, and picking up momentum ... who knows ...

[glb]One of the best way of increasing the numbers is by doing a mass e-mailout to the 4,800+ SayNoTo0870 forum members encouraging them not only to reply to the consultion but also to forward the email to others.  Imagine if 2,000 members forward the email to just another 20 people - already 40,000 become aware of the consultation opportunity!   [/glb]

I know I've raised this before (CLICK HERE)and at the risk of sounding impaitent, does anyone know how close we are to sending something out? I understand Forum Admin is intending to look at an e-mailout once he's completed the software upgrade (which I appreciate is a BIG job).

There were 383 submissions on the Ofcom website at 3pm today (Nov 11), an increase of 74 since 2pm on Nov 10. The new ones are listed below.  

(And here's a reminder of where you can read the comments: http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/nts_forward/responses/)

Abrol R
Austin R
Baker E
Baldwin S
Blum E E
Bone T
Brigden T
Brooks R
Bruff N
Bruin K
Cameron P
Currier G
Davies M
Elston M
Etherington B
Fitzgerald T
Fraser B
Freeman N
Freeman W
Gamlen J
Gardner G
Gill S
Gray R
Hacking I
Hall R
Harmer D
Harris J
Hopkinson R G
Hyams C
Inglis F
Jackson S
Johnston A
Katz A J
Kay E
Keir S
Mactaggart M
McDonald J
McKeon F J
Morley D
Morris G
Murphy W
Name Withheld 10
Name Withheld 11
Name Withheld 12
Name Withheld 13
Name Withheld 14
Name Withheld 15
Name Withheld 16
Name Withheld 17
Name Withheld 18
Name Withheld 8
Name Withheld 9
Ockwell D
Passmore J
Pope J
Rapport Telebusiness Consulting
Reeks P
Robbie R H
Robinson D
Sandland L
Sargent S J
Soobhany S
Taylor P
Temkin M
Thomas-Webster N
Thorpe G
Trebilcock R J
Vivian H
Waylett R
Whiteley J
Williamson P
Winks K
Wood J
Xi Software

This is an interesting one:

http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/nts_forward/responses/mr/rapport.pdf

Includes the following (note this is not the complete response) [my bold]:

<<
The proposal seems ill thought through and as usual with such cases, is driven by a highly vocal but minute lobby group who are totally unrepresentative of the general population.

As Marketing Manager at Cable & Wireless in the mid 90's, I was the first to introduce such a revenue share scheme as part of the "TeleBusiness Addvantage" pricing package for non-geographic numbers.

It was my view at the time, and still is, that in industries where the customer and competition is increasingly driving down costs of products and services, that some of that 0870 revenue should be returned to the company who was ultimately generating it (the corporate user).

In conditions nowadays when margins are even thinner in e.g. the travel industry, the small revenue shares available are barely sufficient to justify keeping helpdesks etc in operation. It's my firm view that abolishing revenue share on existing 0870 numbers will have a direct impact on the viability of such businesses along with companies that are currently able to provide complete services on the back of National rate numbers.

In conclusion, I do not believe it is Ofcom's remit to decide how Telco's distribute the profit they make from services that they provide to a public that is (generally) completely happy to use them.
>>

Yes but hold on,

What "service"? This exactly what the scam is about.

We must re-emphasize until Kingdom Come - talking to other subscribers using the telephone IS NOT A SERVICE! It is what the telephone was invented for!

wrote on Nov 11^th, 2005 at 7:47pm:

In conditions nowadays when margins are even thinner in e.g. the travel industry, the small revenue shares available are barely sufficient to justify keeping helpdesks etc in operation. [b]It's my firm view that abolishing revenue share on existing 0870 numbers will have a direct impact on the viability of such businesses along with companies that are currently able to provide complete services on the back of National rate numbers

But nobody is asking them to give up revenue sharing if they feel their business really cannot work without it.

All we ask is that such companies are up front that there is an explicit revenue share in making a call by using an 09 number with clear announcements of how much per minute the call is costing.

What we do object to is the con that people like this gentleman rely on of people being misled that calling 0870 is the same price as calling their friend at home when this is defininitely not the case.

Do you know what I find so insulting and offensive about the sort of garbage peddled by Mr Nick Velissarides (see the comment to Ofcom a couple of posts back)? It is that somehow all these poor companies will go to the wall without the "revenue share" they collect from calls to a help desk. Well, Mr Velissarides, perhaps you could explain to me why virtually EVERY help-desk number here in the United Staes is 1-800. Free. Nothing. No cost. Nix. Do I hear bleating and whining from the companies here? Is the service any worse for the free calls. No - I tell you for nothing - it is generally a d**ned sight better than it EVER is in the UK!

Do I see revenue share numbers for help desks in Australia? No - usually 1300 - a REAL untimed local call charge no matter where it terminates - and no matter how long you are on the call. Do I see Australian companies going to the wall because they "only" charge a local call? Not on your life!! If the economy of Rip-Off Britian was one tenth as good as that of Australia, there would be parties in the streets of London!!

So get real, Mr Velissarides - and come clean! It's not the often paltry revenue share given to the end subscriber that you are worried about - it's the fact your dirty little scam has been rumbled, and you face an uncertain future. Well, rest assured - the regulator in the UK is so weak there are bound to be other unethical scams you can get your grubby hands into......

Mr Velissarides says
"In conclusion, I do not believe it is Ofcom's remit to decide how Telco's
distribute the profit they make from services that they provide to a public
that is (generally) completely happy to use them."

Of course people are GENERALLY happy to use them- simply because they mainly do not KNOW the price they are paying, due to the scam this site is trying to publicise.  When enough consumers start to realise, see if they are happy, then, Mr V.!!

Re Nick Velissarides submission I actually agree with nearly all that he says, in particular the reason for the split usage between 0800, 0845 and 0870

BUT he misses the point that both Beginner and Non Geographic Man have so concisely identified. That is the majority of people don't actually realise what they are paying for by using 0870 or 0845 because it has been so well disguised by the use of terms like 'national' and 'local' and no price info provided.

Nick points out that consumers will punish those that abuse their use of these numbers. Normailly this is true but it won't in this case because the misinformation is so ingrained in the public mind. This is the classic requirement for a scam to work.

People who provide 0870 numbers know what they are doing and there are perfectly vaild reasons for doing so as Nick identified in his submission. In which case use 09 numbers. Those that are using them for legitimate reasons will come to no harm by doing so and scammers will be elliminated.

It is that simple isn't it?

People who provide 0845 numbers I believe generally do so for the reasons that Nick gives, like the Inland Revenue. At least anyway the call centre staff on the phone believe the caller is getting a cheap call. However as this number no longer gives any benefit and is generally more expensive than a geographic number then it should be removed or treated as a geographic number.

What is the point of an 0845 number that provides no benefit to the caller. Certainly a large number of the population incorrectly believe it does.

I agree Keith.

Most companies/gov depts that use 0845 are doing so under the belief that they are doing us customers/consumers better value because they think that local and national are probably still two separate rates.

Those companies/gov departments that use 0870 for their "features" will probably remain on 0870 even if they are charged at geo rates.  Those that are after the money in return are, I believe, likely to move to an 0844 that costs 5p/min all the time.

The only difference maybe is that companies like Sky that are obviously using these numbers for revenue share they receive may (but not likely) still continue to use these numbers due to the cost of migrating to another number.  This is at least what ofcom have said will happen.  I believe though the likely thing is to move to 0844 costing 5ppm all the time.  This is likely to be chosen over 0845 for 2 reasons.  Obviously revenue share is higher on 0844 and that 0845 is going to be monitored and could also go back to geographical albeit in 2/3 years.  Sky trying to avoid the cost of migrating again are unlikely to use 0845 for this reason.  As yet ofcom are doing very little about 0844 except proposing to make clear the cost of these calls.

But bbb_uk,

In your statement here you seem to be agreeing with Ofcom's proposal that 0844 should be charged at a Premium rate of 5 p per minute? I believe most of us on this forum do not agree that 0844 should be so charged, but that it should be charged at the same rate as a geographic number, at the rate for the intitiating telco for the call, (i.e. not BT's old rate or new rate).

dorf wrote on Nov 13^th, 2005 at 5:17pm:

In your statement here you seem to be agreeing with Ofcom's proposal that 0844 should be charged at a Premium rate of 5 p per minute?

I'm not agreeing that 0844 should be charged at 5ppm.  I said I believe that all these companies that say they are using 0870, etc for their features but in reality are using it for their revenue are going to migrate to an 0844 costing 5ppm.

I do not want 0844 to continue to have revenue sharing on them for the obvious reason is companies will just migrate but I do believe that ofcom are going to do nothing with these for the time being despite what we say.  Most responses so far have ignored the fact of 0844 and 0845.  To be honest even if all responses had mentioned 0844, I do believe that ofcom would still leave this alone.

BTW, I notice that ofcom's list of responses does include 2 replies from the same person.

If people like Velissarides send these ill-judged posts to ofcom, surely it is perfectly reasonable for us SAYNOers to send second posts in our names to the Consultation site to answer the assertions he now makes.

We can't be sure that Velissarides or ofcom will come to this site to see what we think of his comments.

There were 394 submissions on the Ofcom website at 4pm today (Nov 14), an increase of 11 since 3pm on Nov 11. The new ones are listed below.  

(And here's a reminder of where you can read the comments: http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/nts_forward/responses/)

Boyle L
Clouter R
Deichmann Shoes UK Ltd
Donaldson I
Hodder N F
Name Withheld 19
Name Withheld 20
Name Withheld 21
Name Withheld 22
Shaw R
Walker I

I'm a bit confused, AJR, (nothing new there then!) as I can only see 8 'withhelds' on the response list.
How do you find the 22 ?
Well done for keeping track of the additions - very helpful when 'viewing' the new ones.

Don't you just love the numerical order of the name withhelds under the above URL - (Tks for the posting AJR)?
Heaven help us with them in such control of numbering  :'(

I can only see 8 with-held responses, too.
Can somebody tell me where the other 14 can be found?  Can find all the new responses, as per AJR list, but not the with-helds.

Don't know why you can't see them. They're listed like this on the main page

Name and Address Withheld
Name Withheld 10
Name Withheld 11
Name Withheld 12
Name Withheld 13
Name Withheld 14
Name Withheld 15
Name Withheld 16
Name Withheld 17
Name Withheld 18
Name Withheld 19
Name Withheld 2
Name Withheld 20
Name Withheld 21
Name Withheld 22
Name Withheld 3
Name Withheld 4
Name Withheld 5
Name Withheld 6
Name Withheld 7
Name Withheld 8
Name Withheld 9

Are you using Internet Explorer? Maybe the page has not refreshed - try the refresh button or Ctrl+F5. Also, have a look at the Refresh settings. Click on Tools/Internet Options; select the General tab; under Temporary Internet Files click on the Settings button. If Check For New Versions is set to Automatically, you could change it to Every Time. Then you can be sure that you always get new content.

On reading some of the responses I have been struck by ones similar to D. Pitts, where the answers simply say, "I agree, I agree, I........", to ALL the questions.  No comments , nothing other than "I agree" .
This smells.  How can anyone read this document and not have some qualms about something in there??  I think we should be prepared for an influx of 'sponsored' replies in full agreement - so that in their final analysis Ofcom will be able to say "x percentage agree with us, unconditionally."
It's a dirty commercail world out there.

Hi AJR, thanks for the assistance- BUT it still will not come up with anything but the 8 I already see.
I checked the 'every time' setting, have done countless 'refresshes' and still I cannot get anything other than the 8 :(.

I can get all the new 'named' contributions, Boyle, Clouter etc, but still none of the 'with-helds'.  O well, as long as someone can see them I suppose that's OK.
Thanks again.

firestop wrote on Nov 15^th, 2005 at 9:20am:

On reading some of the responses I have been struck by ones similar to D. Pitts, where the answers simply say, "I agree, I agree, I........", to ALL the questions.  No comments , nothing other than "I agree" . This smells.  How can anyone read this document and not have some qualms about something in there??  I think we should be prepared for an influx of 'sponsored' replies in full agreement - so that in their final analysis Ofcom will be able to say "x percentage agree with us, unconditionally." It's a dirty commercial world out there.

Ofcom has how many employees and BT and NTL has how many employees?  And they know how many friends etc that they can send an email to suggesting that they might perhaps like to respond to this important consultation on their own initiative to ensure these fine and worthy proposals are carried against the views of the whingers.  And all they need to do in their responses is say Yes, Yes, Yes......

I think we may end up having to put in an FOI disclosure to Ofcom asking for the names and addresses of those responding since as you have seen Ofcom feel they are witin their rights to withhold names and addresses and phone numbers and email addresses of respondees, even for those who have not asked for them to be withheld.  Why is this?  If people write to the local council about a planning application then name, address etc are all readily available to view.

I think some market research on the Yes, Yes, Yes respondees and their motivations in responding could prove very illuminating indeed.  And since Ofcom is merely an offshoot of the New Labour apparatus we all know how New Labour is used to rigging surveys and consultations.  It must be annoying for them that they haven't yet found a way to rig the results of the general election the way they want too.

ajr

Finally got my withhelds. I ran 'cc cleaner' and tried again and they were there. Must have benn some temp file or something blocking them.
Suggest firestop tries same!

I fear you are absolutely correct NGM. They will stop at nothing to distort the realities, and they are probably already pulling out all the stops, since the total is bound to be over 400 we now know and most of these are not yet the "Yes, Yes, Yes" ones!

At this rate though I fear we are not likely to reach the magic 1000 hoped for, particularly by Andy9, which will be a great dissapointment, even if the telcos do fabricate fraudulent responses from their associates, employees and whoever else.

Dorf,

Be careful as you have managed to split one response on one issue across two posts there which I fear is not playing the game.  It is of course legitimate to make one post in response to ever post by another individual in the forum.  However I think it will be a sad day if members become obsessed merely by reaching the top of the tree and I have only even previously seen one member of the forum who I honestly felt was motivated in this way.

Along with Tanllan jrawle is one of our most longest standng and most informed members but as with Tanllan he does not seem to be bothered that he is not a Supreme Member.  And is there really much different in the terms Supreme Member and Senior Member?

Now if there was a category such as "Forum Guru" for those with more than 1,000 posts that might actually begin to have some real sex appeal. ;) [smiley=lolk.gif]

Lots more published responses today, including my own contribution; hopefully AJR will be along later to provide the update and latest tally.

This one is the best I have read so far: http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/nts_forward/responses/af/akademir.pdf

This sums up what I believe we all feel in a very concise manner.

idb wrote on Nov 15^th, 2005 at 4:13pm:

This one is the best I have read so far: http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/nts_forward/responses/af/akademir.pdf

This is what is known as short but to the point.  However I think by using equally brief variations on "abolish the whole bloody lot" for each question this person could probably have achieved an even greater effect.

I think this brief response is probably more effective and tells Ofcom how useless their efforts at consultation on this matter really are:-

www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/nts_forward/responses/withheld26.pdf

I am very concerned about all those responses that just copy the Ofcom question grid and put in Yes/No answers.  I just can't see a whole lot of private individuals doing that without also wanting to give some opinions too.  I think we should put in an FOI demanding the full names and addresses of all such respondents and then see if any of the surnames coincide with the names of Ofcom employees with more unusual last names.

idb wrote on Nov 15^th, 2005 at 4:13pm:

Lots more published responses today, including my own contribution; hopefully AJR will be along later to provide the update and latest tally.

Your 15 page response reads almost as a carbon copy of what has been forming in my own mind except that I was hoping to keep mine down to no more than 10 pages as I managed last time.

One thought though which is that your response would have been very even further improved for readability etc by the introduction of Bold underlined paragraph subheadings introducing each new subtopic.  Unfortunately being realistic these Ofcom men are lazy and complacent, as you have highlighted in your response, so if they had been able to review your document on the basis of the main items highlighted, whilst then dipping into a large number of them, it might have assisted.  I am just a little concerned they may not read your response at all.

I can see that you and I are of very like minds in our analysis of these matters and in our writing style.

You could argue that Ofcom will need to split these responses up into short responses from Jo Public and expert responses but I expect they will refuse to do so on the grounds of subjectivity.  They may well put the corporate responses from business under a different subheading though?

There is a very interesting response here from a business called Oracle Financial Services saying how much more 084/7 calls are costing their business:-

www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/nts_forward/responses/mr/oracle.pdf

One thought has just occurred to me which is that even many of the businesses who run 0870 call centres are actually losing out because unless they get vastly more incoming calls than they make outgoing (as is no doubt true for say Sky) then although they get 3p or 4p per minute incoming they pay 7.5p per minute instead of say 1p per minute outgoing.  So everyone loses apart from NTL, BT and other Terminating Call Parties who cream off the other 3p to 4p per minute not given to the call centre operators.

wrote on Nov 15^th, 2005 at 4:42pm:

Your 15 page response reads almost as a carbon copy of what has been forming in my own mind except that I was hoping to keep mine down to no more than 10 pages as I managed last time. One thought though which is that your response would have been very even further improved for readability etc by the introduction of Bold underlined paragraph subheadings introducing each new subtopic.  Unfortunately being realistic these Ofcom men are lazy and complacent, as you have highlighted in your response, so if they had been able to review your document on the basis of the main items highlighted, whilst then dipping into a large number of them, it might have assisted.  I am just a little concerned they may not read your response at all. I can see that you and I are of very like minds in our analysis of these matters and in our writing style. You could argue that Ofcom will need to split these responses up into short responses from Jo Public and expert responses but I expect they will refuse to do so on the grounds of subjectivity.  They may well put the corporate responses from business under a different subheading though?

I could have cut the response down a bit, and yes, it was my intention to provide sections, but this never materialized! Yesterday was my cut-off date, so it was going to be submitted whatever state it was in. I suspect Ofcom has to read the responses in order to see whether they contain anything that may be considered defamatory, however I really couldn't care less whether it looks at my response to any significant extent - what was important for me was to get a few important paragraphs into the public domain, particularly the admission by Ofcom that it is aware of the problems with international inbound access. That, for me, is the key argument.

Now all I have to do is find some time to respond to the NTS info condoc.

There were 422 submissions on the Ofcom website at 5pm today (Nov 15), an increase of 28 since 4pm on Nov 14. The new ones are listed below.  

(And here's a reminder of where you can read the comments: http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/nts_forward/responses/)

Akademir A
Akademir A 2
Bottom I
Campbell C D
Cocking B J
Cox R
Dixon J
Ebling P
Elmes M
Kelly R
Mileto R
Momen M
Name Withheld 23
Name Withheld 24
Name Withheld 25
Name Withheld 26
Name Withheld 27
Name Withheld 28
Name Withheld 29
Name Withheld 30
Name Withheld 31
Name Withheld 32
O L Grainger Associates
Page F
Seabury S
Sharp J A
Steele A
Withers S

wrote on Nov 15^th, 2005 at 4:59pm:

One thought has just occurred to me which is that even many of the businesses who run 0870 call centres are actually losing out because unless they get vastly more incoming calls than they make outgoing (as is no doubt true for say Sky) then although they get 3p or 4p per minute incoming they pay 7.5p per minute instead of say 1p per minute outgoing.  So everyone loses apart from NTL, BT and other Terminating Call Parties who cream off the other 3p to 4p per minute not given to the call centre operators.

You make a good point about businesses. My former employer in the UK used to (and I assume still does) run an employee information line on, guess what, an outsourced 0870 number. The company has over 10,000 staff. It was more than happy for the staff to call this number from the office during peak times at presumably 8p/minute, as opposed to providing the same information on an internal extension/mailbox of its iSDX systems as it does with its 'snow line' which advises about site closures in the winter. What hope is there for UK plc to compete with developing countries and emerging economies when these people are so completely clueless, even when the obvious is pointed out to them (which is what I did!). As far as I could tell, it chose the 0870 number because a) it was 'advised' by a consultant to do so, b) it is a 'sexy' number range and c) everyone else is doing it, so join the club.

NGM, I note that you have spread your last post in this topic over three posts. No wonder you have such a high "number" of posts. :D

Perhaps the pot calling the kettle black?  :P

422 is a good number though and 500 is thus not so far off. But has anyone yet looked at the balance of these responses? Are most of them slating Ofcom or are most of them praising Ofcom for getting it right?

Hi idb,

It seems that Ofcom have been removing all emphasis in the published responses. I had underlining and bold characters in mine and they zapped them all.

This is probably to reduce the effect of this because most emphasis is to highlight their failings!

dorf wrote on Nov 15^th, 2005 at 7:32pm:

Hi idb, It seems that Ofcom have been removing all emphasis in the published responses. I had underlining and bold characters in mine and they zapped them all. This is probably to reduce the effect of this because most emphasis is to highlight their failings!

Dorf,

This is also allied with their other cunning tactic of failing to provide an email address or postal address or telephone number for any consultation respondents (even those who do not want to withhold their name) so as to make it impossible for pressure groups to easily form.  By the way Dorf have you complained to Ms Vicki Nash, Ofcom's new consultation champion about the alteration of your document as I know you made it a condition of your response that they should not do this.

I post below a copy of my email to Ms Nash of this morning regarding their delay in publishing any responses to the 070 PNS consultation and also about their withholding of postal and email addresses for respondents to their consultations.

-----Original Message-----
From: NGM
Sent: 15 November 2005 12:03
To: vicki.nash@ofcom.org.uk
Cc: matt.peacock@ofcom.org.uk; stephen.carter@ofcom.org.uk; ed.richards@ofcom.org.uk; kip.meek@ofcom.org.uk; gareth.davies@ofcom.org.uk; colette.bowe@ofcomconsumerpanel.org.uk; bob.twitchin@ofcomconsumerpanel.org.uk; consumerpanel@ofcom.org.uk
Subject: Publication of Responses to Ofcom Consultations and Names & Addresses of Respondents

Dear Ms Nash,

Further to our recent email discussions I now write on a couple of further issues connected with Ofcom Consultations:-

1. I responded to your 070 PNS Guidelines Consultation that closed last Tuesday 8th November but to date neither my response or any other responses received to that consultation have yet been published.  Can you therefore tell me when you plan to publish those responses?  Also what is Ofcom's internal policy on publishing responses to consultations that the respondent is happy to have published in their own name?  Is your document scanning and/or website management department currently aiming to turn these responses around within any specific number of days?

2. Who is managing the presentation of consultation responses on your website since at present this is often done in a chaotic and inconsistent way and sometime firstname and surname are shown and other times only surname and initial.  Also where there are large numbers of respondents Ofcom seems to have the greatest possible difficulty in displaying them logically in alphabetical surname order.

3. Can Ofcom also explain its current policy of withholding the name, postal address, email address and/or phone number of respondents to consultations, even when the respondent has indicated they are entirely happy for their response to be published under their own name?  It seems obvious that one consequence of the withholding of this information is that it is advantageous to Ofcom since it prevents the easy formation of lobby groups of individuals who are not in agreement with a variety of Ofcom consultation proposals that fail to fully protect the best interests of uk citizens and consumers and instead protect the entrenched business interests of the telecommunications and broadcasting industries.  Can you explain on what basis you refuse to reveal even email addresses or telephone numbers of respondents to your consultations who are happy for their response to be identified?

I look forward to hearing from you on these matters,

Regards,

dorf wrote on Nov 15^th, 2005 at 7:32pm:

Hi idb, It seems that Ofcom have been removing all emphasis in the published responses. I had underlining and bold characters in mine and they zapped them all.

Yes, I noticed that you referred to this elsewhere, and I did consider adding a provision that it must not be altered prior to publication. As far as I can tell, it has not changed my response in any way.



dorf wrote on Nov 15^th, 2005 at 7:32pm:

This is probably to reduce the effect of this because most emphasis is to highlight their failings!

I intended to use more emphasis and bold type but never got round to it. Oh well, there is always next time as the inevitable next consultation will turn up in due course.

Name prediction time:

1 - Options for the future
2 - The way forward
3 - ????

It's like a movie series really. NTS Strikes Back? Return of the TCP? Willy Wonka and the inappropriate use of telephone numbers?

dorf wrote on Nov 15^th, 2005 at 7:25pm:

...has anyone yet looked at the balance of these responses? Are most of them slating Ofcom or are most of them praising Ofcom for getting it right?

Most of the ones I read were praising ofcom for doing something.  This is all because of the way they phrased their questions & summary.  Only if you read the 200+ page document do you know the full ins & outs.  Everyone knows that very few people in the grand scheme of things are going to read a 200+ page document.

They also released the other consultation at the same time but this has got very little attention and I suspect was a plan by ofcom to avoid the spotlight.  Both consultations are directly related to the whole 084x/087x issue so why put them in different consultations?  The website summary for the first (main) consultation doesn't even mention the other consultation.  I only knew about this other consultation after reading the 200+ consultation.

I do believe that's why they also released the 07 consultation (with only a very limited consultation period) as less attention would then be on this.

As always a clever plan by ofcom to avoid having to fulfill their obligations to us consumers.

idb wrote on Nov 15^th, 2005 at 7:58pm:

...Name prediction time: 1 - Options for the future 2 - The way forward 3 - ???? It's like a movie series really. NTS Strikes Back? Return of the TCP? Willy Wonka and the inappropriate use of telephone numbers?

I'm not too concerned with the name rather than how many series there is likely to be before anything is truly done?  What do you think to 7 or even higher?

bbb_uk wrote on Nov 15^th, 2005 at 8:02pm:

I'm not too concerned with the name rather than how many series there is likely to be before anything is truly done?  What do you think to 7 or even higher?

And of course the 1 year clock to act on 0870 only starts at the earliest from when they report back on this consultation making new regulations, which is sure not to be till next summer, especially with the well paid Ofcom staff going away on so many frequent holidays.  And if they are so surprised and overwhelmed at all the public response to this consultation and feel they then have to incorporate the unexpected level of comments and launch yet another consultation on all this well then it could be at least 18 months from now till the 1 year clock to the end of 0870 revenue sharing starts.

Actually my reading of the consultation is that where people have done more than just answer the questions (which really shows a total lack of brain power and effort on the part of the people concerned) there is overwhelming hostilty to the continuation of all 08 revenue sharing in any form (Ofcom's Option 4 in their last NTS consultation).  And by contrast there is only one response so far that says the abolition of 08 NTS is a great loss and should definitely not be allowed.

Unfortunately many people who have responded who clearly visit this site only to look up alternate geographic numbers (but obviously never particpate in the forum from their comments) have been hoodwinked into thinking it was all Ofcom's idea to do something about 0870 and have no idea of the background.  They are the ones who mainly say Yes, Yes, Yes.  But where anyone writes a few paragraphs the overall tone is that all 084/7 is a total scam and should be stopped.

On the 0871 being regulated by ICSTIS issue many just say yes its a good idea but a few brighter ones do say "no this should be moved to 09".  The thing is if all the people who say lets regulate 0871 with ICSTIS had been asked if 0871 and 0844 should also be renumbered 09 we know they would all have said Yes to that too.  Unfortunately most people only treat things in life at a superficial level and it doesn't seem to occur to them that there are many more issues involved other than the questions that Ofcom has chosen to ask.  If many of these people now take degrees then no wonder they are having to make exams easier so as to get far more of the population through them. ::)

Well the other difficulty is that when you have various media vehicles like Working Lunch and Martin Lewis claiming almost that Ofcom are about to end the scams with 0870, but failing to publish the full details of their chicanery it is hardly surprising that relatively ill-informed members of the public are misled.

dorf wrote on Nov 15^th, 2005 at 9:50pm:

it is hardly surprising that relatively ill-informed members of the public are misled.

That is exactly what it comes down to.  Everytime I try and explain to people that 08x numbers earn revenue it was no they don't. That's what 09x numbers are for.

The government using an 0870 for the london bombing and some press-releases that followed is what has highlighted this more.  I suspect that's why this consultation has nearly 500 responses compared to around 100 (I think) on the last one.  I personally believe it's all down to the fact that for years 084x numbers were known and described as local rate, and 087x numbers were known and described as national rate.

bbb_uk wrote on Nov 15^th, 2005 at 10:21pm:

I personally believe it's all down to the fact that for years 084x numbers were known and described as local rate, and 087x numbers were known and described as national rate.

bbb,

0845 still are described as being unpredictably either Lo-Call or Local Rate on my BT online billing View Recent Calls facility.

Some 0845s are listed under the Lo-Call section and others under the Local Rate section but both things are patently no longer true.  Also 0870 numbers are all listed under the National Rate heading that also includes 01 and 02 calls (or would do if I didn't route all of those away from BT)

So as long as the totally ineffectual regulator still allows BT to lie to its customers in this way to this day then no wonder things are as bad as they are!.

No new submissions added today.

wrote on Nov 15^th, 2005 at 11:21pm:

Some 0845s are listed under the Lo-Call section and others under the Local Rate section but both things are patently no longer true.  Also 0870 numbers are all listed under the National Rate heading that also includes 01 and 02 calls (or would do if I didn't route all of those away from BT)

I agree.

What also doesn't help is that ofcom themselves state that "0845 numbers are priced (before call packages and discounts) at BT's standard 'local rate' for BT customers".  Although this is technically true for those still paying BT's standard charge (only BT Lower User Scheme), I believe can lead people to believe it is local rate simply because many consumers out there know will just think that BT's Together Option 1 is BT's standard line rental when it is not.  They will think this simply because they are probably not aware of BT Light User Scheme due to the fact that BT hide this tariff in far away places on their website.

A more better description needs to be adopted and ofcom's wording above is amended accordingly.  This isn't likely to happen though because technically ofcom are correct in their wording.

bbb_uk, surely Ofcom are not technically correct in this , since now a very small proportion of BT's customers are on the Light User Tariff. Therefore the vast majority of telephone subscribers do not now pay BT's standard Local rate for 0845 calls, and those using other telco carriers certainly do not. Their statement is therefore not only technically completely incorrect, but it is also grossly and deliberately misleading since almost everyone therefore is paying higher rates for 0845 calls.

dorf wrote on Nov 16^th, 2005 at 6:34pm:

bbb_uk, surely Ofcom are not technically correct in this , since now a very small proportion of BT's customers are on the Light User Tariff. Therefore the vast majority of telephone subscribers do not now pay BT's standard Local rate for 0845 calls, and those using other telco carriers certainly do not. Their statement is therefore not only technically completely incorrect, but it is also grossly and deliberately misleading since almost everyone therefore is paying higher rates for 0845 calls.

I agree with you Dorf but it seems that the senior bigwigs at Ofcom don't want to make life hard for the dialup ISP parts of their old employers like AOL and NTL.  This seems to be much more important to them than providing cheaper phone call costs for uk telecoms consumers.

What, ignoring the interests of Citizen Consumers again NGM? Surely not!

dorf wrote on Nov 16^th, 2005 at 6:34pm:

bbb_uk, surely Ofcom are not technically correct in this , since now a very small proportion of BT's customers are on the Light User Tariff...

I agree it's completely wrong but ofcom are careful to put in "before call packages and discounts".  This essentially means it applies to BT Light user scheme customers where the 0845 is same as local geo and 0870 is same as national geo.

That's why I mentioned ofcom should choose better words or description simply because, like I said, many consumers would just naturally think that their £10.50 BT Together Option 1 is BT's standard line rental as they are probably not even aware that BT Light User Scheme exists.

It's technically correct (from what I can see) but never the less can be easily misread and misunderstood to mean those on BT Together Option 1 except for those well informed people to know that it isn't and only applies to the very difficult to find, BT Light User Scheme.

UPDATE:

A better description could be like:-

"0845 numbers are priced (before call packages and discounts - ie those on BT's Light User Scheme) at BT's standard 'local rate' for BT customers".  Possibly even something similar so long as they make aware that those prices only apply to those on BT's Light User Scheme.

In other words bbb_uk, its just another example of the smoke and mirrors deceiptfulness of Ofcom? Like: "You are Green (unless you are a human being)"?

You can see the inextricable commonality between Ofcom and BT can you not? They have the same style of small print and deliberate misinformation. The similarities are far too great to be just coincidence.

dorf wrote on Nov 16^th, 2005 at 7:01pm:

You can see the inextricable commonality between Ofcom and BT can you not? They have the same style of small print and deliberate misinformation. The similarities are far too great to be just coincidence.

I think I am right in saying that several members of the Ofcom Board and quite a few of its senior employees once used to work for BT.  So surely the similarities in approach come as no surprise. ::)

No, they certainly do not NGM and they clearly very overtly continue without any shame or embarrassment whatever.

apologies for going back a bit to the man from C&W

Quote:

As Marketing Manager at Cable & Wireless in the mid 90's, I was the first to introduce such a revenue share scheme as part of the "TeleBusiness Addvantage" pricing package for non-geographic numbers. It was my view at the time, and still is, that in industries where the customer and competition is increasingly driving down costs of products and services, that some of that 0870 revenue should be returned to the company who was ultimately generating it (the corporate user).

What has never been explained, and perhaps never will be properly, is that BT rates stayed at 8p/min for national calls for years, whilst other providers like C&W and Energis opened up the use of 0870 numbers which they were able to route for around 3p/minute but charge more.

Someone better at history than me may be able to say when other providers came into the corporate market, and how much later into retail. This is the true moment when 0870 mispricing was born, even though it stayed latent for years longer, until national rate was dropped to 3p/min.

That is the trouble with the whole argument - like asking for directions in another country, and the reply "If I was you I wouldn't start from here". The market was deregulated only in irregular steps; the re-numbering was cocked up; other countries have a range of non-geographic numbers that at least give some indication of tariffs, like France and Austria.

There is a place for some non-geographic numbers, like call-through to international, or internet access, as long as the tariffs are clearer. I don't think that they need to move all numbers to 09... ; a transition to a wider range of 08 numbers as mentioned above would be fine.


Incidentally, about Energis, possibly the first 08706 provider - I read on their website recently a press release that they and Siemens had jointly won a contract with the BBC for telephone distribution. I intended to post it around here somewhere, but their site is now defunct after the C&W takeover. I don't know if this supersedes the Capita deal that others have mentioned or complements it ...

Andy9 I am afraid I could not disagree more about your implied belief that it is acceptable for some non-09 NGN uses such as connections to ISPs and call-through international providers to continue to be Revenue Sharing (used as disguised Premium numbers).

You ask for the history of it. Well, when the National Telephone Numbering Plan (NTNP) was introduced one of the key concepts was to move all Revenue Sharing (Premium) numbers, which previously had been littered within various unidentifiable code blocks to 09 by decree. From then on no Premium use was to have been allowed in any other block, and all call queuing was prohibited on Premium numbers. The purpose of this was to ensure that the Citizen Consumer could thenceforth easily identify and know which numbers were Premium numbers, and to protect the Citizen Consumer from the inevitable abuses which had already then occurred with queuing.

I think you will find that it was BT who first commenced abusing other NGN blocks and using them as disguised Premium numbers. The first abuse I recall was with ISPs. Oftel went to sleep, or more likely were encouraged directly to accept it, and did nothing to cease or prohibit this first abuse of the NTNP by BT. BT thus encouraged then began to similarly abuse other blocks in the same way and Oftel did nothing. The term "Revenue Sharing" was in fact invented by BT and Oftel when the questions began to be asked about the abuses, to attempt to conceal the fact that these were direct abuses of the NTNP with other NGNs being used as Premium numbers. Oftel claimed that "Revenue Sharing" was completely different to Premium use, whereas the mechanism and the effect is identical.

Even though Ofcom now change the NTNP increasingly frequently to justify and allow the increasing abuses as they are asked by telcos, at present the NTNP still defines clearly that all Premium use must be within the 09 category only and that call queuing is prohibited. Ofcom have in effect now introduced a major conflict in the NTNP, and the position is entirely similar to the commandments written on the barn wall in Orwell's "Animal Farm". They get changed each night to permit the latest round of abuses which the telcos want to be able to perpetrate! Clearly none of this is in the interest of the Citizen Consumer.

So I must completely disagree with you on this point. The root of the problem is that as that as Ofcom  have played their game of deceit they have become hoisted by their own petard, just like the Pigs. They have altered part of the NTNP one night to allow the abuses, but they have overlooked the fact that since they did not alter the definition for the 09 category, since this could hardly be done in any suitable way which would not be completely blatant and outrageous, there is now a foundational conflict in the NTNP. The only true way in which they are in reality forced to address this is to move all revenue sharing uses where they belonged in the original NTNP and even within the Pigs currently mutilated NTNP. All Revenue Sharing numbers must be in the category 09 according to the NTNP, and call queuing must be prohibited.

dorf wrote on Nov 17^th, 2005 at 9:14am:

Ofcom have in effect now introduced a major conflict in the NTNP, and the position is entirely similar to the commandments written on the barn wall in Orwell's "Animal Farm". The root of the problem is that as that as Ofcom  have played their game of deceit they have become hoisted by their own petard, just like the Pigs. The only true way in which they are in reality forced to address this is to move all revenue sharing uses where they belonged in the original NTNP and even within the Pigs currently mutilated NTNP

dorf,

I think your Animal Farm analogy is especially appropriate for Ofcom.  But of course I believe Animal Farm can also be applied to New Labour, although it is so many years since I read it that I forget who exactly would be Snowball or Napoleon within the New Labour apparatus.

I too think that there is a place for revenue sharing on 08xx numbers in respect of call-through to international, or internet access numbers.

My employer bars access to 09xx premium and international numbers (yes, I know that it’s short-sighted as calls to mobiles cost more than some international numbers).  I have also been known to use an 0844 call-through number to access a UK number so as to hide the number I am contacting (sneaky, I’m afraid).

Has this problem been considered?

Kiwi_g wrote on Nov 17^th, 2005 at 11:56am:

I too think that there is a place for revenue sharing on 08xx numbers in respect of call-through to international, or internet access numbers. My employer bars access to 09xx premium and international numbers (yes, I know that it’s short-sighted as calls to mobiles cost more than some international numbers).  I have also been known to use an 0844 call-through number to access a UK number so as to hide the number I am contacting (sneaky, I’m afraid). Has this problem been considered?

In my view if all revenue share calls (even at 1p per minute) had to move to 09 there would be a fundamental shift of attitude by people such as your employers and they would have to allow access to all 09 numbers charging up to say 10p per minute.  The 09 codes are allocated in such a way in terms of price that this should be possible.

Once 09 numbers were not just sex chat lines but also some legitimate services at up to 10p or even 20p per minute they would have to focus more effort on just banning the high priced 09 games and sex chat lines.

If you have an employer who monitors your phone calling patterns the best solution is to get a cheap mobile phone with inclusive minutes such as those available for very little with Three.

I agree NGM except not sure about PAYG dial-up but really PAYG dial-up should have been allocated it's own number anyhow same as dial-up for schools.

If ofcom aren't going to do nothing about 0844 (which we all know they wont) then they should, at the very least, prohibit call queuing on these numbers in the interim.  So all those companies that are going to migrate over to these numbers will not gain any money from us for queuing for 20+ mins and only when we actually speak to a human will we be charged.  I've found that the queuing is generally longer than the time you are on the phone speaking to a human.

bbb_uk wrote on Nov 17^th, 2005 at 12:42pm:

I agree NGM except not sure about PAYG dial-up but really PAYG dial-up should have been allocated it's own number anyhow same as dial-up for schools. If ofcom aren't going to do nothing about 0844 (which we all know they wont) then they should, at the very least, prohibit call queuing on these numbers in the interim.  So all those companies that are going to migrate over to these numbers will not gain any money from us for queuing for 20+ mins and only when we actually speak to a human will we be charged.  I've found that the queuing is generally longer than the time you are on the phone speaking to a human.

bbb,

what are you in effect saying is that Ofcom's proposals should also have put 0844 under ICSTIS control which is a point all of us should be making in our submissions to Ofcom.

But in my view any revenue sharing number under ICSTIS control should be on an 09 code.  However there could of course be a separate number prefix starting say 04 for revenue sharing numbers controlled by ICSTIS at say 15p per minute or less.  Perhaps this would get over the call barring problem for dial though call access services etc whilst not having the negative connotations that ISPs fear if they had to start using an 09 code.  Although to be honest by the time these proposals come in during mid 2007 you are sure to be able to get some flavour of broadband for £7.50 per month and the need for dialup wil be ever diminishing.

But NGM that would still defeat the purpose and spirit of the NTNP. The purpose was that all revenue sharing numbers should be moved to 09 and queuing prohibited. The foundational reason was so that Citizen Consumers can easily recognise which numbers are revenue sharing numbers. To speak of having other number blocks which may have revenue sharing for different purposes is a retrograde step, and a reversion to the confusion and disparity which the NTNP plan was designed originally to end.

I see no reason that sub-categories of the 09 bank cannot be provided at different cost rates for all of the applications which you mention, and I believe that is the only way for the true interests of the Citizen Consumer to be met.

dorf wrote on Nov 17^th, 2005 at 2:36pm:

But NGM that would still defeat the purpose and spirit of the NTNP. The purpose was that all revenue sharing numbers should be moved to 09 and queuing prohibited. The foundational reason was so that Citizen Consumers can easily recognise which numbers are revenue sharing numbers. To speak of having other number blocks which may have revenue sharing for different purposes is a retrograde step, and a reversion to the confusion and disparity which the NTNP plan was designed originally to end. I see no reason that sub-categories of the 09 bank cannot be provided at different cost rates for all of the applications which you mention, and I believe that is the only way for the true interests of the Citizen Consumer to be met.

Dorf,

I mostly agree with your stand of principle on only using 09 for revenue share and I would of course make 070 PNS illegal and force it to move to 09 for that very reason.

However knowing how the Ofcom mind works I can see that they would say that forcing lower cost revenue sharers to use the very negatively associated 09 prefix might destroy their business and these calls might then be barred by corporate switchboards etc for historic reasons.  And surely you would agree that having a second 04 revenue share access whilst eliminating all 08 revenue share might be a better outcome than allowing revenue share to continue on 0871 and 0844 as Ofcom propose.

I would actually take up a suggestion made by idb and somehow make the 0870 and 0845 codes themselves start 01 and 02 (even if it meant a new access code for all these numbers) once they were returned to geographic pricing and I would retain the 08 prefix for freephone calls alone as was clearly originally intended.

But realistically the useless fudging, compromising and in the pocket of telcos Ofcom won't do any of these things and will make the minimum change possible to least disadvantage its telco chums.  And then soon we will be faced with the whole different problem of Voip to Voip only services that want to charge callers for the privilege.  So the game will start all over again.

Yes of course you are correct with the realities of these things NGM, and what Ofcom will actually do; and of course you are completely correct with regard to 070 PNS. However I sense that you do in fact essentially agree with my point about the NTNP.

What Ofcom want to do is to have their cake and eat it so to speak. It was the regulators who implemented the NTNP (the plan). They are supposed to be the regulators which means they are supposed to "regulate" the telcos. Instead they have allowed the exact opposite to occur, and instead of regulating according to the regulations, their remit and the NTNP they have allowed the telcos to drive a coach and horses through all of it, and then in addition have changed the regulations and the NTNP bit by bit to whatever the telcos demand that they want to do.

That is not regulation. That is conspiracy!

I do not see that one subdivision of the 09 category could not be allocated for all these lower cost uses, and treated by the telcos differently for Premium call banning purposes on subscriber's services. In other words there should be two levels of Premium call banning operated by telcos: one which bans all except the lower cost category calls (thus not banning ISPs etc. on the equivalent of the present 0845) and another which bans ALL 09 calls. I would myself have the one banning ALL 09 calls, and at present I have 09 banning.

wrote on Nov 17^th, 2005 at 1:02pm:

what are you in effect saying is that Ofcom's proposals should also have put 0844 under ICSTIS control which is a point all of us should be making in our submissions to Ofcom.

Yes that's my point.  They obviously don't have any plans on 0844 at all really so the very least they could do is put them under ICSTIS control.

0844 aren't that common as yet simply because businesses are probably unaware of them but they are all familiar with 087x, 0845.  An 0844 can cost more than a 0845 so ofcom should do something more like putting them under ICSTIS control especially as I suspect those companies like Sky, etc that use nothing but 0870 purely for the revenue will just move to 0844 and if ofcom don't do nothing now then that means another couple of years (going by ofcom's standards for getting things done) before 0844 is put under ICSTIS control or remove revenue sharing from it.  They need to think ahead more instead of thinking very, very short-term.

The number of responses ofcom have received so far should be a good idea of the scale of consumer dissatisfaction of these numbers but as with anything else unless everyone complains to ofcom they claim they don't know the level of dissatisfaction so they'll leave it alone.

As for 09x numbers, I believe confidence in them has dropped due to all the scams.  ICSTIS tries it's best but the scams earn that much that the pathetic fines they get are just equivalent to a days intake (or even a couple of hours depending on the scam).  The fines should either be unlimited or a percentage of the income received from these scams.

bbb_uk wrote on Nov 17^th, 2005 at 7:22pm:

[quote author=NonGeographicalMan link=1129806310/105#113 date=1132232567]As for 09x numbers, I believe confidence in them has dropped due to all the scams.  ICSTIS tries it's best but the scams earn that much that the pathetic fines they get are just equivalent to a days intake (or even a couple of hours depending on the scam).  The fines should either be unlimited or a percentage of the income received from these scams.

None of these 09 scams would happen if 09 numbers were deactivated by default on a subscriber line and could only be used by the subsciber requesting a PIN number that had to be entered before any 09 call.  It would then be the subscriber's choice as to whether they shared the PIN number with anyone else in the household.  If this was combined with compulsory price announcement the rogue dialler scams could not happen and people's kids and cleaners could not dial these numbers knowing that they don't have to pay the bill.

But Ofcom have permitted a system that deliberately allows the scams of their friends in the telecoms industry to continue totally unchallenged.  Ofcom are seemingly on the side of and secretly condone almost all forms of telecoms scamming because they claim all of this as valuable economic activity it would be a shame to lose.  Don't forget that for very 09 scammer who operates a part of the proceeds are usually also going into the pocket of BT for routing the calls. ::)

No new submissions on the Ofcom website since Nov 15.

Seems the public responses are 'drying up'.
The promised campaign emails from Daniel (& martin MSE!!) seem to evapourated, what can now be done?
This is all very disappointing from the 'powers that be' on site.

AJR wrote on Nov 18^th, 2005 at 7:47am:

No new submissions on the Ofcom website since Nov 15.

Perhaps they are trying to think of a new strategy for displaying another 500?

There were 468 submissions to the 0870 debate on the Ofcom website today at 4pm, an increase of 46 (I don't think the new ones were there on Friday).

(And here's a reminder of where you can read the comments: http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/nts_forward/responses/)

These are the new ones added today.

Barnes D
Botibol D
Caves F
Crisp K D
Davani S
Digby J
Edgar I
Fisher M
Gorman-Charlton J
Healey D
Heather C
Horswill A
MacCallum I
Marchant H
McAsey A
Milson A
Name Withheld 1
Name Withheld 33
Name Withheld 34
Name Withheld 35
Name Withheld 36
Name Withheld 37
Name Withheld 38
Name Withheld 39
Name Withheld 40
Newbery P
Nixon R
Novacaster Ltd
Potter C
Read M R
Rowland S
Salaman B
Shepherd C
Simpson K A
Sweetman J
Teall K
Thorpe R
Timewell S
van Blankenstein M
Vincent R A
Wadsworth A
Whitfield M
Williams G
Williamson J
Woolf A
Ye A

Reading through the new posts, it certainly seems that about 90% (of those who give names) are calling for 0870/0845 to be included in the 'free call' packages. Pity more weren't suggesting that 0870/0845 simply be moved onto 09 premium .
However surely Ofcom will need to heed this large opinion and act? (sorry, porkers flying overhead disturbed my logic, there!!). :'(

There were 503 submissions to the 0870 debate on the Ofcom website today (Nov 22) at 6pm, a net increase of 35 since 4pm on Nov 21.

There were 41 new comments today but mysteriously, as far as I can see, six were dropped. (My apologies if I've missed these somehow.)

(Here's a reminder of where you can read the comments: http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/nts_forward/responses/)

These are the 41 new ones added today.

Calascione J
Cassini M
Cordell R
Cushing R
Doshi C
Farnham D
Forrest L
Goddard P
Harris N
Ho'Vell B
Hohler R
Holland D
Huggons S
Kronfli G
Lawrence B
Name Withheld 41
Name Withheld 42
Name Withheld 43
Name Withheld 44
Name Withheld 45
Name Withheld 46
Name Withheld 47
Name Withheld 48
Name Withheld 49
Name Withheld 50
Name Withheld 51
Name Withheld 52
Name Withheld 53
Name Withheld 54
Neve D
Parker A
Perrins L
Pochin C W D
Ritchie W
Robson A
Southampton Football Club
Steele T
Struck A
Strugnell L
Wellham M
Williams J

And these are the six that have disappeared:

Etherington B
Gupta S
Murphy W
Sim N
Wadsworth A
West H

The disappearance of these documents just reflects standard Ofcom ineptitude.  Who knows how many more responses they have received that they have lost. ::)

They still haven't published the response on the 070 consultation despite my demands for them to do so, and despite them only allowing 2 weeks for that consultation the lady responsible for it then immediately pushed off on holiday for a week or more.  So how was it they could only allow 2 weeks for that consultation. :o >:(

AJR wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2005 at 10:27pm:

Southampton Football Club

This one is interesting. This is indicative of just how precious the revenue share really is and demonstrates what many of us have thought for a long time.

Thanks,AJR, for keeping the updates going.
I must say I found 'Witheld 54' gave a very interesting answer to Q7:-
YES I agree that the package of measures we propose to introduce will tackle
most of the problems
My italics!!
Surely Ofcom don't employ people so dim they cannot follow simple instructions?? Now let me think about that for a moment.....

beginner wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2005 at 1:37pm:

Thanks,AJR, for keeping the updates going. I must say I found 'Witheld 54' gave a very interesting answer to Q7:- YES I agree that the package of measures we propose to introduce will tackle most of the problems My italics!! Surely Ofcom don't employ people so dim they cannot follow simple instructions?? Now let me think about that for a moment.....

I think we should submit an FOI request asking whether any of the people who have responded to the consultation are also employees of Ofcom.  The alternative would be to ask for a list of all their employees but I am sure they will refuse to release that on confidentiality grounds.

Obviously this request needs to be submitted after the consultation has closed.

Completely agree, NGM, I've long suspected not all is as it seems with the responses, in particular those not willing to be named (and shamed!! perhaps?)

beginner wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2005 at 2:42pm:

Completely agree, NGM, I've long suspected not all is as it seems with the responses, in particular those not willing to be named (and shamed!! perhaps?)

I'm also concerned about a large number of the named ones that just say Yes, Yes, Yes and just send back the questionnaire form.  I suppose a call to the Ofcom switchboard to be asked to be put through to some of those people could be illuminating.

By the way beginner you're not available for this forum at Ofcom in London tomorrow afternoon between 3pm and 5pm are you?

You seem to have very sensible views and we still have two places out of five left to take up at the forum.

Sorry, not possible to be there this time, but I hope you all do well and I would certainly be grateful for any feedback from the meet.  Maybe you could ask to be 'minutes secretary' !!!
Best wishes (from us all, I suspect).

There were 594 submissions to the 0870 debate on the Ofcom website today (Nov 23) at 6pm, an increase of 91 since 6pm on Nov 22.

(Here's a reminder of where you can read the comments: http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/nts_forward/responses/)

These are the new ones added today.

Anderson J
Baldwin J
Barnes M
Barrett A
Bird C
Brooke D
Brown J D
Butt Dr. A
Callen A
Chaffey D
Chaikin Linekar Z A
Clements M
Cooper B
Cradock J
Dalal V C
Davey S C
Douglas-Jones R
Dunning D
Dyson L S
Ellawala M
Fairweather I
Fenton N
Fleet J
Galley R
Gatling A D
Gavine I B
George G
Gill D
Goodliffe P
Goodwin J
Hammersley N
Haverty D
Heneker S
Hicks G
Huntley Rev. D A
Hutchinson K D
James M
Jones D H
Jones J I
Kawalec K
Kelly S
Kelsey A
Kelsey D
Khan R
Leigh J R
Loxton J
Lumb D
Matalia A
Moore C
Name Withheld 55
Name Withheld 56
Name Withheld 57
Name Withheld 58
Name Withheld 59
Name Withheld 60
Name Withheld 61
Name Withheld 62
Name Withheld 63
Name Withheld 64
Name Withheld 66
Name Withheld 67
Name Withheld 68
Name Withheld 69
Name withheld 70
Name Withheld 71
Parker D
Peak M
Perry H G O
Phee M
Phillips P
Pickles W
Porley R
Pritchard B
Pugh D
Redpath J
Rogers G
Rollison M F
Samson W
Semmens G
Smith P M
Smith V
Spooner J
Spooner R
Stop Silent Calls Campaign
Sunley R
Tuck D W
Vestey D
Waylett R
Whitham M
Wilson R
Woodhams T

I congratulate you on keeping track of these responses as, once again, Ofcom has seen fit to reorganize the list. Just what have they done to, for example, http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/nts_forward/responses/af/ ? Is this ordering solely designed to confuse? Why can't this shambolic organization employ some competent staff?

wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2005 at 3:22pm:

I'm also concerned about a large number of the named ones that just say Yes, Yes, Yes and just send back the questionnaire form.  I suppose a call to the Ofcom switchboard to be asked to be put through to some of those people could be illuminating.

Has anyone checked how many of these there are? It would be interesting to know. I don't think I can check on this while keeping track of new submissions but maybe someone else would like to have a look if they can spare the time.

idb wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2005 at 11:16pm:

Just what have they done to, for example, http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/nts_forward/responses/af/ ? Is this ordering solely designed to confuse? Why can't this shambolic organization employ some competent staff?

Actually, I wonder if they're trying to be helpful. It doesn't say so, but if you compare the lists with my list, you'll see that the latest ones are at the bottom. Each day's additions seem, at first glance, to be in alphabetically ordered blocks ending with the latest.

Mr Barnes sums up this consultation quite well at http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/nts_forward/responses/af/BarnesM.pdf

<<
PS I don’t really believe that this consultation process will change a single thing. You have
probably already made up “The Rules” The consultation is just horse manure
>>

And this one!!

http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/nts_forward/responses/gl/HammersleyN.pdf

<<
Ditch the 0870 numbers etc, and make people happy. I hope they are not being kept because someone from OFCOM is getting a back hander from each call made!
>>

AJR wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2005 at 11:21pm:

wrote on Nov 23rd, 2005 at 3:22pm: I'm also concerned about a large number of the named ones that just say Yes, Yes, Yes and just send back the questionnaire form.  I suppose a call to the Ofcom switchboard to be asked to be put through to some of those people could be illuminating. Has anyone checked how many of these there are? It would be interesting to know. I don't think I can check on this while keeping track of new submissions but maybe someone else would like to have a look if they can spare the time.

I will have a go when the consultation has closed and all responses have been published.  But for all I know there may be another 2,000 response in the last 10 days depending on what appears in the national newspapers and how many people are putting it off until the last possible moment.

Reading thru some responses I noticed this one  http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/nts_forward/responses/gl/KhanR.pdf
where the resomdent had asked for confidentiality of the whole response - and Ofcom show the lot!!

beginner wrote on Nov 24^th, 2005 at 6:58am:

Reading thru some responses I noticed this one  http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/nts_forward/responses/gl/KhanR.pdf where the resomdent had asked for confidentiality of the whole response - and Ofcom show the lot!!

A total shambles as ever.  They still haven't published any 070 consultation responses.

Yet Ofcom strip the email address and/or postal address details of people who would be perfectly happy to have them published in their response.  I feel sure their motivation on this is to stop the easy formation of lobbying groups.

AJR wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2005 at 11:29pm:

Actually, I wonder if they're trying to be helpful. It doesn't say so, but if you compare the lists with my list, you'll see that the latest ones are at the bottom. Each day's additions seem, at first glance, to be in alphabetically ordered blocks ending with the latest.

Accepted that the ordering may well help keeping track of new responses (only just though), however the casual observer looking at the page will wonder why the list seems to be ordered in that way. All it needs is a date field or some other explanation of the seemingly random way the responses have been presented. Ofcom - this is not a difficult concept to grasp.

I note also that at 7:40 EST on Nov 24, all the responses have disappeared. There is a new response page relating to the 070 PNS consultation but that page lists no responses.

I suspect that Ofcom is trying to compete with PITO for the most incompetent organ of government.

For those attending the NTS meeting today, have fun, and let's see if we can rid the UK of these numbers once and for all, and we're looking to NGM to lead this effort. Probably best not to sit between DaveM and andy9 though.

(Only joking).

Happy Thanksgiving from a chilly Florida.

I cant see anything here either.

Seems that theyve 'lost' the responses.

idb wrote on Nov 24^th, 2005 at 12:56pm:

AJR wrote on Nov 23rd, 2005 at 11:29pm: Actually, I wonder if they're trying to be helpful. It doesn't say so, but if you compare the lists with my list, you'll see that the latest ones are at the bottom. Each day's additions seem, at first glance, to be in alphabetically ordered blocks ending with the latest. Happy Thanksgiving from a chilly Florida.

Yes, idb, I'm sure we are all feeling much better knowing the way you are suffering in 'chilly Florida'!
:'(

Well, here in tropical UK, the blizzards make such a nice change (from the simple cold and wet), don't you think? 8-)
But Merry Xmas to you, anyway!

mc661 wrote on Nov 24^th, 2005 at 10:48pm:

I cant see anything here either. Seems that theyve 'lost' the responses.

Not lost - just hiding!

I've just found that you can still get to them via the sub-folders:

http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/nts_forward/responses/af
http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/nts_forward/responses/gl
http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/nts_forward/responses/mr
http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/nts_forward/responses/sz
http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/nts_forward/responses/withheld

I haven't checked since they disappeared but I would guess that there are no new ones since the last update as the last Name Withheld is still number 71.

Another 54 comments added today (Nov 29), making a total of 648.

You can read the comments here: http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/nts_forward/responses/

And these are the new ones.

Aiken A  
Ashfaq M  
Bamford R  
Bennett K  
Boyland R  
Byrne D M  
Challis H  
Connolly R  
Continum Ltd  
Cooke J  
Corkill J  
Dennison H  
Dwyer B  
Evans R  
Finch P  
Goffe J  
Gray C  
Hanns J  
Harrison I  
Hewson C  
Hindley P  
Johnson R  
Losson N  
Martin S  
Mciver G  
Mussellwhite A  
Name Withheld 72  
Name Withheld 73  
Name Withheld 74  
Name Withheld 75  
Name Withheld 76  
Name Withheld 77  
Name Withheld 78  
Name Withheld 79  
Name Withheld 80  
Name Withheld 81  
Name Withheld 82  
Name Withheld 83  
Name Withheld 84  
Norfolk D  
Poulson M  
Prater S  
Rogers G  
Salmon B  
Shenton K A  
Sheridan R  
Simpson M  
Stanton J  
Tamayo P  
Tilsley J  
White C  
Williams H  
Woods P M  
Zaman N  

Interesting that Ofcom has published Continum's submission which is marked "In the Strictest Commercial Confidence".

AJR wrote on Nov 29^th, 2005 at 8:26pm:

Interesting that Ofcom has published Continum's submission which is marked "In the Strictest Commercial Confidence".

Sssssshhhhhhhhhssssssssssshhhhhhhhh! ;) ::)

I hope you have downloaded a copy before it gets removed.

Hi AJR
For information:
I sent my comment, by email, to Ofcom six days ago, but it has not been listed on the site.
KK

Quote:

Interesting that Ofcom has published Continum's submission which is marked "In the Strictest Commercial Confidence".

Its gone already!  Either the mistake was spotted quickly or ofcom are keeping a close eye on these forums!  :o

Is it very interesting as I'd like to take a look - if anyone can pm it to me I'd appreciate it!  Thanks

Which just goes to show what a keen watching interest Ofcom take in this site!!!!!

ps  gdh82, I have PM'd you, re. conti

It's still there on my browser. Maybe your browser is not updating (see my reply #73 on page 5 of this thread for earlier comments on this problem).  And I can still display the pdf file.

Again it looks like the 'withelds' are nearly all the 'Yes - men/women'.
Little dissent from the Ofcom line in the main, very fishy.

kk wrote on Nov 29^th, 2005 at 10:42pm:

Hi AJR For information: I sent my comment, by email, to Ofcom six days ago, but it has not been listed on the site. KK

Yep, they took a few days to put mine up onto their database.  Nothing to stop you posting a second one if you think they've missed your first - this has been done by others.

beginner wrote on Nov 30^th, 2005 at 8:38am:

Again it looks like the 'withelds' are nearly all the 'Yes - men/women'. Little dissent from the Ofcom line in the main, very fishy.

I am the first "withheld" response, and although it is not as indepth as some of the other responses, it is certainly not just a 'Yes man' response.

In fact reading through the proposal and formulating a response took a lot of time, and I am sure a lot of people who only have a passing interest would just give up reading, and just agree that changes need to be made, and any change is better than none, and therefore respond with yes/yes/yes for an easy life :/

Cheers, Des.

No offence, DesG, I was only making a general statement about 'most'.  I have read all the 'withelds', over the last weeks, and there certainly are a large proportion who seem to accept all the Ofcom questions unhesitatingly.
Bearing in mind that we all agree these questions are phrased to suit the 'easy reply' - thinking you are doing something by agreeing with them - so folk DO take the easy option, not realising they are then 'statistics fodder'.
How many 'Yes' to Q1 can they claim??  Even though this will allow them to keep 0870 at present charging rates!  Ofcom will be able to say "Nearly 100% agree with us on this".  Clever wording, easy answers.
As I said , no offence intended to yourself.

There were 104 new submissions to Ofcom today (Wed Nov 30), taking the total to 752.

You can read the responses here: http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/nts_forward/responses/

The new ones are:

Bush D  
Campbell R  
Chaikin Linkekar Z A  
Chinery J  
Cowley M  
Curry S  
Daniels P  
Dayneswood T (2)  
Dayneswood T  
Dinsdale R  
Douglas A  
Dunlop A  
Dyson LS  
Ebrahimoff D  
Edmunds K  
Ferguson D  
Flannery P  
Gardner S  
Glynn T  
Gomersal A  
Graham A  
Harrington D H  
Hickson G  
Hodge E P  
Horsley D  
Hoskins N S  
Jones K  
Jones M  
Kaye Dr. A H  
Kearney K  
Kiely J  
Kirkland A  
Kirkup J  
Kruger T  
Lisansky S  
Marson J  
Matthews H  
May J  
McKenna S  
Middleham N  
Milnes E R  
Mulholland P  
Mummery J  
Name Withheld 100  
Name Withheld 101  
Name Withheld 102  
Name Withheld 103  
Name Withheld 104  
Name Withheld 105  
Name Withheld 106  
Name Withheld 107  
Name Withheld 108  
Name Withheld 109  
Name Withheld 110  
Name Withheld 111  
Name Withheld 112  
Name Withheld 113  
Name Withheld 114  
Name Withheld 85  
Name Withheld 86  
Name Withheld 87  
Name Withheld 88  
Name Withheld 89  
Name Withheld 90  
Name Withheld 91  
Name Withheld 92  
Name Withheld 93  
Name Withheld 94  
Name Withheld 95  
Name Withheld 96  
Name Withheld 97  
Name Withheld 98  
Name Withheld 98  
Name Withheld 99  
O'Brien C  
Padron R  
Pardy T  
Parris M  
Patel M  
Penhallow P  
Pollack D  
Prendergast L J  
Preston Travel Centre  
Rees N W  
Richards G  
Ridout J  
Samanta B  
Saunders A  
Scott C  
Sibbald S  
Sibbald S  
Smithers D  
Stanton J  
Starkey C  
Stephen R  
Stephens P  
Steve and Company Group  
Sullivan E and M E Energy  
Tee K  
Thomas M  
Webber D  
Weir I  
Wilson H  
Wiseberg M  

beginner wrote on Nov 30^th, 2005 at 3:54pm:

No offence, DesG, I was only making a general statement about 'most'.

None taken :)


Quote:

I have read all the 'withelds', over the last weeks, and there certainly are a large proportion who seem to accept all the Ofcom questions unhesitatingly. Bearing in mind that we all agree these questions are phrased to suit the 'easy reply' - thinking you are doing something by agreeing with them - so folk DO take the easy option, not realising they are then 'statistics fodder'. How many 'Yes' to Q1 can they claim??  Even though this will allow them to keep 0870 at present charging rates!  Ofcom will be able to say "Nearly 100% agree with us on this".  Clever wording, easy answers.

I have just noticed I didn't actually answer yes or no for Q1, lol. Probably enough reason for them to not count my response statistically!

Cheers, Des.

Well done, AJR, for keeping up with all these updates.
Let's hope most are 'singing our tune'!
Must go and have a look.

http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/nts_forward/responses/sz/steve.pdf

This is actually my grandsons response, from his 'company'. Im still waiting for my response to be posted.

mc661 wrote on Dec 1^st, 2005 at 9:34pm:

http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/nts_forward/responses/sz/steve.pdf This is actually my grandsons response, from his 'company'. Im still waiting for my response to be posted.

What's that 0871 number doing at the top of it?  Regardless of what your grandson may have thought since they have published his response in full it is other 0871 haters who might then have to call it.  It also seems particularly inappropriate to have listed the geographic number as +44 1553 and only for "Overseas" callers.

There were 55 new responses today (Dec 1), making a total of 807.

You can read the responses here:
http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/nts_forward/responses/

These are the new submissions:

Appleford P  
Ashley S  
Avraham S  
Baul T  
Birchall L  
Calder J B  
Cavanagh J  
Clay P  
Cullender C  
Cushing R J  
Dean R  
Dodd M  
Dyer J & P  
Easton J H  
Eccleston A  
Errock D  
Flextel Ltd  
Freedman M  
Freeman D  
Goodwin S  
Grey C  
Guilfoyle S  
Hartley D  
Herd P  
Hutt J W  
Jackson P  
Jones B  
Kaye P  
MacDonald K  
McDermid H J  
Name Withheld 115  
Name Withheld 116  
Name Withheld 117  
Name Withheld 118  
Name Withheld 119  
Name Withheld 120  
Name Withheld 121  
Name Withheld 122  
Name Withheld 123  
Palmer J  
Penny M G  
Player Dr M  
Reed L  
Rees Dr R  
Scott C  
Senior R  
Spetch N  
Steeples S  
Townsley S  
Van Piggelen S  
Wakefield T  
Walton K  
Webb A  
Whiffen R M  
Young D  

Interesting to read the intelligent response from the industry perspective of Flextel

AJR wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2005 at 9:57am:

Interesting to read the intelligent response from the industry perspective of Flextel

I hope that Ofcom will be putting the 100 or so intelligent responses in a separate pile to read again and again after having merely counted and filed all the responses that just say Yes or in effect just say Yes.

I've quoted from Flextel's response below which I agree is considered and also very critical of Ofcom.

I am however slightly confused by Flextel's position.  It seems to me that on the one hand Flextel are saying all revenue sharing should be moved to the '09' range, but on the other hand that 08 numbers can be charged higher than geographic rates and that TCP's should be in control of the rates of 08 numbers ?   I'm no expert on this but you can't have it both ways can you ?  If 08 numbers are charged at a higher rate then isn't that a form of revenue sharing ?


Quote:

Price Transparency Technically it [call cost announcement] is now possible, and some companies do provide it. It is the only logical solution to this problem. However, it received confidential responses from two of the main carriers (BT and NTL). Naturally, they seemed to infer that it would be prohibitively expensive (over £100m). Of course, they would say that, wouldn’t they! It is not in the interests of most OCP’s to provide clear and open pricing, that is why they haven’t done it. It is no surprise that OCP’s providing Call Price Labelling, somehow have managed to provide it and still retain cheap calls… so much for all that expensive equipment! So, we believe that Ofcom should act in the true interests of the UK consumer and indeed the British economy by implementing what is really required and not be bullied by large OCP’s. Call Price Labelling should be a requirement for all operators, for all calls, anytime. What else can be done? Price Transparency would be a major step forward, but there are some other issues addressed throughout this consultation period, which also have merit. We demonstrated earlier in this document that 08 numbers could cost more than normal geographic numbers because of the value-added nature of the specialist services offered. The variety and choice of both service and CP needs to be maintained for this competitive and innovative market to flourish. However, there are a couple of areas, which could be considered a hindrance. Many of the 08 ranges have become used purely for methods of micro-payment to an end user. In this situation the CP isn’t actually providing any added value or specialist service. On this basis we would agree with Ofcom that revenue share should be removed from the 08 range. This would certainly have consumer benefits: · Callers would know that they haven’t been put in a call queue just to raise extra revenue. · Costs for these types of call would be driven down by the competitive market. · CP’s could develop innovative products and services based on merit alone, without the squeeze created by revenue sharing pressures from large corporate customers. The UK national numbering scheme would be simplified and more understandable with just one range of numbers having revenue share. Revenue share should only be available on Premium Rate numbers. However, for the above benefits to occur, TCP’s need to be in control of their costs. At present they are not. BT and the regulator fundamentally set the rates and hence the revenue that TCP’s receive, this should not be the case. This would benefit both consumers and TCP’s: · TCP’s could choose a tariff most appropriate for the product they are offering. · TCP’s would have greater confidence in developing and investing. Consumers and companies will have a greater choice of value added services. TCP’s should be in control of the rates received on all 08 numbers.

Any feedback appreciated!

One last point, who do you think are the media lobby referred to in the conclusion below???


Quote:

We believe the Ofcom proposals are short-term fudges to pacify a media lobby group. Ofcom are not taking an overarching view of the industry and the proposals are contrary to Ofcom’s Strategic Review of Telecommunications. In particular, quoting from the review “Our market research and consultation suggested that businesses and consumers want much more than basic, reliable telecoms services at low prices: they also want choice, and rapid innovation and introduction of new services.” The Ofcom proposals will kill the very companies that will be able to offer these innovative new services.  Ofcom’s excessive micro-regulation will be anti-competitive and detrimental to innovation. The proposals put forward by Ofcom only work in the case of primary “backbone” carriers and will force many small telecom operators out of business and also the companies, institutions and charities that they supply. How can this be good for UK consumers and the UK economy? The pricing for all of the UK telecommunications industry needs to be made more transparent to the consumer. This should be the way forward. Consumers need to know the cost of the calls they make and also where that money is going. Give consumers that choice and they will make nformed decisions. This should be the competitive driver that will force down prices and improve quality. With today’s technology, Call Price Labelling is straightforward. In the unlikely event that Ofcom will fail to implement this proposal, then FleXtel will lobby the Press.

But (or do I mean and?) FlexTel has been at it a long time; their comments about clarity being particularly relevant.
Their call for a review is timely, but proper control would have rendered such a review unnecessary...

Tanllan wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2005 at 12:56pm:

But (or do I mean and?) FlexTel has been at it a long time; their comments about clarity being particularly relevant. Their call for a review is timely, but proper control would have rendered such a review unnecessary...

OFTEL should have imposed the necessary clear NTS regulatory framework and price disclosure rules back in the late 1990s and it should have merely then been for Ofcom to maintain and enhance a well thought out NTS regulatory system.

So to be fair to Ofcom they did inherit a nightmare of legacy pro NTS abuse regulations from OFTEL but since then they have continued to fiddle while Rome burns by proposing entirely the wrong reforms and continuing to consult and consult instead of taking urgent remedial action.  Incredibly they even seem to think they need a consultation on whether those abusing NTS on 084/087 (especially mobile phone operators) should have to disclose their true call prices to the customer.  But what is their to consult on here?  It just needs the rules to be made.  Ofcom does not seem to perceive the massive harm that is done by it failing to act sufficiently quickly or vigorously on this matter or if it does perceive the harm then it is complicit with it.

If Ofcom were even vaguely competent 0871 and 0844 would now already be an 09 subspecies regulated by ICSTIS (or possibly a new lower rate NTS series starting 04 or 06 but still regulated by ICSTIS under possibly a slightly different set of Premium Rate regulations) and 0870 and 0845 would by now all have become priced at geographic call rates with any ISPs or customers abusing call centres moving to another number prefix where their receipt of NTS revenue share was made clear.  But instead Ofcom seemingly (judging from comments made at the meeting last Thursday) equates ending revenue share on 084 and 087 with ending all micro payment NTS services that the customer allegedly (according to Ofcom) wants and needs (if there are actually any genuine added value services on 084 and 087 numbers apart from internet dialup which I remain to be convinced of).  But if the customer actually wants and needs these services so badly then clearly he will still be prepared to pay for them even when there is no longer a deceipt about the true call cost to the customer involved.  But it is the ending of the deceipt about the true call costs being known to which Ofcom and many of the NTS abusers seem to object so strongly.

Unfortunately the people at Ofcom in charge of all this do not seem to be driven by principle to do what is the right thing and instead are driven only by cynical expediency to do what they think they can get away with but without causing too much upset to their powerful friends in the major uk telcos.

Another good response from FleXtel (here) to the consultation on 070 Personal Numbers (PNs) which closed a few weeks ago. FleXtel was the only PN telco to respond to that consultation. BT also responded, but it does not provide any PNs.

It is critical of the regulator and points out that free markets only operate with price transparancy.

Responses to the PN consultation are here.

wrote on Dec 1^st, 2005 at 10:09pm:

mc661 wrote on Dec 1st, 2005 at 9:34pm: http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/nts_forward/responses/sz/steve.pdf This is actually my grandsons response, from his 'company'. Im still waiting for my response to be posted. What's that 0871 number doing at the top of it?  Regardless of what your grandson may have thought since they have published his response in full it is other 0871 haters who might then have to call it.  It also seems particularly inappropriate to have listed the geographic number as +44 1553 and only for "Overseas" callers.

Dont have ago at me ok? I didnt write the response did I?
Now Ive decided not to frequent this site as much.

mc661 wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2005 at 1:08am:

Now Ive decided not to frequent this site as much.

I hope you will reconsider - your past contributions have been invaluable.

There are additional responses listed today. I'm sure AJR will provide the list when he has time. There are also additional responses to the NTS info consultation since the last update by bbb_uk.

Flextel may describe “Say No to 0870" as "an anarchic web site" (at the end of the last page), but at least we are a voice supporting the consumer against the interest of Ofcom and other large telecom providers - we do think outside the box and (in the end) the general consensus of opinion is sound.

Flextel make some very good, well argued, points and are critical of Ofcom’s  “Ineffectual micro-regulation” they advocate a free market with full price transparence - and who could argue with that.

Unfortunately a free market can not operate effectively when consumers have little or no effective choice when telephoning:
Government Departments such as the DVLA ,  UK Passport, VAT, Tax etc  
Organisations with monopolistic or near monopolistic services
Doctor’s surgeries who start using NTS numbers.

An effective aid to price transparency is a pre announced massage as to the cost of a call, but this is of little comfort to a “locked in” consumer. It helps, but a simple price structure and the abolition of deliberate scams also helps.

All voice landline calls (mobile pricing is another problem and maybe a separate new section should be devoted to mobile pricing) should either be priced at the customer’s Normal Rate or, if not, then the call should be classed as a Premium Rate call, and placed in one identifiable category - the “09" section.  Either one or the other. It is the clandestine grey areas that cause the problem.

The Normal Rate (including Option 3 etc at 0p/min) should apply to ALL numbers that are not in the 09 premium range. If organisations or telecoms wish to have an extra slice of callers money they should flag this up clearly by placing the number in the 09 category.  What I object to is all the hybrid numbers (087x, 084x, 070 etc) that masquerade as normal, mobile, or so called , “local” or “national” cost numbers when they are nothing of the sort, and with the intent of deceiving the caller.

Ofcom have allowed this pricing mess to continue and have attempted to mask the failure by endless over complex consultations followed by ineffective action.

mc661 wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2005 at 1:08am:

Dont have ago at me ok? I didnt write the response did I? Now Ive decided not to frequent this site as much.

mc661 it would be a shame to lose you from here over this one very small point.  It could of course well be that your grandson only used the 0871 number and listed the geographic number as only for overseas callers to make a point with Ofcom.  Obviously he would have expected them to remove addresses and phone numbers as they have usually done this in the past.

I fully accept you aren't directly responsible for the entirety of your grandson's submission.

But where is your submission mc661?  Is it perhaps one of the now numerous Name Withheld efforts? ;)

Still I have yet to send in my submission.  It was going to be earlier but what with the Ofcom Workshop and then other matters in life intervening for 3 to 4 days it has had to wait until the last moment.  There is nothing like a deadline to get you down to doing something.

mcc61, don't give up on this site, we need you.
NGM seems to have plenty time to post (and upset you), yet no time to report on the meeting that he attended - because he was a vociferous member of the site - over a week ago.  Do we not deserve some sort of report??  After all if this site did not have active membership would Ofcom even have invited him to to represent 'saynoto0870' at the workshop? Surely we are entitled to some feedback.
If NGM ever gets round to putting in a submission to Ofcom, I will be amazed, considering his lack of response to us - or is this part of what could be deception being perpetrated around the Ofcom issues?.

Quote:

I think Flextel's point was that it was illogical to just stop revenue share on 0870 and not do a wholesale proper reform of all NTS calls (which in their opinion and in mine also includes 070 and 09 calls too) so that callers always know what they are paying and there is proper price competition between different revenue share phone services.  I think Flextel also acknowledge that some 087 numbers merely extract revenue share from their callers without offering any value added service at all, and that this is wrong, whilst some other 087 operators do offer low cost value added services that would not exist as normal 01/02 calls.

Thanks very much for your comments, NGM.  I agree with what you're saying and also acknowledge that Flextel are striving to take a coherent approach to the matter.

I don't wish to go on, however, but I'm still struggling to get my head around their position.  Are we saying that its possible for all revenue sharing to move to 09 numbers AND for 0870 to be charged by TCPs at higher than geographic rates? (This is stated in Flextel's consultation response)  Perhaps my understanding is too simplistic but these two statements appear to be contradictory ?  Help!  

idb wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2005 at 1:37am:

There are additional responses listed today. I'm sure AJR will provide the list when he has time. There are also additional responses to the NTS info consultation since the last update by bbb_uk.

I've just updated the NTS & PRS info consultation here.

I have to say a big thank you for AJR's work as it is time-consuming especially for the main consultation which has over 800 responses.


idb wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2005 at 1:34am:

mc661 wrote on Dec 3rd, 2005 at 1:08am: Now Ive decided not to frequent this site as much. I hope you will reconsider - your past contributions have been invaluable.

I totally agree.

Being insulted by NGM, appears par for the course.  But he, and any respondent, should be as tactful as possible.

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

Getting back to fundamentals:

Ofcom should stop micro managing things and produce a radical overhaul of the numbering and charging structure.

A caller should be faced with a simple and clear structure, all the hybrid and clandestine number that charge more than the customer Normal Rate ( 0p/min on Option 3 etc) should be moved to the “09" class of numbers.

If an organisation wishes to receive money from the caller, this should be done in an open manner.  Even if the organisation (or telecom provider) using the number only wishes to receive 1p/min from the caller, the number  should be placed in the 09 class.  The 09 range could have pre announced charges starting with 1p/min.

If an organisation wishes to have a number with special features or offer some sort of service, they should pay for them, if not, then the number should be placed in the 09 class, in that class the customer is aware that he will be paying extra (above his Normal Rate) - a simple system.

I entirely agree with you kk. I have stated exactly this in my responses to all the Ofcom consultations. There is no other approach which would be totally honest and clear to consumers.

The total of responses has now reached 896. The new ones added on Friday (Dec 2) are listed below.

You can read the responses here: http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/nts_forward/responses/

AIMS Accountants for Business  
Allingham Dr C  
Andrews P  
Armitage B D  
Arscott P  
Barraclough N  
Barton D  
Bateman J  
Beattie A  
Bickford P  
Birkin R  
Bleher Dr S M  
Boxall C  
Cambourne Travel Ltd  
Central Hertfordshire Consumer Group  
Coleman D  
Collier R  
Crow M  
Crowe B L  
Culley C  
Cupples J  
Damle R  
Dennison J  
Dovehouse Travel  
Duncan C  
Elston T M  
Firth R M  
Fraser D  
Fraser I  
Gardner D and H  
Gear M D S  
Gibbon B  
Giles D  
Harrigan E  
Herron M D  
Hollis R W  
Hooper J  
Howarth J  
Isaacs A  
Jackman M  
James B  
Jones E W  
Keane C  
Kearney M  
Kennedy M  
Knight J  
Lawless B  
Lewis-Cracknell E  
Littmoden R  
Marflow C  
Marsden S  
Miller R  
Name Withheld 124  
Name Withheld 125  
Name Withheld 126  
Name Withheld 127  
Name Withheld 128  
Name Withheld 129  
Name Withheld 130  
Name Withheld 131  
Name Withheld 132  
Name Withheld 133  
Name Withheld 134  
Name Withheld 135  
Name Withheld 136  
Name Withheld 137  
Name Withheld 138  
Name Withheld 139  
Name Withheld 140  
Name Withheld 141  
Name Withheld 142  
Name Withheld 143  
Name Withheld 144  
Nayyar N  
Patel M  
Rowlinson S  
Sands P  
Sawitz A  
Shale J  
Shepherd R  
Sliwka T  
Spence P  
Tan B  
Taylor J  
Telephone Helplines Association  
Walters K  
Watts A  
Webber D  
Wood I  
Worrell B  

The number of responses has now reached exactly 1,000! (on Dec 8, two days after the consultation closed). I seem to remember that there was some debate a few weeks ago on whether it could reach this number. I think this is probably far more than expected a couple of months ago.

There are 104 new submissions since the last list. These are set out below. Interesting to see Centrica (Onetel) among them, though I haven't noticed any other major operators yet. Presumably others have asked for their submissions to be kept confidential. Or perhaps they haven't been listed yet. Good to see that Centrica, at least, is willing to make its views known publicly.

You can read the responses here: http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/nts_forward/responses/


Adams T  
Adams T  
Baruch P  
Biggs P  
Biggs P  
Bourne A B  
Bowker K  
Boyes J  
Bradbury J  
Bugg Dr C  
Caffrell R  
Canham J M  
Centrica  
Chamberlain B  
Communications Management Association  
Craig I  
Cranson D  
Currier Garry  
Davies G  
Davies J S  
Dixon C M  
Dunn J  
Dyas E  
Efford C  
Elston Fowey M  
Elston L  
Ewing D  
Fenton M and J  
Ferne A  
Foskett Powell Associates Ltd  
Hall G  
Hansson S  
Harris P  
Herd W  
Hooper R  
Horne D  
Jones S  
Khan M  
King J  
Lindley R  
Lloyds D W  
Mantel I  
Marcelli D  
Martin S M  
McCarthy C  
McCrutcheon C  
Metz R  
Name Withheld 146  
Name Withheld 147  
Name Withheld 148  
Name Withheld 149  
Name Withheld 150  
Name Withheld 151  
Name Withheld 152  
Name Withheld 153  
Name Withheld 154  
Name Withheld 155  
Name Withheld 156  
Name Withheld 157  
Name Withheld 158  
Name Withheld 160  
Name Withheld 161  
Name Withheld 162  
Name Withheld 163  
Name Withheld 164  
Name Withheld 165  
Name Withheld 166  
Name Withheld 167  
Name Withheld 168  
Name Withheld 169  
Name Withheld 170  
Name Withheld 171  
Name Withheld 172  
Nicol C G  
Noble M  
Osman M  
Pattison C  
Penney W  
Picken B J  
Pitts J  
Pugh L  
Rees J  
Rhodes M  
Robin Bloor Associates  
Robinson J  
Sage P  
Sawbridge J  
Simpson R  
Standen D  
Stewart I  
Strange S  
Taylor R  
Tegg C  
Titterington D  
Townsend P  
Van de Weil P  
Warman B  
Whiting G  
Williams C  
Williams C H  
Woodward I  
Woolley J  
WRL Consultancy Ltd  
Young A  

AJR wrote on Dec 8^th, 2005 at 1:26pm:

The number of responses has now reached exactly 1,000! (on Dec 8, two days after the consultation closed).

Impressive number and equally impressive of you AJR in helping all of us keep track of the consultation responses!  I've appreciated your regular updates throughout the consulation period!  Many thanks [smiley=thumbsup.gif]

Amusing to read the following from Centrica :

"We fundamentally believe that the setting of retail call prices by originating networks must be left to competitive market forces, rather than constrained within a regulatory ‘straight-jacket’ that requires costly technical solutions to advise consumers of slight increases in call prices...

"Under Ofcom’s proposals for 0870 pricing, it is highly unlikely that any originating network will decide to charge above its national geographic call rate by any significant amount. To do so would place it in a negative retail position vis-à-vis its competitors, which would become transparent to consumers under the information provision requirements proposed."

(My italics.)

Translation: We don't think there should be a call charge announcement because consumers would notice that they are being charged vastly more in percentage terms for 0870 calls.

AJR wrote on Dec 8^th, 2005 at 1:26pm:

The number of responses has now reached exactly 1,000! (on Dec 8, two days after the consultation closed). I seem to remember that there was some debate a few weeks ago on whether it could reach this number. I think this is probably far more than expected a couple of months ago.

That's great news!  ;D

My response is not there yet. I e-mailed it a couple of minutes to 5pm, so hopefully it will appear soon. I e-mailed my response to the other consultation at the same time and that has appeared.

An excellent and well reasoned response from the CMA at
http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/nts_forward/responses/af/cma.pdf

AJR wrote on Dec 8^th, 2005 at 1:26pm:

The number of responses has now reached exactly 1,000! (on Dec 8, two days after the consultation closed). I seem to remember that there was some debate a few weeks ago on whether it could reach this number. I think this is probably far more than expected a couple of months ago.

This is a major achievement. I was hoping for one thousand, and it will be more than that number (we're still awaiting NGM's effort and others - BT and the major suppliers, plus late submissions). It will be very difficult for Ofcom to ignore the overwhelming sentiment expressed in the responses as a whole (and I've read every one of them) that the public is fed up with the whole 084/087 scam. How it deals with this will be very interesting. Someone is bound to lose out - either the public or the NTS scammers. There really is little middle ground with this one. We have legalised extortion of the NTS rip-off merchants and the public demand for calls to banks costing less than calls to New Zealand. It's now time for the Ofcom execs to *earn* those six-figure salaries.

idb wrote on Dec 9^th, 2005 at 12:10am:

An excellent and well reasoned response from the CMA at http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/nts_forward/responses/af/cma.pdf

I think I know someone in this forum who will be please to hear those comments. ;)

idb wrote on Dec 9^th, 2005 at 12:23am:

This is a major achievement. I was hoping for one thousand, and it will be more than that number (we're still awaiting NGM's effort and others - BT and the major suppliers, plus late submissions).

I'm still waiting for my response, BT's response and probably about 600 other responses to NTS Way Forward, submitted as the deadline closed, to be published.  The big question is whether we will achieve the most ever responses to an Ofcom consultation?  There were aparently about 1,500 responses to some rather controversial proposals on licenses for amateur radio enthusiasts.

My response to the More Information etc on 084/7 Numbers consultation has now been published.  I said the most important area for more info was calls from mobile phones.  I have a suspicion that Ofcom's More Information proposals don't even cover mobiles or for that matter BT Payphones? :o

wrote on Dec 9^th, 2005 at 11:52am:

I'm still waiting for my response, BT's response and probably about 600 other responses to NTS Way Forward, submitted as the deadline closed, to be published.  The big question is whether we will achieve the most ever responses to an Ofcom consultation?  There were aparently about 1,500 responses to come rather controversial proposals on licenses for amateur radio enthusiasts.

Do you know whether those 1500 made any difference to Ofcom's proposals?

Perhaps the persons that belittled my hopeless optimism about numbers and my opinions about the way to do things (even without my having expressed them), will now accept that 1000 submissions with a range of opinions are likely to be more effective than a limited number (under 100) of only the most militant.

No I still disagree with you andy9 (as if that could ever be a surprise ::)).

Personally i think all the numbskulls who have just said Yes, Yes and Yes in their responses can be completely ignored as they haven't bothered to read the consultation document or do any work.  Also Ofcom's own questions were utterly meaningless due to not asking things like "should we move all revenue share numbers to 09", "should we move non geographic numbers charged at geographic rates to their own unique prefix - eg 03", "should 08 only in future be used for Freephone numbers".

I would only count the views of anyone who had bothered to pen at least a few sentences saying what they actually think about the matter, although I would of course not make it obligatory for everyone to come up with 15 pages as I and idb have done. ;)

Ofcom's questions were so rigged and so few in numbers (for the public in the Plain English Version) that answering those alone achieved nothing at all.  In fact I didn't answer the Ofcom NTS Way Forward questions to protest at the questions asked and especially the fact that completely different questions (with an odd question number sequence) were asked in the Plain English Version.

An excellent and well reasoned response from WRL Consultancy Ltd
http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/nts_forward/responses/sz/wlr.pdf

qtel wrote on Dec 9^th, 2005 at 6:45pm:

An excellent and well reasoned response from WRL Consultancy Ltd http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/nts_forward/responses/sz/wlr.pdf

You are joking right? >:(  Or more likely you work for this bunch of 0870 scamsters and having penned together this usual pathetic attempt to justify the unjusifiable you just couldn't resist wanting to bang the drum over these lies and mistruths.

1. If you wanted call redirection without paying for it but did not want revenue share you would have got an 0845 number which is at least the cheapest number you can get for callers without having to pay for the call redirection facilities yourselves.

2.  If you want call redirection facilities this is a service to your business and not your caller.  Your caller does not control where you direct the calls so he should not have to pay for it.  You should pay for it.

3.  Gives your company a national presence etc.  What utter garbage.  All of us here associate 0870 with ripoff commercial thugs who think about their profits first and customers last.  Most small companies who need to hide where they are really based through 0870 have something to hide about their business

4.  Your phone number will change again when Voip calling replaces PSTN.  Then you will have a name of some kind to contact you by voice and not a number.

5. Why do you make a post of this kind here.  I understand why you responded to Ofcom hoping you could go on getting service you should be paying for paid for by your customers who had been conned into believing it was BT National Rate when it isn't.  But to post here and draw attention to it.  Now that really does take stupidity.

I assume if someone told you that 2+2 was 7 that you would also believe that too without bothering to check the facts?

wrote on Dec 9^th, 2005 at 12:32pm:

No I still disagree with you andy9 (as if that could ever be a surprise ::)). Personally i think all the numbskulls ...

Nevertheless NGM, unlike you, most people on this site and elsewhere have been pleased to see more responses, rather than your own self-elected elitism and persistent belittling of other viewpoints.

I also note other people complaining about you keeping to yourself much of the proceedings you attended, which information if given might have been useful for other people's submissions.

andy9 wrote on Dec 9^th, 2005 at 7:50pm:

Nevertheless NGM, unlike you, most people on this site and elsewhere have been pleased to see more responses, rather than your own self-elected elitism and persistent belittling of other viewpoints.

All the responses with that form that just say Yes, Yes, Yes are not at all helpful to our cause.  They just give Ofcom ammunition to go ahead with its current proposals to let all the current scams continue on either 0871 or 0844.  They will be used by Ofcom to say they have plenty of support for their proposals as they are, even though many of those questionnaires seem to have been sent in by people who visit this site for phone numbers who had neither the time or the intellectual capacity to comment on the matter in more detail.  Of course the delibately obscure and verbose nature of Ofcom's consultations did not assist this.

As for the comments in the second half of the above sentence all I can say is well talk about the "pot calling the kettle".  If anyone thinks he is an elite and spends his time belittling others it is you andy9.  Or should I say DaveM? ;) ::)

andy9 logs off and DaveM logs on well what a coincidence. ;)

I see you have abandoned leaving several computers with all those main forum ids logged in at once though.  Bit of a giveaway wasn't it. ;)

I spoke too soon.  Dave, DaveM and Forum Admin are now all logged in simultaneously. ;) ::) [smiley=bath.gif]

I have only objected to your personal attacks on a  number of people. Which is elitism?

And I have sought to suggest that there should be more respondents, whereas you have wished to make your own more important than the others.

wrote on Dec 9^th, 2005 at 8:16pm:

I spoke too soon.  Dave, DaveM and Forum Admin are now all logged in simultaneously. ;) ::) [smiley=bath.gif]

perhaps you would give us your proposals to ensure their behaviour conforms to your hopes? - perhaps ban some or all of them?

andy9 wrote on Dec 9^th, 2005 at 8:18pm:

perhaps you would give us your proposals to ensure their behaviour conforms to your hopes? - perhaps ban some or all of them?

I am sure you would be in a better position than me to comment on the policy of  the forum's management.  But the tendency of Forum_Admin to be logged in a lot but to rarely post does seem very puzzling.  Unless of course there is another mouthpiece mainly used for that purpose. ;)

A few more of the big guns have now appeared in the response list. It's now reached 1,055 - an extra 55 since two days ago.

You can read the responses here:
http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/nts_forward/responses/

These are the latest responses to be published:

Ashley S  
Barso L J  
BBC  
BT
Call Sciences  
Colman J  
Coupe M  
Crow K  
Digitel Technology Ltd  
Emery R  
Everden T  
Fowler R  
Goodwins R  
Gower M P  
Gray G  
ICSTIS 
IV Response Ltd  
Kakad R  
Knight K  
Lindsay D  
McNair H  
Middleton J  
Muir A H  
Name Withheld 173  
Name Withheld 174  
Name Withheld 175  
Name Withheld 176  
Name Withheld 177  
Name Withheld 178  
Name Withheld 179  
Name Withheld 180  
Name Withheld 181  
Name Withheld 182  
Name Withheld 183  
O'Leary M  
Ofcom's Advisory Committee for England  
Pearson Dr J  
Peller P  
Ralston T  
Redstone Telecom  
Rice A  
RNID  
RSPCA  
Shersby J
Snelling R C  
TAG  
Tarrago J  
The Premium Rate Association  
Tiscali  
Tomkinson D  
Totem Communications Ltd  
Vodafone  
Wild D  
Windsor Telecom  
Witcomb P  

Haven't you missed a big gun or two in your highlighted with links selections? ;)

Also where is the response from Which and from the Ofcom Consumer Panel?  It would be little short of a scandal if neither of these bodies have responded to the consultation.

Also as I highlighted in the other thread on these Consultations where are the responses from Martin Lewis or Daniel - who also failed to respond to the NTS Options for the Future and Call Termination Market Review consultations that closed in January this year. [smiley=shocked.gif]

wrote on Dec 9^th, 2005 at 8:30pm:

andy9 wrote on Dec 9th, 2005 at 8:18pm: perhaps you would give us your proposals to ensure their behaviour conforms to your hopes? - perhaps ban some or all of them? I am sure you would be in a better position than me to comment on the policy of  the forum's management.  But the tendency of Forum_Admin to be logged in a lot but to rarely post does seem very puzzling.  Unless of course there is another mouthpiece mainly used for that purpose. ;)

Any of the members here are entitled to their opinions on the site's management. There is no sign that even one other agrees with your ongoing multiple ID paranoia.

Please answer the previous remarks, made by other people not me, about your having kept to yourself much detail of the Ofcom meeting you attended, which could well have been useful in submissions made by other people,

Every submission is useful, even the ones that you didn't agree with, but your proposals are would-be autocratic, consisting mostly of wanting your own opinion to override all others. The paradox is that this ignoring of all counter-opinion is exactly the accusation you make against Ofcom.

andy9 wrote on Dec 10^th, 2005 at 2:33pm:

Every submission is useful, even the ones that you didn't agree with, but your proposals are would-be autocratic, consisting mostly of wanting your own opinion to override all others. The paradox is that this ignoring of all counter-opinion is exactly the accusation you make against Ofcom.

Fully agree. The FleXtel submission, for example, is excellent, even though I disagree with some significant aspects. It has put together a well-argued case, even though it is at odds with my own position. Unlike others in the NTS business, FleXtel does not appear to be an exploitative organization and seems genuinely concerned with the consumer issues.

I see Vodaphone dismiss changes with a statement "NTS is a low impact area for consumers, who are not opposed to revenue share pre se".
What sort of fairyland do these cretins live in?

firestop wrote on Dec 10^th, 2005 at 2:50pm:

I see Vodaphone dismiss changes with a statement "NTS is a low impact area for consumers, who are not opposed to revenue share pre se". What sort of fairyland do these cretins live in?

The second clause of the sentence is supportable in other circumstances, but certainly cannot be deemed to follow the unjustifiable first, so fairyland seems apt.

I don't object to revenue-sharing per se. There are call-through numbers for cheap international calls for example. And some information or consultancy services are appropriate to have this charge method as an option (but not support of faulty products!)

But when it is involuntary, when companies wilfully suppress and change alternative numbers (and not just on changing provider), it causes the growing annoyance that Vodafone's ivory tower viewpoint appears unable to even see, let alone comprehend. Well, they are used to higher call charges of course.

If it is low impact, why are so many companies devoting such energy to selling these over-priced calling systems that effectively transfer large companies outgoing call budgets on to their incoming callers?


One wonders about the effect of any proposal to Vodafone that it would clearly be a low impact on them to include 0871, 0870, 0845, 0844 numbers in their inclusive minutes packages. That would very quickly demonstrate the real world level of their support for these duplicitous assertions.

firestop wrote on Dec 10^th, 2005 at 2:50pm:

I see Vodaphone dismiss changes with a statement "NTS is a low impact area for consumers, who are not opposed to revenue share pre se". What sort of fairyland do these cretins live in?

Its clearly not a low impact area for the mobile phone business of Vodafone uk though is it. ;) ::)

If it was low impact for Vodafone they wouldn't take such a big risk of further sullying their own reputation by sticking up for the retention of all their current scamming.

I notice that O2, TMobile, Orange and Three have all remained stum.  Either this is because they are incompetent or it is because unlike Vodafone they are not brazen enough to believe that they can actually find any way of justifying their current customer NTS scamming.

andy9 wrote on Dec 10^th, 2005 at 3:18pm:

I don't object to revenue-sharing per se. There are call-through numbers for cheap international calls for example. And some information or consultancy services are appropriate to have this charge method as an option (but not support of faulty products!) But when it is involuntary, when companies wilfully suppress and change alternative numbers (and not just on changing provider), it causes the growing annoyance that Vodafone's ivory tower viewpoint appears unable to even see, let alone comprehend.[/size]

I also do not object to NTS revenue share per se provided it is all on 09,  and provided there are compulsory call price announcements and rules to require price disclosure in all broadcast and print advertising.  Also provided that 09 Premium is turned off on all subscriiber lines by default and if it is enabled there is different PIN number for each member of the household who wants to use it (with it being listed by user on phone bills).  With those provisos NTS/PRS revenue share might continue.

Call through providers don't care whether they use 08 or 09 and use both although I'm sure they probably object to having to pay the ICSTIS levy for services only used by intelligent people who are trying to minimise their costs as compared to irresponsible customers who tend to use adult chat lines and quiz show lines (excepting Who Wants to Be A Millionaire where there is a real contest)

I don't think Vodafone's comments come from any Ivory Tower at all but rather from the commercial sewer.  The same sewer that people like Tiscali and Windsor Telecom also appear to inhabit.

I don't think it is necessary for it to be all on 09 numbers, and call price information could be clear without announcements.

Ofcom missed a chance at the beginning to make these call charges much more understandable, probably because they issued the first ones before the large-scale renumbering had happened, so many potential prefixes were stiil in use.

If all 08 numbers tariffs were indicated in pence per minute by the next digit, what could be simpler? - ie 080 free, 081 up to 1p, 082 2p, 084 4p.

ISPs could use 081 numbers at 0.5p per minute to replace payg dialup numbers; int'l callthrough tariffs would be clearer. Most call centres would gradually issue new 081 or 082 numbers, now that call charges are in that area. And remaining firms on 0870 would soon be automatically shamed by advertising high tariffs, and change direction.

wrote on Dec 10^th, 2005 at 3:27pm:

I also do not object to NTS revenue share per se provided it is all on 09,  and provided there are compulsory call price announcements and rules to require price disclosure in all broadcast and print advertising.  Also provided that 09 Premium is turned off on all subscriiber lines by default and if it is enabled there is different PIN number for each member of the household who wants to use it (with it being listed by user on phone bills).  With those provisos NTS/PRS revenue share might continue.

NGM, I think that if we had to sum it up in one short sentence [NGM, I know that's not your forte! lol  ;D], it would be:

“Revenue sharing numbers of the 084 and 087 type should be operating with a 09 prefix.”

That would provide transparancy, and hopefully CPs would provide the services you mention as a benefit to their customers.

andy9 wrote on Dec 10^th, 2005 at 3:43pm:

I don't think it is necessary for it to be all on 09 numbers, and call price information could be clear without announcements.

But the reason for saying that they should operate on 09 in the first place comes from the fact that the called party benefits, and not because of the cost. This is the significance of 09.


andy9 wrote on Dec 10^th, 2005 at 3:43pm:

If all 08 numbers tariffs were indicated in pence per minute by the next digit, what could be simpler? - ie 080 free, 081 up to 1p, 082 2p, 084 4p.

The document says that telephone numbers is a low engagement area for consumers. It would therefore be a bit of a wasted effort. Also, these rates vary between networks.

Also see the response from Norfolk County Council Trading Standards Department which talks, as it did before, about advertisers keeping silent on call price being the best option so as not to mislead.

Dave wrote on Dec 10^th, 2005 at 3:58pm:

But the reason for saying that they should operate on 09 in the first place comes from the fact that the called party benefits, and not because of the cost. This is the significance of 09. The document says that telephone numbers is a low engagement area for consumers. It would therefore be a bit of a wasted effort. Also, these rates vary between networks.

Maybe so for both points, but there are probably large organisations that would be entirely willing to run call centres with charges to the caller of 1 or 2 pence per minute, if the option became available, either via BT or their own carrier. After all, an increasing number have call-me-back buttons on their websites, which has retail charges around 1p/min (to the provider, not caller) and probably are a lot cheaper in bulk.

It would be inappropriate to force them to have 09 numbers when not receiving revenue, and unfairly implying high charges. Yes, at the moment they could have an 0844 number, which doesn't show its tariff, and is overpriced from callboxes.

So I reckon a new type of tariff might be worthwhile.

andy9 wrote on Dec 10^th, 2005 at 4:30pm:

Maybe so for both points, but there are probably large organisations that would be entirely willing to run call centres with charges to the caller of 1 or 2 pence per minute, if the option became available, either via BT or their own carrier. [...] It would be inappropriate to force them to have 09 numbers when not receiving revenue, and unfairly implying high charges. Yes, at the moment they could have an 0844 number, which doesn't show its tariff, and is overpriced from callboxes. So I reckon a new type of tariff might be worthwhile.

I agree in so much as consumers perceive 09 premium rate to be 'expensive rate'. Having sub-prefixes within 09 which distinguish price bands, much like they have done within 08 now would help to make it clearer.

Irrespective of whether all RS numbers operate within 09 or not, it needs some number structure that is clear. The current 084 and 087 numbers are of the same type as the 09 numbers, so I firmly believe that they should be within the same category.

wrote on Dec 10^th, 2005 at 2:15pm:

Haven't you missed a big gun or two in your highlighted with links selections? ;) [smiley=shocked.gif]

Surely not?

andy9 wrote on Dec 10^th, 2005 at 4:30pm:

It would be inappropriate to force them to have 09 numbers when not receiving revenue, and unfairly implying high charges. Yes, at the moment they could have an 0844 number, which doesn't show its tariff, and is overpriced from callboxes. So I reckon a new type of tariff might be worthwhile.

Yes andy9 I accept your arguments here and indeed at the Ofcom NTS Consumer Workshop, which you have complained I have not reported on sufficiently, I suggested that it might be unacceptable to force all 084/7 users to 09 because of the very negative marketing connotations assocaiated with those numbers and the expense of ICSTIS regulation for lower pence per minute charges.  ICSTIS regulation could be especially prohibitive for 1p per minute internet dialup services.

My suggestion was to set up a lower rate 06 revenue share prefix and that all revenue share calls up to say 15p per minute could be on 06, including ISPs and all currently voice based 084/7 users who wanted to go on revenue sharing.  At the same time all NGN users who didn't want to revenue share could be migrated to the 04 prefix for a geographic rate NGN service where the servcie provider pays for any additional NTS facilities they receive and not the caller.  08 would then be left for just Freephone calls so that telecoms consumers were not confused about each code prefix and its significance.

So 01/02/03 would all be for geographic numbers at geographic rates, 04 for non geographic NTS services charge at geographic rates to the caller, 05 for non geographic voip at geographic rates (I would compulsorily move the last few Freephone 0500 numbers to 08), 06 for non gepographic voip calls with higher costs to the caller and revenue share to the recipient and call price announcements, 07 for mobiles, 08 for Freephone and 09 for geographic PSTN calls with higher costs to the caller, price announcements and ICSTIS control.  Of course it gets more complicated than that as there will be voip mobile numbers too in due course, but the basic point is for Ofcom to create a logical NTNP that can be vaguely understood by most callers.

Of course all of this should have happened at least 10 years ago and in these dieing days of PSTN I suspect Ofcom will eschew all this in favour of a bodge it and scarper approach that means as little change as possible for the telecoms industry.

Dave wrote on Dec 10^th, 2005 at 4:42pm:

I agree in so much as consumers perceive 09 premium rate to be 'expensive rate'. Having sub-prefixes within 09 which distinguish price bands, much like they have done within 08 now would help to make it clearer. Irrespective of whether all RS numbers operate within 09 or not, it needs some number structure that is clear. The current 084 and 087 numbers are of the same type as the 09 numbers, so I firmly believe that they should be within the same category.

I'm talking of potential new numbers that are not (or only marginally) revenue-sharing; at the moment these cannot exist.

Say you use 1899 to make a call via their 08081 number. BT gets no revenue; another carrier has been used.

If you call an organisation that has provided an 0800 number, they pay their carrier to deliver the call (maybe BT gets some as well; I don't know).

Leaving aside VoIP providers with [temporary?] free tariffs, many retail rates seem to be from 1p to 2p per minute. Bulk rates will be lower, and call forwarding can be operated within these charges.

So why should we not hope that in the near future, companies will run call centres with calls routed by their own provider that cost the caller 1p per minute? As this is below BT tariffs for ordinary calls, it would be unreasonable to allocate 09 "premium" rate numbers to this.



And at some stage, we won't only be looking for geographic area code numbers for large organisations. If they are running VoIP systems, some may well be totally genuine in saying that there is no geographic number, but instead of loggerheads by both the companies and customers, why not let the customers benefit? With SIP peering as it stands at the moment, VoIP users may be able to call them without cost to either party. So if I install VoIP here I want an 0560 number to call the bank either free or for under 1 penny a minute. Going back to the last paragraph though, non-VoIP should also have a similar price.

Ofcom should be well ahead of this, not five to ten years behind on number allocation and tariffs. This is the underlying real fear of many telephone companies, that revenues will be destroyed by the internet, and why they have stuck in the mud with archaic price-fixing.

andy9 wrote on Dec 10^th, 2005 at 5:54pm:

Ofcom should be well ahead of this, not five to ten years behind on number allocation and tariffs.

Once again we can agree andy9.

The most maddening aspect is OFTEL and Ofcom staff having been paid such a fortune in cushy jobs over the years to allow the wholesale collapse of any legitimacy or order in the uk phone numbering system.

Their allowing of 0845 to share both voice and internet data traffic, their failure to launch an NGN code with intelligent routing but without revenue share or increased call cost above geographic rates, and their failure to ensure adequate security protection against line misuse on £90 an hour 09 services are amongst their very worst failings of the lot.

andy9 wrote on Dec 10^th, 2005 at 5:54pm:

I'm talking of potential new numbers that are not (or only marginally) revenue-sharing; at the moment these cannot exist.

But they do exist in 084x form and less-so in 087x, do they not? The issue is the perception of the 09 numbers being 'expensive'. Conversely, 084x/087x numbers are not widely recognised as RS.

What's more, how do we determine what marginally is? Maybe that was Oftel's thinking back in 1999 when it introduced 0844 and 0871. Look what state we're in now.

The thing with drawing a line between PRNs and 'low RS' numbers is that there will always be those who would prefer to go for the highest non-PRN rather than a low PRN.

wrote on Dec 10^th, 2005 at 5:18pm:

Yes andy9 I accept your arguments here and indeed at the Ofcom NTS Consumer Workshop, which you have complained I have not reported on sufficiently, I suggested that it might be unacceptable to force all 084/7 users to 09 because of the very negative marketing connotations assocaiated with those numbers and the expense of ICSTIS regulation for lower pence per minute charges.  ICSTIS regulation could be especially prohibitive for 1p per minute internet dialup services. ~~ Of course all of this should have happened at least 10 years ago and in these dieing days of PSTN I suspect Ofcom will eschew all this in favour of a bodge it and scarper approach that means as little change as possible for the telecoms industry.

Apologies if my complaint wasn't justified; I'd picked it up from other remarks, and perhaps I've missed some of the info you've given. This detail looks interesting.

Without going into the detail of the various numbering schemes you've suggested, I fully agree that Ofcom or its predecessors were sluggish on numbering systems years ago; it almost appears that you've given it more creative thought than they have, or perhaps their further plans are reserved in-house or ad hoc spur of the moment affairs.

Because in the old system 08 had fewer codes in use, it was natural that new allocations came from these [I discovered only very recently that Market Harborough, Outer Hebrides, Oxford, and others were much earlier 08 reallocations]. So they mixed in mobile numbers, and then the 0870 numbers that were the first longer numbers. I reckon they should have got on top of it then.

You've said on other threads and hinted here about the growth of VoIP. I'm amazed in some ways that it has gone so slowly, but it will certainly become much more prevalent, and will need plenty of allocations.  

It isn't clear though which will be the most successful operator companies; some seem over-invested and some fixed monthly charge accounts already look too expensive. But there will also be an awkward crossover when all the peering agreements between the smaller companies and loss leading tariffs mean they have not enough revenue and want to start charging; I include Finarea rightly or wrongly in this category.

Ofcom's document last year about the introduction of 0560 numbers was very open-ended. I've been surprised that hardly any telephone companies have heard of these numbers yet, or rather that they haven't trained their staff to answer queries about them.

andy9 wrote on Dec 10^th, 2005 at 6:34pm:

You've said on other threads and hinted here about the growth of VoIP. I'm amazed in some ways that it has gone so slowly, but it will certainly become much more prevalent, and will need plenty of allocations.   It isn't clear though which will be the most successful operator companies; some seem over-invested and some fixed monthly charge accounts already look too expensive. But there will also be an awkward crossover when all the peering agreements between the smaller companies and loss leading tariffs mean they have not enough revenue and want to start charging; I include Finarea rightly or wrongly in this category. Ofcom's document last year about the introduction of 0560 numbers was very open-ended. I've been surprised that hardly any telephone companies have heard of these numbers yet, or rather that they haven't trained their staff to answer queries about them.

I think Voip growth for domestic users is slowed down by a lack of competitively priced Voip equipment (especially ATAs) and a lack of a clear price advantage for Voip to PSTN calls except Voipcheap (Finarea) who do not market actively and rely on word of mouth.  For instance if you take Tiscali's admittedly diabolical broadband service they will sell you an all 01/02 calls PSTN option for only £4 per month extra on top of the unlimited broadband price.  I think there are still a lot of quality issues with Voip calls to the front door that make progress slow.

Finarea will obviously start charging with voipcheap soon, they have already done so with voipbuster.  The general Finarea strategy on loss leader products and rates seems clear from the saga of the 1p to 4p 18866 connection fee price increases, which were the original cause of you and I falling out.  It seems odd that 1899 still remains at 3p connection given that the newer 18185 also charges 4p connection too.  But perhaps Finarea's aim is to push as many old 18866 customers (which I think there are a lot of) over to 4p connection like 18185 and then keep 1899 for those customers who really care about the connection fee.

I think unlike the move to email the movement to voip will be quite slow until BT themselves attempt to promote it once they have finished building their 21st Century Network.  And BT may supply a free ATA which will probably have to be unlocked due to their dominant market position.

I will be much more interested in Voip if we ever get a WiMax option in this area, so that I can completely cut out my expensive BT phone line rental.

Dave wrote on Dec 10^th, 2005 at 6:15pm:

andy9 wrote on Dec 10th, 2005 at 5:54pm: I'm talking of potential new numbers that are not (or only marginally) revenue-sharing; at the moment these cannot exist. But they do exist in 084x form and less-so in 087x, do they not? The issue is the perception of the 09 numbers being 'expensive'. Conversely, 084x/087x numbers are not widely recognised as RS. What's more, how do we determine what marginally is? Maybe that was Oftel's thinking back in 1999 when it introduced 0844 and 0871. Look what state we're in now. The thing with drawing a line between PRNs and 'low RS' numbers is that there will always be those who would prefer to go for the highest non-PRN rather than a low PRN.

Sorry, I hoped I'd made it clearer that I envisage many of the calls I'm thinking of being in the range 0.5 to 2p per minute, potentially including all ISP payg access and most call centres. At the moment the only mechanism for anyone to run a call centre using their own telecoms provider and charge the customer just above telecoms cost - say 1.2p per minute - is the discredited 0844 number.

And I don't object to a dedicated 0844 number that directly forwards to a given foreign landline for 2p per minute. But on the expectation that the number prefix would change, I'd suggest that 09 is not appropriate for this, and I don't see any point in a tariff announcement on a call-through number delaying the connection or adding to the cost of the call, even though the provider gets a share of the revenue. I'm suggesting a new 082 number, and NGM maybe suggests 06 or 04 or something, I'd have to check.

wrote on Dec 10^th, 2005 at 5:18pm:

andy9 wrote on Dec 10th, 2005 at 4:30pm: It would be inappropriate to force them to have 09 numbers when not receiving revenue, and unfairly implying high charges. Yes, at the moment they could have an 0844 number, which doesn't show its tariff, and is overpriced from callboxes. So I reckon a new type of tariff might be worthwhile. Yes andy9 I accept your arguments here and indeed at the Ofcom NTS Consumer Workshop, which you have complained I have not reported on sufficiently, I suggested that it might be unacceptable to force all 084/7 users to 09 because of the very negative marketing connotations assocaiated with those numbers and the expense of ICSTIS regulation for lower pence per minute charges.  ICSTIS regulation could be especially prohibitive for 1p per minute internet dialup services. My suggestion was to set up a lower rate 06 revenue share prefix and that all revenue share calls up to say 15p per minute could be on 06, including ISPs and all currently voice based 084/7 users who wanted to go on revenue sharing.  At the same time all NGN users who didn't want to revenue share could be migrated to the 04 prefix for a geographic rate NGN service where the servcie provider pays for any additional NTS facilities they receive and not the caller.  08 would then be left for just Freephone calls so that telecoms consumers were not confused about each code prefix and its significance.

That's a big turn-around in your views NGM. So you are suggesting that some premium charging numbers be placed outside 09. Is this why you didn't want to mention what you said at the workshop until after the consultation had closed?

I've just read your response and you make no mention of this. Indeed, half way down page 14 you state:

Quote:

My own preference would be for all revenue share calls of any kind to move to 09 prefixed numbers and thus all of it would be subject to full regulation and disclouure under ICSTIS rules.

The 15p cut off is only a bit higher than 10p on 0871. Your suggestion for moving 084/087 to 06 seems to be because you think that all 08 should be left for freephone. Is this not continuing the current confusion and moving other 'premium' numbers even further away from 09 with other types of number inbetween?

Dave wrote on Dec 10^th, 2005 at 8:27pm:

The 15p cut off is only a bit higher than 10p on 0871. Your suggestion for moving 084/087 to 06 seems to be because you think that all 08 should be left for freephone. Is this not continuing the current confusion and moving other 'premium' numbers even further away from 09 with other types of number inbetween?

At the Ofcom NTS Workshop I made the suggestion of low priced NTS being on 06 with call price announcements but not subject to ICSTIS rules.  Since then I have heard from the rest of you that you all think that we must demand the purity route of 09 only so decided to go with that in my submission on the unlikely basis Ofcom would buy it from SayNoTo0870ers as a whole.

With my alternate suggestion for 06 for lower priced NTS I am just being realistice that Ofcom will never agree to move all 084 and 087 to 09 because ICSTIS will say they can't cope with regulating this many extra numbers and the ICSTIS costs are too high for low priced numbers at 1 to 5p per minute.

So a compromise is put them on 06 because its free and therefore the public could be educated it was for lower priced NTS but still with revenue share and/or micropayment.  Otherwise Ofcom will probably just leave 084/087 as they are because the move to 09 for low priced NTS numbers is too controversial.  In principle I agree with you on moving them all to 09 but then you have to look at whats in the Communication Act and Ofcom not interfering with the market unnecessarily.

Whether its 06 or 04 or 03 doesn't matter to me.  The key thing is the prefix should be unque to that use as 01, 02 and 09 are and not a dogs breakfast of different uses like 08 and for that matter now 05 are.

wrote on Dec 10^th, 2005 at 9:08pm:

Whether its 06 or 04 or 03 doesn't matter to me.  The key thing is the prefix should be unque to that use as 01, 02 and 09 are and not a dogs breakfast of different uses like 08 and for that matter now 05 are.

My concern is that it must be as close to 09 as possible and without other 'clutter' in the way. In that respect 084 and 087 are still suitable and moving them to, say 06, would simply be a matter of moving all number from 084/087 to 06 as they are, for nothing other than to get them from 08.

However, I like the idea of having another prefix like 03 or 04 for geographically charged non-geographical numbers (will have to come up with a simpler name than that!) and migrating all current SPs who wish to charge geographical rates onto a number with one digit changed, i.e. 0870 1234567 migrates to 0470 1234567. That is, if the service provider wants to do away with revenue sharing. But how do you propose educating the public that one digit is to change and what that different digit means?

And would it be fair/right to leave any that wanted to stay on their existing 084/087 RS numbers? Maybe that would leave the door open to the vast majority staying put, resulting in the public being completely baffled by this 04 prefix which doesn't exist and more to the point, still completely unaware of what 084/087 numbers really are.  :-/

What's more, I don't think that we should have the viewpoint of the Saynoto0870ers as a whole as such. That only strengthens outside perceptions that we are some 'anarchistic' group, as some would describe us. Any viewpoint and input is welcome with valid reasoning, which I think is the most important point.

There is no requirement that a response to a consultation has to only agree with one solution. One could say that "Ideally all RS numbers should be within 09, but, as a compromise ..." etc. Providing one (radical) solution of moving all 084/087 RS to 09 leaves Ofcom to find some common ground inbetween, a compromise, as it were. It would be better that we empathise with Ofcom, and suggest some 'compromise' rather than just criticising outright.

Dave wrote on Dec 10^th, 2005 at 10:49pm:

My concern is that it must be as close to 09 as possible and without other 'clutter' in the way. In that respect 084 and 087 are still suitable and moving them to, say 06, would simply be a matter of moving all number from 084/087 to 06 as they are, for nothing other than to get them from 08. However, I like the idea of having another prefix like 03 or 04 for geographically charged non-geographical numbers (will have to come up with a simpler name than that!) and migrating all current SPs who wish to charge geographical rates onto a number with one digit changed, i.e. 0870 1234567 migrates to 0470 1234567. That is, if the service provider wants to do away with revenue sharing. But how do you propose educating the public that one digit is to change and what that different digit means?

Dave,

Althought it is admirably purist of you to want to have the cheapest numbers on the 01 and 02 prefix and the most expensive numbers up on 09 the international convention on Freephone numbers (08) and Premium numbers (09) and International Access Code (00) kind of ensure that this is actually impossible and that's before we start looking at another anomalous areas in the NTNP like 118.  We already have 08 and 09 as neighbours so the idea there is a progressive charging sequence simply doesn't hold water.  Of course I suppose may be you want Freephone back on 0500 but that would put us out of step with the rest of the world.

I think any research by a pshychologist would report back that most individuals with enough education can associate a short code
with a particular form of chargiing or a particular place but that they cannot be made to understand that say 0870 is normal national rate and that 0871 is low end premium rate.   They could be made to understand that 09 is expensive premium rate that you can't use without having a PIN number from the line owner (say 16p per minute and over) and that 06 is lower cost premium rate without security control that means you are making a payment to the company running the phone number.  And no I wouldn't let anyone stay on 084 and 087 codes in the long run.  Let them all make a choice and move to either 034 or 037 or move to an appropriate 064 or 067 lower rate premium number.  This kind of double dialling of area codes for a transition period has happened before with the 01 to 0171 and 0181 and 0171 and 0181 to 020 area dialling code changeovers.

I used to work in a company that purely collected and distributed numbers and there were the same problems of data purity being constantly threatened by those who wanted to push for short term commerical expediency being more important than long term data purity.

Unfortunately the expediency merchants cannot ever see the big picture and do not understand the damage to the whole series of numbers that is done in the longer term.

If you want to read a really sad story about how the NTS 'industry' (an industry that has already fraudulently obtained billions of pounds from the public), see the response from Elite Telecom:

http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/nts_forward/responses/af/EliteTelecom.pdf

Tears are just flowing from my eyes.

This response strikes me as being like a major drug trafficking company complaining how all the valuable employment and economic activity they supply will be lost if there is a major clamp down by the Police.

Their argument is that we employ people even though its a scam so now you can't close us down in case people lose worthless jobs of which the only purpose is to scam telecoms consumers for unjustified charges.  If only the stupid OFTEL and Ofcom had never let the whole scam industries grow in the first place.

In all their response Elite Telecom never seem to consider that companies might just go back to 01/02 numbers and that everybody apart from employees of his business would then be far better off!

idb wrote on Dec 12^th, 2005 at 2:06pm:

If you want to read a really sad story about how the NTS 'industry' (an industry that has already fraudulently obtained billions of pounds from the public), see the response from Elite Telecom [...]

What a tragic waste.  :'( :'( :'(

Why does the UK permit such nonsense? Why do I get the impression that companies like this are made up of marketing people and accountants and don't have a technical person in sight?  :-X

Just how are those sorts of people allowed to make money on the back of the telecommunications industry? I'm sure that they can find something else to do should the cat be let out of the bag.

Dave wrote on Dec 12^th, 2005 at 2:38pm:

idb wrote on Dec 12th, 2005 at 2:06pm: If you want to read a really sad story about how the NTS 'industry' (an industry that has already fraudulently obtained billions of pounds from the public), see the response from Elite Telecom [...] What a tragic waste.  :'( :'( :'( Why does the UK permit such nonsense? Why do I get the impression that companies like this are made up of marketing people and accountants and don't have a technical person in sight?  :-X Just how are those sorts of people allowed to make money on the back of the telecommunications industry? I'm sure that they can find something else to do should the cat be let out of the bag.

It really is staggering. What is worrying is whether this sob-story will have any impact upon the regulator in reaching its conclusion on NTS. As I have said for a long time, there is little middle ground here - the public hates these numbers, and companies like Elite rely on them to make, IMO, ill-gotten gains. Who will the regulator favor?

Ofcom seem to have been afraid to change the status quo although I think they are now beginning to realise that hanging on to the status quo may be an even more disruptive option for the future of their well paid careers at their palatial HQ with the delightful river views.

I wonder if we had set up the regulator and its offices in some impoverised corner of the North West of England if it might have more easily come up with rules that favoured better value for the telcoms consumer?

wrote on Dec 12^th, 2005 at 2:49pm:

Ofcom seem to have been afraid to change the status quo although I think they are now beginning to realise that hanging on to the status quo may be an even more disruptive option for the future of their well paid careers at their palatial HQ with the delightful river views. I wonder if we had set up the regulator and its offices in some impoverised corner of the North West of England if it might have more easily come up with rules that favoured better value for the telcoms consumer?

It needs someone at Ofcom to admit that NTS is a failure, admit that they got it wrong, and put into place a sustainable system for the future. I would go further. Because the historical 35 mile or whatever it was definition of 'local' is no longer relevant, a full overview of area codes is needed with a target of fixed-length dialling and fixed-lingth area codes. The current NTNP is a shambles, full of anomolies. It needs to be redesigned. I am sure that there must be some Ofcom staff who are technically, morally and managerially competent that could undertake such a task.

idb wrote on Dec 12^th, 2005 at 2:44pm:

It really is staggering. What is worrying is whether this sob-story will have any impact upon the regulator in reaching its conclusion on NTS. As I have said for a long time, there is little middle ground here - the public hates these numbers, and companies like Elite rely on them to make, IMO, ill-gotten gains. Who will the regulator favor?

The regulator has two principal options:
1) To remove revenue sharing and completely move the goal posts, which suggests that the regulator is of the opinion that the numbers have been promoted in a misleading way.

2) To leave the numbers as they are, in which case it agrees with they way they have been 'sold'. This would tie in with the regulator's view that valuable services exist, which wouldn't do without the current setup.

The numbers are already in service, i.e. service providers have (supposedly) chosen the numbers based what they are now. The decision must surely be based on whether the regulator believes that the numbers were 'misold'.


idb wrote on Dec 12^th, 2005 at 2:59pm:

It needs someone at Ofcom to admit that NTS is a failure, admit that they got it wrong, and put into place a sustainable system for the future. [...]

Ofcom just peddles the line that it has been responsible for the introduction of wide ranging services. If it still believes this then it should select 2) above.

Dave wrote on Dec 12^th, 2005 at 3:08pm:

The regulator has two principal options: 1) To remove revenue sharing and completely move the goal posts, which suggests that the regulator is of the opinion that the numbers have been promoted in a misleading way. 2) To leave the numbers as they are, in which case it agrees with they way they have been 'sold'. This would tie in with the regulator's view that valuable services exist, which wouldn't do without the current setup. The numbers are already in service, i.e. service providers have (supposedly) chosen the numbers based what they are now. The decision must surely be based on whether the regulator believes that the numbers were 'misold'

There seems to be a third obvious option you have missed Dave and which is the one most members on this site would settle for.

Namely allow these people to sell as many NTS/PRS services as they want (there is no difference between NTS and PRS other than the price and the anomalous differences in disclosure rules) provided they are on prefixes readily identifiable as premium rate and revenue sharing, provided there are compulsory call price announcements and provided any monopoly service (whether government or private sector) has to offer a geographic alternative that is equally prominently displayed.

The whole con is based on most members of the public thinking 084 and 087 are ordinary national and local rate calls.  As soon as the sheep's clothing is removed from the wolf the public will recoil in horror and the NTS scam industry will die a slow, natural, lingering death.

I think Ofcom may go for leaving some of the NTS revenue share services on 08 unfortunately but will be forced to add ICSTIS regulation for 0844 and compuslory call price announcements for 0844 and 0871.  I also think they will have to end 0845 revenue share at the same time as 0870 and will be forced to abolish the 0870 loophole of higher prices being allowed with call price announcements.  0845 ISPs will be told to migrate their customers elsewhere I suspect now that Ofcom has realised they will be in  even more hot water for trying to placate the nosy lobby from the ISPs.

As for anyone at Ofcom and/or especially OFTEL having a strong moral leaning regrettably I fear not or we wouldn't be where we are now.  It seems to me that high levels of pay and successful progression of their well paid careers are the key drivers for most senior Ofcom staff.

wrote on Dec 12^th, 2005 at 3:22pm:

There seems to be a third obvious option you have missed Dave and which is the one most members on this site would settle for. Namely allow these people to sell as many NTS/PRS services as they want (there is no difference between NTS and PRS other than the price and the anomalous differences in disclosure rules) provided they are on prefixes readily identifiable as premium rate and revenue sharing [...]

I'll re-write the above. My point is that services exist on the current prefixes, which means any changes affect the businesses operating on them. The two points relate to the services operating on 084/087 numbers. The two principal options for 084/087 numbers are:
1) To remove revenue sharing from these services and completely move the goal posts, which suggests that the regulator is of the opinion that the numbers have been promoted in a misleading way. This can be done either by allowing them to move elsewhere to continue RS or leaving them on their current prefixes without RS.

2) To leave the numbers as they are, in which case it agrees with they way they have been 'sold'. This would tie in with the regulator's view that valuable services exist, which wouldn't do without the current setup.

The only possible third option would be to create another prefix for geographical rates, in addition to the current 084/087 numbers. However, there would be little incentive for companies to move over if consumers weren't aware of what the difference between existing and new prefixes were.

NGM, your point about moving all RS numbers to prefix(es) where it is clear is covered by point 1). The reason I posted these two options was to point out that choosing 1) means affecting businesses and their plans and choosing 2) means upsetting consumers by charging more than geographical calls. Of course, 2) could be implemented with more pricing information, but this will only wake up more consumers to the fact that 0845/0870 costs far more than geographical. As idb points out in a far more succinctly way than I ever could, "there's little middle ground"!

Dave wrote on Dec 12^th, 2005 at 3:43pm:

but this will only wake up more consumers to the fact that 0845/0870 costs far more than geographical.

Well I will be interested to see that day ever come for 0845 and 0870 and interested to see Ofcom stop even BT from continuing to cynically peddle the lie on all its 100 million+ phone bills a year that 0845 is Lo-Call and that 0870 is National Rate.

In the last three days I have had several people at HP (Hewlett Packard) customer services all confidently assure me that their 0870 number is either "local rate" or "national rate" (depending on the employee) and a rather public school educated sounding lady in Debenhams public relations department assure me that 0844 was Local Rate and that was why they used it.

So in my opinion the 084/7 Local/National Rate has been so deliberately peddled for so long to every dullard at the companies that run them that it can only be unpicked by making all the lower priced 084/7 revenue sharers move to 09 or 06 and the non revenue share 084/7 to 03.  Such a change will then make the public realise something has changed (especially if accompanied by proper publicity about what 06 and 03 and the whole NTNP is about.  Are you old enough for instance to remember the "LSD shops have LSD prices, LSD shops give LSD change and "Decimal Shops have Decimal Prices, Decimal Shops give Decimal Change" little ditties that constantly appeared on television in the months before decimal switchover (and I was only 8 or 9 then but remember it).

The only reason that no one understands the NTNP or the call charges associcated with it is because it is not currently logical and OFTEL/Ofcom have never undertaken any publicity for it.

If 08 Freephone, 0845 and 0870 geographic rate and 0844 and 0871 revenue share numbers are all allowed to stay together on an illogical 08 it will continue not to be understood and the 0844ers and 0871ers will be able to rely on past urban myths that all 084 and 087 numbers are charge as Local and National Rate calls.

Seems obvious to me and I feel disappointed Dave that you seem to be trying to field Ofcom with excuses for leaving the current disgracefully confusing arrangements in place.

Sure all this will cost the companies who run these numbers some money but that will be some small redress for all the money it has cost us the consumers who have had to dial them over the last few years.

I am afraid I do not agree with the last comment. I do not believe there was anything wrong with the original NTNP. The problem was that as telcos started to disobey it the regulator just changed it continuously until now it is in a complete mess full of conflicts even within itself!

According to the original NTNP your ideas of new 06 and 03 are nonsense and will just confuse the position still further. All Premium numbers should be in the 09 section only and regulated by ICSTIS. Even the current NTNP as mutilated by the regulators still states that very clearly.

The problem is that the regulators do not want to do what they know is right!

Locked-out wrote on Dec 12^th, 2005 at 6:23pm:

I am afraid I do not agree with the last comment. I do not believe there was anything wrong with the original NTNP. The problem was that as telcos started to disobey it the regulator just changed it continuously until now it is in a complete mess full of conflicts even within itself! According to the original NTNP your ideas of new 06 and 03 are nonsense and will just confuse the position still further. All Premium numbers should be in the 09 section only and regulated by ICSTIS. Even the current NTNP as mutilated by the regulators still states that very clearly. The problem is that the regulators do not want to do what they know is right!

Who are you Locked Out?  You sound very familiar to me.  Also why would the forum management lock anyone out?  When they threatened to lock me out I told them I would set up my own anti 0870 forum if that happened after which I heard no more on the matter.

You need to remember that politics is the art of the possible.  And unfortunately in my view expecting 1p to 10p per minute NTS to move to 09 is not possible as this implies ICSTIS regulation and the ICSTIS levy which seem to be a sledge hammer to crack a nut at this level of revenue share (at least that's how Ofcom sees it).

What is needed is to get 084 and 087 off 08 to return 08 clearly to Freephone.  Ofcom are only likely to go for this if they can be persuaded that it is lack of public awareness of pricing that is the key problem on NTS/PRS.  Thus using 06 for low priced NTS with price disclosure and call price announcements but without ICSTIS regulation overcomes the Ofcom objection about the heavy handedness and then when 0845 and 0870 move to 0345 and 0370 the public understand that there is a class of non geographics that now costs the same as 01 and 02 and are in inclusive calling plans.  This makes them more unwilling to use the 06 premium NTS numbers which they now realise cost extra and are outside inclusive calling plans.

This whole scam relies on 084/087 being thought of by 95%+ of the public as local and national rate when they are not and the number class being overlapped with Freephone.  Dogmatic isistence on all revenue share being on 09 will lead to Ofcom saying that this will damage the business of low cost NTS carriers by negative connection with sex chat lines etc.  You can argue Ofcom is wrong but I know Ofcom won't agree to put the 1p to 10p stuf with the other 09 numbers.

Anyhow I am sorry to hear about your forum lockout.  I hope that this soon gets rescinded.

I did not say I was "locked out". That is just my handle (a bit like the old Geraldo song).

Whether Ofcom agree that all Premium numbers should be moved to 09 where they should be or not is irellevant. That is why the scam exists because Ofcom have gone along with it. The NTNP still states that is where they should be! So, I still do not agree with you.

It seems to me that at your recent meeting with Ofcom you may have been swayed in some way by their lies, since you did not seem to express the same idea previously?

Locked-out wrote on Dec 12^th, 2005 at 11:15pm:

It seems to me that at your recent meeting with Ofcom you may have been swayed in some way by their lies, since you did not seem to express the same idea previously?

That is my impression too. Perhaps Ofcom categorically stated that 084/087 numbers would not be moved to 09, so another solution would have to be developed.

It would be nice to have 089, although that would bring back into being 0891 and 0898, which might not be such a good idea.

Locked-out - I agree with your argument.  

We must have a clear and understandable division between Normal Rate calls (customers normal rate, including 0p/min on Option 3 etc) and calls at a premium to the normal rate (however small) should be placed in a single “09" classification.  This simple solution is the only one that is transparent and the one that will work in the long run, no matter what the short term difficulties are.

If a call is at a premium to the caller’s Normal Rate why hide that fact?  The sooner Ofcom come to terms with this basic idea, the better.  All other solutions will only complicate matters and the unfairness to consumers will continue.

Yes, kk, this is the only sensible and sustainable position.  Any (and ALL) Premium rates must be under 09 - if further numbers start to be used the waters will be muddied even more and consumers will be at a disadvantage once again.
But then, this is Ofcom we are dealing with, 'mud makes money for their salaries ( and their commercial cronies!)'.

wrote on Dec 10^th, 2005 at 3:21pm:

I notice that O2, TMobile, Orange and Three have all remained stum.  Either this is because they are incompetent or it is because unlike Vodafone they are not brazen enough to believe that they can actually find any way of justifying their current customer NTS scamming.

Please don't drag o2 in with the other mobile operators!

They are the ONLY company in the UK who include 0870 and 0845 numbers in their inclusive minutes. So please don't call them scammers, as they are actually the only hero in the whole NTS fiasco!

Cheers, Des.

DesG wrote on Dec 15^th, 2005 at 12:04am:

Please don't drag o2 in with the other mobile operators! They are the ONLY company in the UK who include 0870 and 0845 numbers in their inclusive minutes. So please don't call them scammers, as they are actually the only hero in the whole NTS fiasco!

If you visit www.o2.co.uk/personal/choosetariff/0,,111,00.html you will see that they refuse to quote any of their tariff deals online and I feel sure the munificence you describe does not extend to their Pay as You Go tariffs?

I also note that they quote an 0871 number for their Sales line :o

wrote on Dec 15^th, 2005 at 12:27am:

DesG wrote on Dec 15th, 2005 at 12:04am: Please don't drag o2 in with the other mobile operators! They are the ONLY company in the UK who include 0870 and 0845 numbers in their inclusive minutes. So please don't call them scammers, as they are actually the only hero in the whole NTS fiasco! If you visit www.o2.co.uk/personal/choosetariff/0,,111,00.html you will see that they refuse to quote any of their tariff deals online and I feel sure the munificence you describe does not extend to their Pay as You Go tariffs? I also note that they quote an 0871 number for their Sales line :o

I think you will find the link you provided provides a link to their tariffs? Are you complaining that they only detail the tariffs available on their website, on their website? If so, here is the link to the shop tariffs available by following the link you posted. You will notice they mention that 0870/0845/0800 numbers are included in inclusive minutes on the tariff sheet. http://flash.o2.co.uk/products/pdfs/O2_Calling_Plans.pdf (Yes, I know it isn't straightforward to find, but it is there and freely available.)

I hardly see the relevance that they charge you for making a call on a PAYG tariff, surely that is the point? I don't know how much they charge, or, if it is more or less than any other provider, but charging for a chargeable call hardly justifies dragging them into the scammer category.

I note that they provide an 0871 number and an 0870 number elsewhere for sales, not very cohesive. But again, as they are the only UK carrier that I know of who include 0870/0845 numbers in their inclusive calls packages, please cut them some slack ;)

Cheers, Des.

An interesting read (a new response) at http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/nts_forward/responses/sz/UKCTAIndepenreport.pdf including:

<<
It is clear that there is a strong and vociferous lobby which is pressing Ofcom to abandon the current pricing of 0870 services and to bring the charging of 0870 in line with geographical charging. But it is also clear that this lobby, with its saynoto0870.com website is not representative of the mainstream views of consumers as measured by Ofcom’s consumer research. For example this research concludes¹⁸:

“Overall the qualitative and quantitative research indicated that consumers are looking for clarity in order to distil the confusion over call costs rather than being concerned about revenue sharing per se” (p16).

¹⁸ Number Translation Services: A Way Forward, report of key findings for two research studies conducted by HI Europe and MORI for Ofcom, 9/11/05
>>

And:

<<
The revenue share component of this model is important. It helps to fund the services provided by the service provider. It also helps, since it largely determines the price of the call, to match the value of the call to the caller with the value of the call to the service provider. Without this ability to price signal to the caller so as to filter out low value calls, service providers would not provide the range of services which they do and/or would make significantly greater use of call centres outside the UK.
>>

What a load of GARBAGE!! Are the people who write this stuff so completely stupid?

idb wrote on Dec 15^th, 2005 at 12:57am:

What a load of GARBAGE!! Are the people who write this stuff so completely stupid?

GARBAGE indeed, I would even go further, complete and utter £$%^OCKS.

And these people are selling NGN solutions to the companies that end up ripping us off. No wonder so many gormless companies end up with 0870 with the gibberish these NGN suppliers spout. I am sure some companies still think they are doing us a favour by supplying an 0870 number!

Cheers, Des.

DesG wrote on Dec 15^th, 2005 at 1:07am:

GARBAGE indeed, I would even go further, complete and utter £$%^OCKS. And these people are selling NGN solutions to the companies that end up ripping us off. No wonder so many gormless companies end up with 0870 with the gibberish these NGN suppliers spout. I am sure some companies still think they are doing us a favour by supplying an 0870 number! Cheers, Des.

Just like this one from Highway Robbery, sorry Highway Insurance:

http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/nts_forward/responses/gl/HighwayInsurance.pdf

"providing improved services to customers"!!

Enjoy!

Response from Holiday Extras also worth a read:

http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/nts_forward/responses/gl/HolidayExtras.pdf

idb wrote on Dec 15^th, 2005 at 1:15am:

Response from Holiday Extras also worth a read: http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/nts_forward/responses/gl/HolidayExtras.pdf

Are we not lucky to have such 'helpful' companies around :o

Mind you, it confirms our views of a wholesale migration to 0871 by the 0870 users if the Ofcom proposals are implemented in their current form.

Anyone registered saynoto0871.com yet?

Cheers, Des.

The arrogance of 'Holiday Extras' is breath-taking!
They DO really think that their customers 'appreciate' being ripped off on 0870, and threaten to migrate to 0871 to spite them!
What a lovely company to deal with - a barrage of emails to them saying they will not get business from us would be the thing, I reckon!

DesG wrote on Dec 15^th, 2005 at 12:51am:

I hardly see the relevance that they charge you for making a call on a PAYG tariff, surely that is the point?

No the point is what rate they charge for 084/7 call on PAYG compared to what they charge for 01/02 calls.  Most other mobile companied go to endless lengths to hide these rates and they are usually utterly extortionate and way beyond the usual extra costs associated with routing calls to 04/7 numbers.  Charges like 30p per minute at all times to 0870 numbers seem to be quite normal to 0870 with PAYG operators.  Whereas their 01/02 charges normally drop right down after the first few minutes of calls a day or after spending so many pounds in the month with the company.

Thinking again of CarPhoneWarehouse the reason they are so keen to see the scam continue is not just the disgraceful charges to their mobile customers for calling their own customer service centre but the equivalent disgraceful charges that they levy on their customers for calling all other uk customer service centres too using 084/7 numbers.

omy wrote on Dec 15^th, 2005 at 7:47am:

The arrogance of 'Holiday Extras' is breath-taking! They DO really think that their customers 'appreciate' being ripped off on 0870, and threaten to migrate to 0871 to spite them! What a lovely company to deal with - a barrage of emails to them saying they will not get business from us would be the thing, I reckon!

I think more useful is a barrage of emails to Car Phone Warehouse where Mr Charles Dunstone is another cynic like Richard Branson who prefers to be seen as the cuddly loveable consumer's friend but is in fact another ruthless evil big business shark relying on spin and deception.  Email Mr Dunstone directly at dunstonec@cpwplc.co.uk

Ask him how he can be selling the benefits of 01/02 inclusive call packages via TalkTalkk while sending submissions to Ofcom demanding that the great 084/7 ripoff and their exclusion from 01/02 calls packages mushrooms yet further.

See /www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/nts_forward/responses/sz/TheLocalRadioCompany.pdf for the CPW submission.

Quite a few of the new responses have already been picked out for comments by idb and others. Anyway, the total of published responses has now reached 1,159. (There will be others that have not been published, of course.)

This is the link to the responses page:
http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/nts_forward/responses/

And these are the new ones since the last list. (This may be the last list, unless it continues to increase significantly.)

BBC TV Licensing  
Bennett A  
Blake Dr. W B J  
Butler J  
Campbell G E  
Carr P  
Clark M  
Clarvis S D  
COLT  
Cooper M  
Cordell K  
Cristmas L  
Crofts P  
Davies Mike  
Dawson M  
Diamond G C  
Digby J  
Drew D  
Drukker M  
Dryurgh I  
Earthy R P  
Elite Telecom  
Elston T M  
Etherington B  
Evans L V  
Farrugia J  
Glazerman G  
Greenhalgh P and A  
Gupta S  
Hamill C  
Harris D  
Harrison P  
Hatton-Evans R  
Hayns D  
Hensby R L  
Hewitt G  
Highway Insurance  
Holiday Extras  
Homer P  
Honeyball S  
Hoskins R M  
Hudson M  
Inner Enigma  
ISPA  
Keane P  
Kilvert T  
Laming P  
Lewis H  
Lexgreen Services Ltd  
Lilly S  
Lloyd D  
Lyle D F  
Mace D  
Mayhew J  
Murphy B  
Murphy W  
N Sim  
Name Withheld 184  
Name Withheld 185  
Name Withheld 186  
Name Withheld 187  
Name Withheld 188  
Network for Online Commerce  
Oliver J  
Parker M  
Parkey F  
Parkhouse J  
Payton M  
Pinfield M  
Prescott B  
Proudfoot K and A  
Radio Advertising Clearance Centre  
Ray B  
Richards M  
Robinson M  
Roy W  
Satnoianu R  
Smith J F G  
Solomon D  
Storer P E  
Sullivan J W  
Taylor R  
Telecom One  
Teleconnect UK  
Teletext  
Telewest  
The Carphone Warehouse Group PLC  
The Centre for Ethical Economics  
Thomas A  
Thomas J  
Thraveson-Lambert W J  
Truscott J B  
Trusler D G M  
UKCTA  
UKCTA Indepen Report  
Upton D  
van den Arend J J  
W R Williams Travel Ltd  
Wadsworth A  
Walker P J  
West H  
Williams D  
Williams O L  
Williams P D  
Wolffe L  

COLT looks worth a read.  I'm sure that wasn't there last night.

Just read it.  More claptrap.  Apparently we the customers do not properly understand the issues and so are not in a fit position to comment.  Then there is a whole load of disgraceful stuff about the marvellous national presence an 0870 number gives and that unlike an 0871 number it can be dialled internationally (no mention is made of the fact that there is no trouble dialling 01 or 02 numbers internationally though).

The problem with migrating to 0871 and there "not being enough numbers" referred to in other telco responses is also revealed by a comment in this document.  Essentially because 0871 number allocations are banded between 6p and 10p a minute it would appear that there won't be enough high priced 10p per minute at all times 0871 numbers.  So it appears that COLT basically expects all current 0870 users to move to 10p per minute 0871, in spite of all the rubbish spouted about the NGN conveniences of never having to change your phone number. ::)  And didn't Ofcom tell us it thought that at least 50% of 0870 users would stay put.  There is also no mention of an 0844 number shortage.  Oh dear the planned behaviour of the scamsters is even worse than I thought.

The usual old drivel about company's basing their entire business plans on using these numbers.  But didn't Ofcom try to tell us that basically no one actually made any serious money out of using and 0870 number. :-?

Still at least Daniel will be happy.  It looks as though this site could be in business giving out the geographic alternatives for years to come.  Although I expect many of these telcos will implement national dialling only or voip only routed solutions to prevent this.

This disgraceful immoral industry has been allowed to grow up and now it protests it would be an outrage for the scamming to stop.  But there is no comparison with say the USA and the fact that this NTS scam industry does not even exist there.

A number of interesting points made by BBC TV Licensing, including this:

"In paragraph 1.18 of the consultation document (‘NTS: A Way Forward’), it is proposed that
public bodies should only use NTS numbers if equal prominence is given to a geographic
alternative. As stated above, TV Licensing does not consider that it constitutes a public body
for the purpose of the consultation document.

"In any event, it is TV Licensing’s view that it would be impractical and would result in more
confusion for the customer if TV Licensing were required to provide duplicate numbers.
Moreover, considerable costs would be incurred in adding geographic numbers to the
intelligent call router in order to achieve the required functionality."

Odd that what is effectively a tax collection agency does not consider itself to be a public body!

Also interesting that, unlike many others who support 0870 numbers, it does not think that "adding geographic numbers to the intelligent call router" would be impossible, just costly.

wrote on Dec 15^th, 2005 at 8:34am:

DesG wrote on Dec 15th, 2005 at 12:51am: I hardly see the relevance that they charge you for making a call on a PAYG tariff, surely that is the point? No the point is what rate they charge for 084/7 call on PAYG compared to what they charge for 01/02 calls.  Most other mobile companied go to endless lengths to hide these rates and they are usually utterly extortionate and way beyond the usual extra costs associated with routing calls to 04/7 numbers.  Charges like 30p per minute at all times to 0870 numbers seem to be quite normal to 0870 with PAYG operators.  Whereas their 01/02 charges normally drop right down after the first few minutes of calls a day or after spending so many pounds in the month with the company.

I decided to look up what they charge on o2 PAYG.

0845, 0800 and 0870 numbers are charged at 35p per min in the daytime, 10p per min in the evenings and 5p per min at weekends. Daytime is 07:30 to 19:30 Monday to Friday. Weekend is Midnight Friday to Midnight Sunday. Evening at all other times.

This is not hidden away anywhere, it is listed in the PAYG tariff description. I don't know how it compares to other PAYG tariffs, but it seems clear and open to me, definitely not in the scammer category.

Cheers, Des.

Well, I rather think that 35p for 0800 is scamming.
It is meant to be FreePhone...

I agree isnt the clue in the name?
freephone not chargefreephone

DesG wrote on Dec 15^th, 2005 at 11:23pm:

I decided to look up what they charge on o2 PAYG. 0845, 0800 and 0870 numbers are charged at 35p per min in the daytime, 10p per min in the evenings and 5p per min at weekends. Daytime is 07:30 to 19:30 Monday to Friday. Weekend is Midnight Friday to Midnight Sunday. Evening at all other times. This is not hidden away anywhere, it is listed in the PAYG tariff description. I don't know how it compares to other PAYG tariffs, but it seems clear and open to me, definitely not in the scammer category.

You can't get Vodafone PAYG rates to 0800, and 084/7 anywhere (website or literature) and customer services will give you the wrong rates 9 times out of 10.

It seems like 02 really have changed their ways compared to their predecessor, Cellnet, of which I was a contract customer several years ago and who used to lie about almost everything (including their poor coverage in the countryside compared to Vodafone).  You will note Vodafone's disgraceful response to NTS Way Forward - they now seem to be run by a bunch of totally unscrupulous a**holes.

Surely 02 ought to get more good publicity for being the only company not to behave badly over NTS.  Of course the NTS scammers will use 02 to prove there is competition in the marketplace and so need for regulatory intervention.....................

I just wanted to draw the attention of everyone subscribed to this thread to the new thread I have just started about the 3 Ofcom consultations that close this Thursday 22nd Dec and that all have issues relevant to members of this site.

This thread can be found here:-

www.saynoto0870.com/cgi-bin/forum/YaBB.cgi?num=1135070399

We really need as many as possible of you to send brief but hard hitting responses to these three consultations.

The key issue is why has Ofcom sliced up what should have been one consultation on clearer pricing information and the National Telephone Number Plan (NTNP) in to no less than 6 different consultations closing on different dates across two months? :o >:(

The disgraceful ill thought out proposals on the new non standard priced Police 101 number needs to be opposed particularly vigorously.

wrote on Dec 9^th, 2005 at 12:32pm:

Ofcom's questions were so rigged and so few in numbers (for the public in the Plain English Version) that answering those alone achieved nothing at all.  In fact I didn't answer the Ofcom NTS Way Forward questions to protest at the questions asked and especially the fact that completely different questions (with an odd question number sequence) were asked in the Plain English Version.

I agree with NonGeographicalMan that people should submit more than just YES in their answers,
but I didn't quite understand his point about the questions, so I checked the Ofcom website and
he's right the 10 formal questions on page 124 in the main doc [here] are different from the 4 Plain English questions [here]
and the 5 questions used in our questionaire are a mixture of both!

Why did those numbskulls from Ofcom use confusing and different questions,
if not to allow them to choose what they want to hear?  
::)

What I want to know is, does anyone think that Ofcom will consider all our submissions are
invalid because we didn't answer the right questions?  
:o

DonQuixote wrote on Dec 20^th, 2005 at 9:26pm:

What I want to know is, does anyone think that Ofcom will consider all our submissions are invalid because we didn't answer the right questions?   :o

What I want to know is if the Government will realise that Ofcom is invalid because it can't even manage to use Question numbers in the Plain English version of the consultation which correlate with the questions bearing those same numbers in the full consultation. ::)

Seriously, what's the law on this?   [smiley=engel017.gif]

Have we all been wasting our time?  >:(

Shouldn't someone check with Ofcom to find out?

DonQuixote wrote on Dec 21^st, 2005 at 1:02am:

Seriously, what's the law on this?   [smiley=engel017.gif] Have we all been wasting our time?  >:( Shouldn't someone check with Ofcom to find out?

The taxpayer has certainly tipped a lot of money down the drain with bankrolling Mr Stephen Carter and his well paid colleagues in their palatial London riverside HQ whilst they achieve seemingly very little on the general public's behalf.

wrote on Dec 21^st, 2005 at 8:52am:

The taxpayer has certainly tipped a lot of money down the drain with bankrolling Mr Stephen Carter and his well paid colleagues in their palatial London riverside HQ whilst they achieve seemingly very little on the general public's behalf.

So you think we have a problem then?  :o

DonQuixote wrote on Dec 21^st, 2005 at 6:19pm:

So you think we have a problem then?  :o

Yes a regulator that fails to perform its primary remit under the Communications Act 2003 to protect the best interests of uk citizens and consumers.

According to the Communications Act 2003 Ofcom's primary remit is not to protect entrenched business interests or the profitability of existing businesses.  Yet that in practice seems to be Ofcom's usual main agenda.

Could it be something to do with where many of its employees have previously worked and/or where they hope to work in the future? ::)

An extremely belated and relatively inadequate 2 page response from the Ofcom Consumer Panel was added to the Ofcom NTW Way Forward Responses website on 20th December.  Well it is in fact a reasonable response as far as it goes but it is not nearly as blunt as it needs to be on Ofcom's perpetual delay in taking any action and the disgraceful proposal to leave 0845 as premium rate for at least an extra two years.

But then this hardly comes as any surprise given that I have only recently discovered that Ofcom only even bothers interviewing people for vacancies on this Consumer Panel who do meet various tick boxes for political correctness but who are clearly not sufficiently passionate about broadcasting and telecoms issues to be likely to give Ofcom any trouble (I have also had a tip off elsewhere that this is in fact exactly how Mr Stephen Carter prefers his Consumer Panel and Advisory Committee Members to behave).  Unfortunately I am also now rather unimpressed with the Chairman's Panel Colette Bowe who did not have the time to put her name to this important submission and who has not yet bothered to respond to any of the emails I have sent her on the NTS issue.  Yet even BT's CEO Ben Verwaayen has been prepared to speak to me personally on the phone about these issues.  I suspect that Ms Bowe may have more commitments in her portfolio of non executive senior appointments than she actually currently has time to fulfil.

See www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/nts_forward/responses/mr/ocp.pdf  for the Consumer Panel response.

This purports to have been written on 9th December (in any case three days after the closing deadline and a Friday so one has suspicions it was actually submitted early on the morning of Monday 12th December) but as the email below from Clive Hillier at Ofcom shows (see below) I was not told of its publication until Dec 20th at least a week or more after I had commented to Clive on the phone that there had so far been no response from the Ofcom Consumer Panel.

Also the response is in the name of a Dominic Ridley but Mr Ridley is not a member of the Consumer Panel ( see www.ofcomconsumerpanel.org.uk/members.htm for its members ) and nor is he one of the two Ofcom members of full time staff who carry out support work for the Panel's members.  So just who is Dominic Ridley and why has he provided the response?  Does this mean that the £12,000 a year very part time (one day a week commitment at the most and that's assuming you actually read the papers you are sent or show up for any optional attendance meetings like the NTS Consumer Workshop ) members of the Ofcom Consumer Panel not only do not have time to attend the NTS Consumer Workshop but also didn't have time to put pen to paper with their thoughts on NTS Way Forward.  Contrast this with the excellent response by the Ofcom Advisory Committee for England which I believe I met the main author of at the NTS Consumer Workshop at the end of November.  This was a gentleman called Don Jayasuriya who had previously worked at the regulator responsible for licensing of radio spectrum but which has now been absorbed into Ofcom (at which point Mr Jaysuriya became a freelance consultant).

Below is the email I received from Clive Hillier about the late addition of the Consumer Panel submission to the Ofcom website.

-----Original Message-----
From: Clive Hillier [mailto:Clive.Hillier@ofcom.org.uk]
Sent: 20 December 2005 13:31
Cc: Matt Peacock
Subject: Consumer Panel response to the NTS consultation

I have just been notified that the Consumer Panel's response to the consultation has been published.

regards

Clive

---
Clive Hillier
Competition Policy Manager
+44 20 7783 4674
nts@ofcom.org.uk

Ofcom
Riverside House
2a Southwark Bridge Road
London SE1 9HA
020 7981 3000
www.ofcom.org.uk

A quick Google has now revealed who this Dominic Ridley is.  This information can be found here:-

www.ofcomconsumerpanel.org.uk/intent.htm

Surprise, surprise Mr Ridley is not one of the "let's not kick up too much of a fuss" part time £12,000 per annum members of the so called Consumer Panel at all but is in fact an Ofcom employee described as a "Policy Executive to the Panel".  Although on the face of it that doesn't exactly sound like a full time job given just how little policy the Ofcom Consumer Panel actually seem to make in the course of an average year!

Yes, a very disappointing response from the Ofcom Consumer Panel (OCP).

Blink, and you miss it. This is OCP's part of its response that discusses aligning 0845 with geographical rates and even goes on to state that it thinks that all revenue sharing should be moved to the 09 number range.

Quote:

Restoring the geographic link to the 08 number range 7. We understand that Ofcom will review the 0845 and 0844 number range in two years time but for consumers to have a clear understanding of the cost and of the number ranges it seems sensible for Ofcom to re-establish the geographic link to the 08 number range (including the 0871 number) sooner rather than later and to move all revenue sharing numbers to the 09 number range.

The first sentence mentions the Ofcom reviewing 0845 and 0844 numbers in two years' time. Whilst some may think I'm being pedantic, I understand that 0844 numbers will not be included in Ofcom's 'review', only 0845 will be. Shouldn't OCP have a complete understanding of all these matters and not make such errors?

Dave wrote on Jan 15^th, 2006 at 9:11pm:

Whilst some may think I'm being pedantic, I understand that 0844 numbers will not be included in Ofcom's 'review', only 0845 will be. Shouldn't OCP have a complete understanding of all these matters and not make such errors?

Dave,

Possibly you are being a little pedantic as I think the Ofcom Consumer Panel is merely opining here that they think all 08 numbers should be returned to geographic rates and any revenue share numbers should move to 09 (thst isn't Ofcom's actual proposal but as they are the Consumer Panel they are able  to put forward a different view).  They neglect of course to mention that 0800 would continue to be charged at Freephone rate which is why I personally think that NGNs charged at geographic rate should have their own code (eg 03).  Of course I would allow them the year's grace these NGN operators will anyhow have to change the tariff from when Ofcom make an announcement to bring in the new 03 numbers.  Then 08 returns to Freephone only.  Even if Voip calling takes off in a big way I think that for now its going to be to a PSTN Voip number and back to an ATA adapter and not computer to computer Voip address with no PSTN involved.  Of course once BT have their 21st Century Network in place perhaps they will want to abolish the PSTN in favour of voip calling, although the slowness of the rest of the world to catch up is still going to hold things back.  Calling a number will be a lowest common denominator for quite some years to come.

But the brevity of the Ofcom Consumer Panel response basically shows that they are only saying what they want to happen rather than having to bothered to read the full 250 pages worth of consultation and 50 odd pages of research.  If they had read all that they would have been bound to have had at least 6 or more pages of response.

But as I say they were only embarassed into producing a response at all due to my emails to Clive Hillier and others and it seems they couldn't be bothered to do more than the minimum (too busy with all the xmas parties and mince pies with the other outfits the Consumer Panel members work for full time it seems).  As I say the Ofcom Consumer Panel is far too crammed full of people with impressive looking CVs who unfortunately don't seem to have the time to properly devote their energies to campaigning on behalf of telecoms and broadcasting consumers.  But anyone who does have this time or relentless enthusiasm but might upset the Ofcom/Stephen Carter applecart is not even interviewed for a vacancy (as yours truly was not lately).  This is the result of Ofcom having a Consumer Panel and also four nation specific Advisory Committees where it pays the fees/wages of the people on the panels and its own staff are in charge of most of the pre-screening and selection process.  The whole system is utter rubbish and should be replaced with a totally independent Telcommunications Ombudsman Office that included regulation of Ofcom instead of the spineless and pathetic Otelo from which Ofcom are exempt.

I note some newly published responses in addition to the pathetic contribution by OCP. An interesting one from the bleating DSA is at http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/nts_forward/responses/af/dsa.pdf - clearly concerned about the possibility of their scamming being curtailed, and also a short reply from an MP, Peter Bottomley, at http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/nts_forward/responses/af/bottomleyp.pdf

The good old DVLA has also provided a response at http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/nts_forward/responses/af/dvla.pdf

As far as I can tell, only one MP has been sufficiently interested to respond to the consultation which does not in itself bode well for getting rid of these numbers. Perhaps MPs are as apathetic about this scam as the rest of the public.

idb wrote on Jan 16^th, 2006 at 2:57am:

I note some newly published responses in addition to the pathetic contribution by OCP. An interesting one from the bleating DSA is at http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/nts_forward/responses/af/dsa.pdf - clearly concerned about the possibility of their scamming being curtailed, and also a short reply from an MP, Peter Bottomley, at http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/nts_forward/responses/af/bottomleyp.pdf The good old DVLA has also provided a response at http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/nts_forward/responses/af/dvla.pdf As far as I can tell, only one MP has been sufficiently interested to respond to the consultation which does not in itself bode well for getting rid of these numbers. Perhaps MPs are as apathetic about this scam as the rest of the public.

As I expect you will realise Peter Bottomley only ended up responding to the consultation due to an ongoing email dialogue with a certain Councillor with whom I am also personally rather well acquainted. ;)

I think MPs would have been put off by the pure impenetrability of the consultation document and the total number of such consultations that MPs receive from all over the place every week (they would have all been sent the consultations in hard copy form by Ofcom).  It does however seem disappointing that Lord (formerly Paul) Tyler did not find the the time to put in a formal response though although he, Vince Cable and Andrew Rosindell have all been asking some helpful Parliamentary questions lately.  I think they are asking the wrong questions though.  They should be asking each Minister how much it would cost in a full year for their department to abolish all non geographic phone services operated by the department on 084, 087, 09 or 070 prefixed numbers, including the cost of any reduced price services or discounted equipment presently supplied by the telecoms company as a quid pro quo for the existence of the NGN contract.  Perhaps I need to suggest this to the MPs in question.  I see some departments have actually been quite forthcoming in their responses though whilst others (especially the Inland Revenue/Customs) have resorted to total obfuscation.

Perhaps they will soon be saying that decisions about whether or not to use an NGNs by government departments/agencies should be a matter for experts rather than a matter for government ministers. ;) ::)

It is odd that the DSA's response is from Jason Falk, Booking Control Manager, and not from its Chief Executive or other director.  Mr Falk seems distressed at the prospect of more of the DSA's customers booking their driving tests on the web if it had to use 09 numbers so the public knew the real costs of these 0870 calls.  Is this purely because Mr Falk fears a loss of jobs for himself and his colleagues in the Booking Control department - surely the DSA board would welcome more online booking and the resulting staff cost savings?  Interestingly Mr Falk quotes an 0191 geographic number as his contact number though!  I am tempted to email Jason to ask if his submission is a personal one on behalf of Booking Control staff or is on behalf of the entire agency.

Claims that it would cost a fortune to change the number are obviously utter rubbish when all that needs to happen is that an announcement is provided on the old 0870 number free of charge to call the new 03 geographic rates number.  How do these people think they ever managed to move from their geographic number to the 0870 number. ::)

Unfortunately of course we know that weak as water Ofcom is all too inclined to accept such pathetic arguments from the bandits in these government agencies.

I see there is now a response dated December 22nd from the Federation of Communication Services to the Providing Citizens and Consumers with Improved Information...... etc consultation that closed on Dec 6th.  So perhaps there is still time for the Ofcom Consumer Panel to get in a late submission on this one too then? ;)

Perhaps I could put in a late submission on Ofcom's Wholesale Line Rental - Fit for Purpose consultation of a couple of months ago which I missed at the time but with which I take great exception with the conclusions?  Stupidly I had thought that several weeks after the event I might be too late.  What a silly notion when Ofcom take up to a year to assess and report back on responses to most of their consultations.

Perhaps there is still time for you to make a response on the Single National Non-Emergency Number idb as I know that you had intended to make one?  Perhaps there is still time for all those other Police forces in the UK who have not yet responded to the SNEN consultation to do so?

wrote on Jan 16^th, 2006 at 7:42am:

Perhaps there is still time for you to make a response on the Single National Non-Emergency Number idb as I know that you had intended to make one?

I may try to put something together this week.

idb wrote on Jan 16^th, 2006 at 12:39pm:

I may try to put something together this week.

If they refuse to allow it I would point to some of their other generous time extensions on responses and the 10 days that were lost between xmas and New Year.

Perhaps it was because you know you would end up writing 8 pages as I did that the thought of sitting down to do it proved too big a hurdle to cross.