Dear All,

Ofcom have given us a unique opportunity for up to five members of the SayNoto0870 discussion forum to attend a Workshop to discuss consumer issues associated with Ofcom's Consultation Document - Number Translation Services: A Way Forward at their offices in London this Thursday 24th Nov between 3pm and 5pm.  There are currently still places available for members of this forum if anyone is interested?

Ofcom have made this invitation through me because I have previously chased them rather hard about the fact that although they have held a variety of focus group on NTS issues for employees of the telecoms companies they have not previously provided any such Focus Groups for the views of ordinary uk consumers or uk consumer organisations.

Somewhat foolishly I naturally assumed that a fairly good proportion of our top 25 or so posters in this forum would take up the invitations I have previously sent them by Private Message but it seems to turn out that many of you live in the far flung nether regions of the uk 200 or more miles from London and so the prospect of a whole day off work and a £50 return rail fare is not proving quite as enticing as I perhaps had expected it to be.

So if anyone reading this works in London and can get the rest of the afternoon off on Thursday or if there is even anyone reading this in a a far flung region of the uk who is prepared to make a 3 or 4 hours return journey each way and spend £50 or £60 on train fares to have an opportunity to tell Ofcom what you really think about their proposals to reform 084/7 numbers then this is your golden opportunity.

Anyone interested should either respond to this Private Message or email me at ngm@grenehurst.plus.com.  If you have not previously made many posts in the forum some information on who you are and why you think you would have useful opinions to express at this Workshop would also be very helpful.

Below are details of the invitation I received from Gareth Davies at Ofcom.  I look forward to hearing from you.

Regards,

NGM
 
-----Original Message-----  
From: Gareth Davies [mailto:Gareth.Davies@ofcom.org.uk]  
Sent: 10 November 2005 10:55  
Cc: Matt Peacock; Roger Lowry; Steven Davidson; Clive Hillier  
Subject: Invitation to Ofcom Workshop  
 
I write to invite you to an Ofcom workshop to discuss consumer issues in relation to our consultation document:  Number Translation Services: A way forward (28-09-05)  
 
The event will be hosted by Ofcom Partner Sean Williams at Ofcom on Thursday 24 November, 3.00 - 5.00 p.m..  The event is for consumer groups, NGOs, consumer activists and other interested parties, and we have reserved 5 places (out of around 30 in total) for people who post on the www.saynoto0870.com forum. I would appreciate it if you could ask on the forum if anyone else would be interested in attending.  We would very much like you to join us, and would appreciate it if you could confirm whether you are able to attend this event by contacting Thesla Breban (thesla.breban@ofcom.org.uk / 020 7981 3624) as soon as possible.  
 
If you are unable to attend and would like to nominate an alternative representative please let Thesla know the name and contact details of your nominee.  We look forward to seeing you at the workshop.    
 
Kind regards,  
 
Gareth Davies  
Director of Competition Policy  

*** Thread title edited by Dave ***

Good to see Ofcom are recognising the site!

But with this 'consultation' having been going for some while, it really is a bit late for most of us to even hope to get to London (from Scotland in my case).  Presumably Ofcom is typically 'Capital Orientated' (not unlike most other Government Offices) and wouldn't consider a 'rolling roadshow' around the UK, as we are ALL interested.

But, choose well, NGM, and 'give 'em hell'.  And tell us all about it when you get out, unless they blanket you with a 'Secrecy Order' ;)

Good to see you posting again.

omy,

There seems to be a massively non South East theme to the SayNoTo0870 forum regulars apart from me!

Norfolk, Yorkshire, Liverpool, Blackpool, Chesire, Scotland.  Anywhere but the South East or even London it seems.

Does this perhaps mean that most people in the South East of England get so well paid that they don't have to worry about the cost of calling 0870? :o  Those well paid enough not to have to worry about the cost of 0870 calls of course seem to naturally include all of the senior management of Ofcom. ;)  Which is why they don't seem to even begin to understand the problem. >:(

I think you may be correct in your assumptions, NGM, that 'Southern folk can afford to be scammed ;)

But I do hope you can rally enough support to go and present the case.  Wouldn't Daniel himself be a prime candidate, as it his site?

It will look bad if we fail to field a good 'team', when we are making such a fuss about 0870 etc.
Good luck.

omy wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2005 at 11:20am:

Wouldn't Daniel himself be a prime candidate, as it his site?

I have asked Daniel but no response so far.  Dave lives in Yorkshire and seems to think it is too far to come.

omy wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2005 at 11:20am:

It will look bad if we fail to field a good 'team', when we are making such a fuss about 0870 etc.  Good luck.

How about if Ofcom were prepared to cover people's travelling expenses?  Would that change anyone's answer on this issue?  How about you omy?

Anyway, from your knowledgeable posts over the last months, I am sure you could do the job of five men if required [smiley=thumbsup.gif]

Be with you in spirit, of course.

Sorry, posts crossed!
Unfortunately I couldn't make this Thurs - got a hospital operation booked - but I think expenses should make a difference to a lot of others.  And after all it's only a drop in the ocean on Ofcom's budget.

omy wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2005 at 11:39am:

Sorry, posts crossed! Unfortunately I couldn't make this Thurs - got a hospital operation booked - but I think expenses should make a difference to a lot of others.  And after all it's only a drop in the ocean on Ofcom's budget.

I haven't asked Ofcom yet but suspect they might agree to such a request to pay travelling expenses.

It might make a difference to a number of the potential attendees looking at £50 or £60 train fare bills.  After all most members of this forum are rather inclined to watch the pennies. ;)

wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2005 at 11:11am:

omy, There seems to be a massively non South East theme to the SayNoTo0870 forum regulars apart from me! Norfolk, Yorkshire, Liverpool, Blackpool, Chesire, Scotland.

And don't forget Miami, FL area! Other than the fact that I started training for a new job last week, I would have attended, combining this opportunity with a visit to friends and family in the UK.

I really hope that we can contribute five individuals to this important meeting. A day out in London isn't that bad surely?!

With all the members on this site i for 1 would quite happily say two or three quid into a kitty to help a valued member from up north or south for that matter who has more knowledge than I to attend the offcom meeting.  If alot of members thought the same as I travelling expenses would then be sorted. :)

dad2711 wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2005 at 8:19pm:

With all the members on this site i for 1 would quite happily say two or three quid into a kitty to help a valued member from up north or south for that matter who has more knowledge than I to attend the offcom meeting.  If alot of members thought the same as I travelling expenses would then be sorted. :)

I think its the day off work and therefore day lost from holiday allowance that is more the issue for most people.

I am surprised though that we haven't had more flexi time workers in the London area wanting to go.  For them if they started at say 8am then all we are talking about is a couple of hours off work to go to the meeting.  Unfortunately most of our activisits seem to be way out in the regions and our administrator Daniel - has vanished without trace at the very mention of attending a meeting in person.  I'm told by Ofcom the same thing happened the last time they invited him to a meeting.  It seems Mr - only does interviews by phone.  Curous insn't it. ::)

]Today at 9:06pm by NonGeographicalMan]
Quote:

I think its the day off work and therefore day lost from holiday allowance that is more the issue for most people.

Sorry i did not think of the work issue as i am registered disabled and do not work any more that thought never crossed my mind :-[

NGM,
If Daniel has 'gone to ground' can I ask if you tried MartinMSE?  As they seem to never appear together, if one isn't going maybe the other would?
Or am I a bit too cynical?
Best wishes for your appearance today - should be very interesting!

beginner wrote on Nov 24^th, 2005 at 7:24am:

NGM, If Daniel has 'gone to ground' can I ask if you tried MartinMSE?  As they seem to never appear together, if one isn't going maybe the other would? Or am I a bit too cynical? Best wishes for your appearance today - should be very interesting!

I have a feeling MSE_Martin knows about today's meeting too. ;)

For whatever reason it does not seem to suit the agenda of either Messrs - or Lewis to attend such meetings.

I was only made aware of this particular Workshop on an email sent to me on Tuesday (which I only read yesterday).  

Unfortunately I didn't have enough time to make necessary arrangements, and had other committments.

Although I haven't made many posts lately, I have been busy working in the background.  Since sending out the e-mail regarding the Ofcom Consultation (to 4800+ members) I have had a large backlog of e-mails, with people asking for advise on whether their responses were suitable, etc. - I will try and get back to those who haven't yet had a reply as soon as possible.

Thanks again
Daniel

Hi NGM,

I, like many others on the forum I'm sure, are keen to hear how the workshop went yesterday!!  Come on, spill the beans!  Who from Ofcom was there and how did thay come across ?  Who else attended the workshop and who were they representing.   And what was the strength of feeling amongst the group ?  Any new information come to light that we weren't aware of? Sorry about all these questions - just keen to hear the details !!!  ::)

Hope it went well anyway and didn't leave you feeling any more cynical than before?

Yes, please let us know what happened. I really hope you have not been silenced by the esteemed Office of Communications.

The sudden 'disappearance' of NGM after the meeting is a bit suspicious - has he been abducted, as a warning to the rest of us?
We, who were unable to make it, would love to know what happened.
Will Ofcom publish minutes?

omy wrote on Nov 26^th, 2005 at 7:01am:

The sudden 'disappearance' of NGM after the meeting is a bit suspicious - has he been abducted, as a warning to the rest of us? We, who were unable to make it, would love to know what happened. Will Ofcom publish minutes?

Hi, omy!

Far be it for me to respond on NGM's behalf.  I was at the meeting too, but will await NGM's comments before I add my own rather modest ones.

IMHO, NGM should be praised by everyone for his efforts before and during the meeting, and OFCOMmers present displayed a level of respect to NGM which they did not seem to afford to others present.

BTW, I got home at 11 p.m....

Patience, my dear Watson!!....

Sonny

I think NGM will understand the tone of my enquiry, and the implication of 'abduction'.
Thought not being able to attend myself, due to hospitalisation, he knows I supported him all the way and have respect for the work he has put into this campaign.
I think even a one line post saying when he might report back would have been useful, though.

Full report hopefully by end of weekend but have been very busy since meeting with varius other things.  Have to go off to relative's house to see friends from overseas this morning.

It was a much smaller and more exclusive gathering than seemed obvious from Ofcom's invitation to a mere Workshop.  We were sat round a large square meeting table for 2 hours with all the main protagonists from Ofcom, a lot of representatives from their consumer panels and advisory committees (who with one glorious and very noteworthy exception were almost utterly useless in adequately representing the interests of the uk consumer), a lady from Which (who tried but did not have a full understanding of and was not a firebrand on these issues), a guy representing Citizens Advice Bureauxs and the main guy from the COI (Marc Michaels) who made some pretty helpful points in saying why Ofcom's proposals to not change 0845 at the same time as 0870 would cause them a nightmare.

Tanllan, dorf and bbb_uk are now probably going to be even sorrier than they no doubt already are that they unfortunately couldn't be there on Thursday.

Ofcom were given a very hard time on all of the more ludicrous aspects of their proposals.  I also learned that there was a possibility before this consultation was published in September (hence I am sure the endless delays in doing so) that Ofcom might have come up with far more customer friendly proposals but this was vetoed at a high level within Ofcom (something I learned informally although not officially admitted at the meeting).

More on this within the next couple of days.

Cheers, NGM, look forward to the full thing.
Not surprising to hear that someone 'high-up' in Ofcom has a veto  (on things which will not favour his commercial 'mates', one assumes!).
Maybe there is more scope to find out who it actually is, now that we maybe know the questions to ask (as Sir Humphrey Appleby might have opined) of FOI etc.

Thanks for the post, NGM.  Your preview was interesting.  In view of the lack of consumer representation, it was clearly vital that you and the other SayNo members were there.  All of us genuinely appreciate you and the other members for attending this important meeting and carrying the fight! Cheers!

And I'm so glad you haven't been abducted, brain-washed, number-translated or ofcom-ed off !!!!!!  (like Omy I was starting to wonder!)

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Yup NGM, I regret not being down at 2a with you. But at least we had a chance to talk.
I am grateful for the considerable input.

Hi NGM, the weekend is over and you haven't posted the information on the Ofcom Workshop you promised. Indeed, since Friday you've only made two posts!

Dave wrote on Nov 28^th, 2005 at 12:09am:

Hi NGM, the weekend is over and you haven't posted the information on the Ofcom Workshop you promised. Indeed, since Friday you've only made two posts!

hes been made to 'dissapear'!!!!

Come on , guys, give the man a break!
Dave said the weekend was over (at 9mins past midnight!!!). Technically correct, but as far as I'm concerned 9am on a Monday morning is when MY weekend stops.
Accepting the 'reminder' was a little tongue-in-cheek, let's give NGM a chance to do other things in his life as well.
But I still worry about his 'disappearance' too :(

In his last post, he did say:
Quote:

Have to go off to relative's house to see friends from overseas this morning.

Sometimes friends and family come first.

NGM, this is taking longer than Ofcom does ::).
Came back today fully expecting some feedback - what about giving us yours, Sonny?
At least it will be something, if NGM is otherwise occupied, and it might stop rumours that NGM is also MartinMSE, Daniel, Dave and DaveM , all in one ;)  (do I not remember NGM himself having a 'spat' about this 'conspiracy theory', not long ago??).
Have Ofcom 'got to him', finally - is our campaign doomed?

Hi begginner.  Think you are right. Strange how NGM and sonny suddenly go all coy about the meeting.
NGM has been the most-posted writer in this forum over the last few months (at one stage I remember there seemed to be only him posting - and long posts at that). Since he was invited to the Ofcom meeting he is nowhere to be seen, and it's showing in that the site doesn't have much going on at present. Hope he's not taken the 'king's shilling'!!
A lot of strange goings-on lately.....

Heinz wrote on Nov 28^th, 2005 at 9:50am:

Sometimes friends and family come first.

Full report by tomorrow morning (Wednesday) morning I hope.

I left my list of attendees at the meeting back at home (been away from home that last 3 days) and I feel I can't write up some of the meeting without referring to that.  Also I have been very busy with other matters over the last few days and didn't even turn my computer on yesterday. :o

I will say however that Ofcom seem to be open to the possibility of realising that they may still have got it wrong with these proposals and that they may face major embarassment over their leaving 0845 untouched for several more years, and also not making 0844 regulated by ICSTIS (thus leaving the door open for all 0870 scammers to move there in spite of all the rubbish we usually hear spouted about 084/7 being so great for number portability).  I am less hopeful that Ofcom will be persuaded that 0844 and 0871 users have to move their services over to an 09 prefix.  But they might accept much more control of how 0844 and 0871 are marketed and might be prepared to see 0845 dial up users forced to 0844 so as to allow 0845 to be priced at geographic rate at the same time as the 0870 changes.  They also seemed open to the possibility of blocking off the current proposed loophole of allowing higher call charges to continue on 0870 so long as there is a call price announcement.

It is also very disappointing that Ofcom did not make clear how important a role we would have at this meeting  (both because of there only being 25 people or so in total there of which 7 or so were from Ofcom  and also because several of the other so called Ofcom Consumer Panel and Advisory Committee reps had almost nothing worthwhile to contribute) and did not give more notice so that we had a team of five reps who are regular activists in this forum.  Having said that I possibly made up for this by seemingly taking up about 75% of all question and answer time outside the tedious hour or more long presentation of their proposals that Ofcom insisted on wasting a large amount of time on.

I will report further with a more detailed analysis either this evening or tomorrow morning.

Good to see you back, NGM, we were so worried about you!
It sounds as though you may have had quite a lot of influence over matters - let's hope so.
It would be a miracle if they accepted everything we are saying, but even some movement on their part can only be for the good.
Look forward to you full report (and no false modesty when reporting your own contributions, please!!).
Regards.

Hi NGM, it's good to see your posting today, and I look forward to reading your report tomorrow.

While I was hoping to delay posting regarding OFCOM's Consultation Workshop last Thursday 24 Nov 2005, until NGM had said his bit, I've decided I cannot hold back any longer regarding one matter that came up.

I am going to mention an informal discussion between myself and the following OFCOM staff:
   Clive Hillier
   Sean Williams
   Gareth Davies
immediately following the formal meeting.  I have already referred to this in earlier posts to SAYNOTO0870, but feel it deserves repeating here, as verbatim as I can get.  In particular, note the very last comment.

I said "An interesting thing for you, gentlemen.  I have found in a survey that people who use SAYNOTO0870 and so forth to avoid making 0870/0845 calls discover that they now spend 3 times as long on their calls to these call centres as they had previously."

The OFCOM gentlemen nodded in anticipation.

"Now, call centres use these calls basically for two purposes - one, to sell to the customer; two, to help with the customers problems."

"Yes", they replied in unison.

"So by avoiding 0870/0845 calls, we, the consumers are doing these call centres a big favour - we're giving them three times as long to sell their products to us and solve our problems."

Vigorous nods of agreement.

"So, if they really wanted to sell their products at all via their call centres, dropping the 0870/0845s could help them, and save them a lot on their marketing budgets."

"If they wanted to sell, yes", one of the gentlemen replied dubiously.

"In fact," I continued, "American Express is a good example, with an 0800 switchboard number, and on their paperwork and web site they always show the 01273 numbers as well as the 0870s.  And they're a joy to talk to......."

Clive Hillier interrupts me, "that's absolutely right".

"You use American Express then, Clive?" I enquire.

"Sure I do" he replies.

Sean Williams interjects "But then, they're American, and they have a totally different attitude to selling and marketing on the phone than we do over here."  They all nod vigorously in agreement with this comment.

"However," I continue, "if companies over here could see things that way, then we might stand a chance of making real reductions to the £1.5 billion these companies and the telcos take from us consumers annually for 0870/0845 calls."

Sean looks doubtful.  "Well, I really can't see that happening" he says.

'nuff said.

Sonny

I think we must all be aware, sonny. that the Ofcom 'result' will probably be as they have already 'arranged' - little will change and certainly nothing that will prevent their commercial buddies from continuing to 'coin it in' from the 0870 scams.
Everything else is simply smokescreens and mirrors!
I have come to the conclusion that you CAN fool most of the people all of the time!

omy wrote on Nov 30^th, 2005 at 11:24am:

I think we must all be aware, sonny. that the Ofcom 'result' will probably be as they have already 'arranged' - little will change and certainly nothing that will prevent their commercial buddies from continuing to 'coin it in' from the 0870 scams.

Yes omy, I think you read the conversation I related pretty accurately.  Just to add, though - I did not detect any sense of guilt in Sean Williams's last comment, only an admission that they are forced to allow the situation to continue.  That implies to me that there is pressure from above (albeit on behalf of the telcos &c).

A really, really cynical person might interpret it this way:

The industry want to rip off the consumer.  Of course, there must be a sham regulator in place to supposedly function on behalf of the consumer, meanwhile allowing the rip off to proceed smoothly.  So industry must lobby through government to ensure that the regulator remains toothless, perhaps even replacing it every few years, viz OFTEL -> OFCOM, and of course just in case there is actually someone in the regulator's ranks who is genuinely trying to represent the consumer's interests (a kind of Trojan horse, as industry would see it!).

So, as far as industry is concerned, at the end of this NTS exercise there must still be in place a viable range of NGNs through which industry can continue to make its £1.5 billion p.a. of shared revenue, or preferably more, say £2.5 billion while they're about it.

How do we address that issue, then?  

Sonny

Publicity is the obvious answer - but the old problem of how to do that when most of the publicity 'organs' are using 0870 for their own profits.
Similarly trying to get the Government to act you face a similar hurdle.
The only hope is that when enough of the general public realise the scam, the Gov will HAVE to act - but I think I will be gone from this world before that ever happens!!

There may just be a ray of hope here? I have been away travelling, but I seem to recall that there has just been a report from Parliament that a couple of the other useless so-called regulators have been warned to get their act together? Didn't the Postal regulator and the Energy Regulator get a sharp rap over the knuckles for being effectively useless, and providing 'jobs for the boys' in very expensive palaces in the most affluent real estate in town?

Maybe they will latch on to Ofcom next?

:)

I think that once we see yet again, as anticipated after all these sham "consulations" of Ofcom, that they still in reality do nothing active to even reduce these scams, let alone eliminate them, we must cease to respond to any further Ofcom consultations. It really is a complete waste of time. I believe the only way forward in getting anything done about all of this corruption, which is clearly at the base of their refusal to do their duty under the Acts and eliminate all of these rip-offs, is to lobby MPs, concentrating on exposing the failure of Ofcom to perform their principal duties under the Acts.  

A good one to start with is Edward Leigh who is chairman of the Parliamentary Accounts Committee. It is him that is referred to here earlier, who in this role has slated Energywatch and Postwatch. The big problem with telecommunications of course is that we do not have an equivalent body, having solely a duty to the citizen consumer. This is where Ofcom has split loyalties, and always acts in the interests of the telcos to preserve their revenue streams and ignores the citizen consumer.

I am about to send a message to Edward Leigh and I suggest all angered by Ofcom's continual failures do the same.

wrote on Nov 30^th, 2005 at 2:44pm:

A good one to start with is Edward Leigh who is chairman of the Parliamentary Accounts Committee.

Hello drrdf2

Excellent place to start.  Anyone with further suggestions for governmental / government-influenced bodies that we might approach?

I shall also be contacting at least one national paper this week[tr][/tr].

Sonny

It's now over a week since the 'Workshop' and I still cannot find the report promised by NGM.
Are we going to get anything?  NGM is still responding on other topics (18866), but seems reluctant to pass on thoughts about the meeting.  It's still a bit 'fishy', considering the number and lengths of his previous posts on this site - silence ill becomes you, NGM ;)

Masterpieces take time.

Agreed, but NGM is posting regularly today, both on 'Cheap Calls' and here in this forum (a fairly lengthy one at 3:11).
Just cannot see why the 'main report we would all love to see is being 'put on the back burner'??

One more thing that came up during the formal meeting last week - if I don't tell you now, I might forget.

It was a matter of emphasis.

Early on in their presentation, the OFCOM guys started making allusions to micropayments, where I would have thought they could have simply carried on talking about revenue shares.  I put on my best innocent expression [smiley=embarassed.gif] and asked Sean Williams to explain for me the difference between micropayments and revenue share.  Sean accepted that there was really no difference.

After that, they stopped using the term micropayments.

£1.8 billion p.a. of micropayments?  Hahaha.

How subtle these telcos can get.  Yes, they've simply got OFCOM in their pockets.  Really...

Sonny

That's very interesting, Sonny.  Sounds like if we call it "micro payments" we can pretend that it isn't "revenue sharing".  Like you, however, they're the same thing in my opinion.

This sounds very similar to the consultation response made by a company called Flextel who on the one hand 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 ?  Surely, higher charges for 08 calls is still revenue sharing ????

Could I ask you a take a brief look at my post #163 on the thread below as they might be examples of the same thing????

http://www.saynoto0870.com/cgi-bin/forum/YaBB.cgi?num=1129806310/150

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.

What Flextel would like to see is total compulsory disclosure of the price you pay to call these revenue sharing NTS numbers from wherever you call (even from mobiles) but they think it is unfair to just target 0870 users without properly reforming the whole of the system in one hit.

I think the fact that anyone who operates in this field is prepared to submit a document that contains a logically coherent, intelligent and ethical analysis of the subject is to be commended.  Many other companies operating in this area are simply barrow boys who have no intellectually coherent position whatsoever and simply aim to scam as much money as possible by any means that they are allowed to by a weak, naive and incompetent regulator.

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.

[This should have been posted in "Read the public's 807 comments to Ofcom here..."   KK]

Surely when Flextel call us "an anarchic website" that is by way of a backhanded complement.

If it wasn't for the current incompetent telecoms regulator and its equally incompetent and supiciously less open predecessor (OFTEL) there would be no need for members of the public to undermine the current corrupt and unfair NTS regime.  Also history shows that direct action against unfair regimes with no respect for the views of the public or the democratic process (which can definitely be said of those who have attemptd to impose NTS and revenue share everywhere by stealth whilst persistently telling lies by claiming the calls are only BT local or national rate) is often the only way to stop their corrupt and unfair activities.

Since the cost of NTS calls masquerading as normal calls has never so far been an election issue the ballot box is of absolutely no assistance to us.  Also the current House of Commons Early Day Motion against 0870 calls shows that opposing this scamming is not a party political issue although the introduction of so much NTS scamming by government call centres does seem to have been party political.

gdh82 wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2005 at 9:54pm:

Sounds like if we call it "micro payments" we can pretend that it isn't "revenue sharing".

Perhaps I can help by making the difference between micropayment and revenue share a bit clearer...

Let look at the traditional financial model of the UK (and international) telecom network using BT as an example, in a typical 0870 call...

---

Caller --£a--> BTin --£b--> 0870sp  --£c--> BTout ---> Called

---

of course BTin could be replaced by any phone/mobile operator e.g. NTL or Vodafone
and BTout could be different from BTin.

So money flows from left to right, following the call...

£a is paid by Caller (monthly/quarterly bill).
£b is the money paid by BTin to the 0870 service provider, about 5p/min
£c is the money paid to BTout to pay for carrying the call to Caller about 1p
No money is given to Called.

So the NTS company is living off about 4p/min.

£b and £c are micropayments made in the telecoms network.
They are very efficient, because they are made in bulk monthly.
There is little credit risk, so collection costs are very low.
...for the economists amongst us!  8-)

£b-£c is the margin needed to pay for the number translation services.
e.g. databases, switches (exchanges), software, webservers, optical fibre, it is not free!  :'(

Here it comes...
Now add Revenue Share to the end user - Called.
To compete, then 0870sp MUST now pay the Called for every minute of answered time.
Imagine an additional arrow with £d money flowing directly from 0870sp to Called.

£d can be as high as 3p/min!

Clearly Revenue Share pushes up the cost of £b and hence £a.

Now the NTS guys get 5-1-3 = 1p/min (useing full-on revenue share as a bribe).

So it  generates a competitive driver in the market to push prices up,
in a competitive scramble to increase revenue share offered to
greedy end users or...
wait for it...
scammers! (bad people  >:( with no investment, who dissappear into the night)

It starting to look like premium rate, in disguise  >:(

But it gets worse...
If a market has poor price transparency, then consumers get ripped off, (as FleXtel points out).

Just look at the extreme mobile prices cited in it for 08 service! 60p/min!
No wonder the press and user perception is that 0870 is about 30p/min,
rather than about 8p on BT.

If the NTS guys only get 5p/min, what's happened to the other 55p/min!

Shouldn't we also be attacking the mobile operators...
...for their ripoff prices and tricky tariffs!  >:(

If Price Transparency arrived I reckon Virgin would love it!
...and Vodafone would get a bllody nose!

So lets get brutal, let's kill 0870!
If £b-£c is too small then the translation work must be paid for by the Called party.
Ofcom wants £a to become very small, the same as for 01 & 02 geographic.
So £b will become tiny. Yep, that'll stop revenue share.  ;)

Good one! ...but that means we're back to expensive BT's call diversion charges
(& mobiles too!) or Called pays the NTS operator a lot.
Why?...
Because you have to collect payment to pay for the NTS/Diversion  
and that is very, very, expensive  -> high collection risk, small bills!
...bad people can disappear without paying!
...BT's argument for retaining so much!  ;D

Also we now have two small (high risk) bills per call, very inefficient for UK plc.
So if your a business or contractor or
you work from home or
work flexibly:home/office or
have a geographically dispersed service desk

you've now got to pay diversion costs.
So if diversion is active... when people call you, you pay!
if silent calls occur - you pay!
if double glazing sales people call - you pay!
if time wasters call (at very low cost - 4p for ever on 18866!) - you pay!

You can't divert to 18866 and
diverted calls aren't in your bundled minutes.
So you pay the standard rate and
you are trapped by your mobile/line operator.

OK, never mind, at least it's the end of all NTS service...
no free flexible intelligent numbers,
no dispersed service desk numbers,
no free advertising sales numbers.
no beating mobile roaming charges with a foreign SIM.

It'll be fine for big corporates using BT, with dedicated high quality VoIP connections,
but VoIP via ADSL is rough.
Fine for calling the kids/granny in Australia for free,
but not good enough if your trying to make a deal with a supplier/local bank etc.
- delay, gaps, distortion when big files block the net for a few secs.
SDSL to be no better, as, unlike 'expensive' telecoms, there is no quality criteria (GOS)
for the internet... You get what you pay for.

So that leaves many small, medium sized businesses and
international travellers with a bit of a problem.
Hey, they say, let's use premium rate instead, minimum caller cost just 10p?

Hang on, didn't we say NTS with revenue share was Premium rate in disguise?

So isn't this where we came in? ...hmmm must think about this   :-[

An interesting post Don Quixote with some valid observations.

It seems to me that as you point out there are some people who require flexible call re-routing services that are not voip but that don't cost them a fortunue.  What needs to happen is that Ofcom investigates and regulates BT's current disgraceful feature poor (you can only divert to one number on a BT landline using conventional call diversion) anti-competitive call diversion service so that customers on BT lines are allowed to divert calls through other carriers like 1899 and 18866.  Then those who need a proper call diversion service will pay for it but the cost to them will be minimal.

Can I suggest that the advantage is that because the called party paying for the NTS diversion pay a lot of these charges that they will be able to exert market pressure to bring call diversion costs down.  Also that if NTS revenue share is banned that other companies will want to compete with BT in offering traditional call diversion services at better prices.

But hang on wait a minute.  Doesn't Ofcom's consultation document say that only "revenue share" is banned on 0870 and that higher call charges will be allowed if you have a call price annoucement.  So now I understand why.  This will be for those wanting calls routed overseas or to mobiles for free and where a substantial micro payment (not so micro) is required to the telecoms company for the service.  So the caller will still pay more than for 01/02 calls. Grrrhhhhhhhhh! >:(

No hang on its fair that some called parties who are trying to operate on a shoe string need these services but the member of the public must know they are paying extra and the whole thing must be transparent.

So what we need is a lower rate number prefix for lower cost NTS calls that are not barred by traditional premium rate barring.  So what about 06 for calls up to say 15p per minute with price announcements then insist that anyone who wants to have NTS call redirection for free gets one of those numbers instead of their current 0844, 0845, 0870 and 0871 number (abolished or returned to geographic call rates).  Then callers will know they are paying extra for the call so there will be price competition to get the costs as low as possible so that customers are not put off calling.  This is what 070 PNS was supposed to be but isn't because market forces haven't worked.

Alternatively if you want call diversion for nothing extra to your calling party then can I politely suggest that you the called party must pay for it but that Ofcom must create an open and competitive and transparent market so that the extra cost you will pay is minimal instead of present ripoff BT rates.  For instance 070 sounded like a reasonable idea in principle but why on earth do the call tariffs still go up to 50p per minute in the current low cost telecoms environment?  And why aren't existing 070 PNS tariffs falling by the month if not the week?

NGM said:


Quote:

..... So what about 06 for calls up to say 15p per minute with price announcements then insist that anyone who wants to have NTS call redirection for free gets one of those numbers instead of their current 0844, 0845, 0870 and 0871 number (abolished or returned to geographic call rates).....

We do not need another class of numbers, keep it simple, just use an expanded 09 class, with costs starting at 1p/min and not the current 10p/min.

As I have said before:  All voice landline calls 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, even 1p/min, 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.

kk wrote on Dec 4^th, 2005 at 8:08pm:

We do not need another class of numbers, keep it simple, just use an expanded 09 class, with costs starting at 1p/min and not the current 10p/min..

kk,

I am with you in spirit on moving everything to 09 but just trying to be a pragmatist here on what Ofcom will accept. And Ofcom will say that the public has a negative perception of 09 associated with sex chat lines et al and that will damage the business of anyone moving there from 084/087 or 070.  Even if it really is offering a valuable service (in Ofcom speak) that the public want to pay for.

Now allowing for the fact that we all believe Premium rate barring should be switched on by default and be free for the 25p to £1.50 per minute mercants Ofcom might buy that idea if lower rate Premium calls went on another prefix code that was not automatically barred (but still with call price announcements).  I say don't keep it simple but rather keep it logical.  Trying to keep it simple was the error made in putting 070 PNS on the same 07 as true mobile phone numbers.

I really think the public could cope with 04 being for internet dialup and 06 for lower rate premium and 08 now just for Freephone.  Oh and while we are about it I would put all the calls on 08 that now want to charge the same geographic prices as 01 and 02 on to 03 so that 08 truly is Freephone.

As dialup PSTN calls only have 5 to 10 years left anyway and 02 is little used I'm sure the NTNP ought to be able to cope with this until we no longer need an NTNP.

wrote on Dec 4^th, 2005 at 8:44pm:

I am with you in spirit on moving everything to 09 but just trying to be a pragmatist here on what Ofcom will accept. And Ofcom will say that the public has a negative perception of 09 associated with sex chat lines et al and that will damage the business of anyone moving there from 084/087 or 070.  Even if it really is offering a valuable service (in Ofcom speak) that the public want to pay for.

I do think that this is an important point to bear in mind, or more to the point why this might be. I think that many people see Premium Rate = "Expensive Rate". Do they really understand why it's "expensive", and more to the point, do they realise that the called party receives a cut?

If it had been thought out, we could have had something like this, as an example:

• 091 1p to 10p (currently 0844 and 0871)
  
• 093 11p to 25p
  
• 095 26p to 75p
  
• 098 76p to £1.50

I do think that another term should be thought up, as 'premium rate' is not a rate as such, but a type of number. I am all for the 0844/0871-type numbers to be labelled 'low premium rate', or something similar.

wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2005 at 4:08am:

Since the cost of NTS calls masquerading as normal calls has never so far been an election issue the ballot box is of absolutely no assistance to us.  Also the current House of Commons Early Day Motion against 0870 calls shows that opposing this scamming is not a party political issue although the introduction of so much NTS scamming by government call centres does seem to have been party political.

OTOH, drawing Early Day Motion 622 to the attention of your own MP and encouraging him/her to sign it can only help.

I e-mailed my MP (most MPs have an e-mail address in the format surnamex@parliament.uk [where x is their first initial]).


Quote:

Please will you sign EDM 622 I think you will agree that Government departments are using these numbers as another stealth tax on citizens. Kind regards.

I received a 'Will do' response within a few hours!

Heinz wrote on Dec 5^th, 2005 at 1:17pm:

I e-mailed my MP (most MPs have an e-mail address in the format surnamex@parliament.uk (where x is their first initial) and received a 'Will do' response within a few hours.

Where surnamex@parliament.uk (where x is their initial) is rejected by the Parliamentary email server call the House of Commons Switchboard on 020 7219 3000 and ask for their parliamentary secretary's name.  Then send an email to the secretary at surnamex@parliament.uk (where x is their initial) asking for it be drawn to your MPs attention.  All MPs are likely to give priority to reponding to email from their own constituents (i.e. they may not bother if you are not a constituent), although having said that there is one Conservative MP who is giving me a lot of assistance over this matter who is a signatory to the EDM but is not my own constituency MP (who has not yet signed the EDM).

Around 100+ MPs only have a Parliamentary email address in their secretary's name because if they have one in their own name it apparently receives an absolutely overwhelming amount of junk email (this includes my own MP for whom no parliamentary email address is listed).  You may also be able to email your MP via their local party constituency office.

Hi Heinz
Good ideal about the EDM

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Hi NGM and Dave

The idea of creating a “mini premium” category of numbers [see posts above], with a cost range of about 1p/min to 10 or 15p/min is NOT a good idea.  

Suppose we did have a new category, say 06, then the Banks, Insurance Companies, Doctor’s Surgeries etc etc would soon migrate to this category, charging extra above a customer Normal Call Rate (0p/min on Option 3 etc).  We would gradually get back to the present 08 mess. Companies would claim that “06" was an approved category and would say:-   “It only cost the basic rate” ...[“Basic Rate”, being the new mantra for a call of 5p/min or less] ...  “It is only a local rate number” ... ... “it’s a free number” ....  and all the usual lies to con the public.

Some firms might well hesitate before using an 09 category of numbers (which could start at 1p/min), but that is the point.  They would have to be honest and admit to using a more expensive number. We would get price transparency at last  .

wrote on Dec 4^th, 2005 at 7:22am:

What needs to happen is that Ofcom investigates and regulates BT's current disgraceful feature poor (you can only divert to one number on a BT landline using conventional call diversion) anti-competitive call diversion service so that customers on BT lines are allowed to divert calls through other carriers like 1899 and 18866.

I really appreciate NonGeographicalMan's comments, and might I say he certainly seems to understand the issues well. I agree with him, BT call diversion service is a disgrace!

There are two problems that block enhancement...
1. The idea of the 1984 Telecom Act was that competition would drive innovation, not the Regulator. Legally, I don't think Oftel could, or Ofcom can, make BT innnovate, only open its markets to competition. Does anyone know the law here?

2. In the case of BT diversion, unlike NTS, calls goes to the BT local exchange and even the subscriber line (data record these day) so money has already been wasted routing the call nearly all the way to the copper pair. NTS does this much earlier and therefore should be much more efficient(cheaper)!

NTS should be seriously competing with diversion charges, right now! But, the greedy mobile operators are overcharging for it. 60p for an 8p call! Call Price Labelling would expose this to millions of ordinary consumers.

I live out in the sticks, so I can only get BT. When I am working away from home, I can't change my diversion and it's very expensive, so I use NTS for my small business. The calls never queue, I immediately answer them or they goes to my voicemail.  I then call my customers back. So they get better service from me. I guess if you kill NTS I will be stuck with BT again. I could use my mobile but the callers will pay more and they'll get a rubbish call when I'm poor coverage, which is often out here!

Should I move to London (or any city), increase overcrowding, road congestion and house prices, just  to get access to BT competitor services? There must be thousands of small and medium sized businesses in my situation. The only fixed line innovation we get out here is NTS, because BT still has nearly 80% of the market after 20 years! And BT wants NTS dead(Here) because it makes no money, it's losing market share here and it's a long term threat.

My feeling is that NTS has a place, but has been abused by Goverment Monopolies making the wrong service choice. Freephone, 0845, 0871 or 09x. So should the taxpayer pay or the caller?  What about that recent cockup by the tax office(Here)? It beggar's belief!

Most good NTS operators give customers powerful remote features such as:
instant diversion, meet me,  queuing ::), voice & fax mail via IVR, SMS text and/or the web, albeit at higher cost to the caller. This may help some small the UK compete better worldwide.

I hate call queuing, it's a waste of my time. I am not convinced it will go away if NTS is removed. In fact I think it will get worse, as it will all be funded by the taxpayer out of the Treasury budget.

So should NTS be killed, just because of a few incompetent government departments, making the wrong choice and because of crazy mobile prices?

I think we should be screaming for Price labelling now, just like Flextel! So all these cons can be exposed, before we pay(call). I don't want to find out I've been ripped-off 3 months later when my BT bill arrives, do you?

As was outlined to Ofcom at the recent meeting there needs to be a series of NTS numbers only charged at geographic rates for which the number receipient might be willing to pay a very modest additional service fee proportionate to the actual value of the NTS services they received (but not bankrolling extortion by certain telecoms companies).

Ofcom don't seem to be able to explain why there was never an NTS number series created in the mid 90s charged at geographic rates for which the subscriber paid a small additional fee.

There are companies who would offer you a virtual 020 number that could be redirected wherever you want without paying BT's extortionate call forwarding rates.

That news article with Iav Livingston from BT's comments about 0870 in July is interesting.  Strange that I haven't heard about it before.  I suppose BT reckons that their competitors will lose more money than they will if NTS is abolished.  Its a shame Mr Livingston couldn't help with my compaints about BT's disgraceful restrictive practices on its Light User Scheme (no mobile phone ownership allowed and no broadband on the line allowed) or about BT's disgracefully overpriced Call Diversion service.

Perhaps I should drop him an email suggesting we speak about all this on the phone.  To be fair Mr Livingston did try to call me in relation to one of my complaints a few weeks ago but I wasn't in and he didn't leave a number to call back on.

NGM - is there any chance of the report from the Workshop, that you have been promising for so long??

I seem to remember that it was BECAUSE you were involved as a poster on this site that you were invited to it by Ofcom (as OUR representative), surely courtesy to us members would suggest you might give back something.  If not it appears you just wish to use the site membership for your own ends, with no regard for others.

Please, no more procrastination - tell us honestly if and when a report will be forthcoming.

firestop wrote on Dec 7^th, 2005 at 8:03am:

NGM - is there any chance of the report from the Workshop, that you have been promising for so long?? I seem to remember that it was BECAUSE you were involved as a poster on this site that you were invited to it by Ofcom (as OUR representative), surely courtesy to us members would suggest you might give back something.  If not it appears you just wish to use the site membership for your own ends, with no regard for others. Please, no more procrastination - tell us honestly if and when a report will be forthcoming.

Hey I have had various things going on personally since then and was also concluding my Response to Ofcom's Way Forward consultation which turned out to be a 15 pager to match that of idb.  Actually number of pages is down to point size and Font so lets see how many pages it comes out at when Ofcom have converted it to PDF and possibly a standard Font?

I also didn't appreciate your earlier comments in this thread which were really rather rude.  At least I Sonny and Fabian all went to Ofcom, unlike at least 30 other people in this forum who were given the opportunity and then claimed that work etc was more important to them. Do you think you should possibly consider the forum name Flamethrower instead? ;) ;D

In essence Ofcom spent a long time in the two hours by getting Clive Hillier to take us through a presentation of their Way Forward Consultation and all the politically correct claptrap that they think justifies no action at all on 0844 and allowing the 0845 scam to continue for two years after 0870.

Mr Hiller was constantly interrupted after almost every item by yours truly to point out the fallacy in his arguments and was ably backed up by our friend Sonny who is newish to the forum but as relentlessly committed to the crusade as any regulars here.  Indeed he has spent a career in IT and also worked latterly for Colt Telecoms.  Fabian also chipped in with a few choice comments.

The only other people of note at the meeting were Marc Michaels at the COI, who made a very good case why government contact centres did not want to use 0800 (crank calls and unduly high running costs due to revenue share in reverse) but saying that the COI couldn't tolerate the delay envisaged by Ofcom in taking action and also that leaving 0845 costing more than 0870 was going to be very difficult to explain.  There was also a gentleman representing Citizens Advice Bureau who started off justifying why they used 0845 but then came round to the view they would never have used them had there been an NGN code that was charged at geographic rates but that still gave them all the call rerouting facilities with their non voip calling systems.

There was a lady from Which who said from what she could understand that these 0845 and 0870 numbers were not good for consumers but she was new to this and didn't understand it too well.  Actually she was trying it wasn't her fault that nobody very senior from Which was sent along.

There were a whole lot of people there from places like the DTI and the Ofcom Consumer Panel who made absolutely no worthwhile contribution and then finally an excellent guy called Don Jayasuriya from the Ofcom Advisory Committee for England who in a slightly less outraged and confrontational way than myself made some very telling points about why all this was so bad for the consumer.

Ofcom of course stuck to their guns and gave us the rather lame excuse from Sean Williams (Ofcom's Competition Partner and soon to be board member who chaired the meeting) that the people who wrote the NTS Options for the Future consultation had now all left Ofcom and were all former OFTEL people so we couldn't blame his current staff for all that.  This of course just made us SayNoto0870 types even more cross.

Ofcom got the message that people weren't at all happy with their proposals but as to whether they choose to listen that's down to political pressure they are applying elsewhere.  I wonder if Which have responded formally to the consultation.  If  not its clearly an utter disgrace on their part.

More details with attendee list etc when I get a moment.

Thanks, NGM.
I did not intend to be rude or cause offence with any of my epistles, but we were all desperate to know what went on at the meeting - as many of us in the 'sticks' could not have managed to attend without an overnight stay in the capital and two 8 hour train journeys - yet apart from Sonny (who was waiting for you to report) nothing had been forthcoming.

We appreciate there are other things happening in your life, but it was a puzzle that you still had time for copious posting on various topics, but not the 'report'.

But, well done - it does seem as though you dealt some stick about!! ;) ;)