Ofcom are delaying implementing the proposed changes in 0870 beyond 1/2/08. The reason for this is because Ofcom are worried about the knock on effects of applying a pre call announcement to calls to  0870 numbers. It appears that the pre call announcements applied to 070 numbers have caused safety of life issues with critical (emergency type) services that use 070 numbers. Ofcom have decided to delay the current 0870 policy implementation and undertake an assessment.

This may mean that 0870 call charges remain unchanged as it is difficult to distinguish between tariffs without a pre call announcement notifying the caller of the call charge.

Customers who wish to change the tariff that their caller pays can convert to 0370, alternatively, take on one of the new 030 or 033 numbers. The best deal that I can find is with Windsor Telecom, who offer an 030 (not for profit organisations only) or 033 (any organisation) numbers for just £24.99 per month, which includes no less than 10,000 free minutes. Inbound calls thereafter are charged at 0.5p per minute ex VAT. If anyone is interested their website address is http://www.windsor-telecom.co.uk/03-numbers.php

[edit]dave1463 is in fact David Bennett, Sales Director at Windsor Telecom.[/edit]

Where has this information come from?

This surely begs the question - Why are organisations who are supply life critical emergency services using 07 or 0870 numbers in the first place. They should be using an 0800 AND Geo Number surely.

Dave wrote on Oct 27^th, 2007 at 10:20am:

Where has this information come from?

Call me old-fashioned but I note it's a first-time poster coming up with information who, although apparently being unable to provide a link to the source, is able add a link to a company selling 03 numbers.

IMHO, the likelihood of it being a clever spam is high.

dave1463 wrote on Oct 26^th, 2007 at 9:35pm:

Ofcom are delaying implementing the proposed changes in 0870 beyond 1/2/08. The reason for this is because Ofcom are worried about the knock on effects of applying a pre call announcement to calls to  0870 numbers. It appears that the pre call announcements applied to 070 numbers have caused safety of life issues with critical (emergency type) services that use 070 numbers. Ofcom have decided to delay the current 0870 policy implementation and undertake an assessment. This may mean that 0870 call charges remain unchanged as it is difficult to distinguish between tariffs without a pre call announcement notifying the caller of the call charge. Customers who wish to change the tariff that their caller pays can convert to 0370, alternatively, take on one of the new 030 or 033 numbers. The best deal that I can find is with Windsor Telecom, who offer an 030 (not for profit organisations only) or 033 (any organisation) numbers for just £24.99 per month, which includes no less than 10,000 free minutes. Inbound calls thereafter are charged at 0.5p per minute ex VAT. If anyone is interested their website address is http://www.windsor-telecom.co.uk/03-numbers.php

Windsor Telecom should be avoided. A major player in the NGN scam with a seemingly cosy relationship with the regulators and public bodies, I suspect its sales tactics are not dissimilar to those of NEG, ie based on lies and deciet. Just look at WT's responses to various Ofcom consultations and you'll see just how odious this organization is!

Heinz wrote on Oct 27^th, 2007 at 11:10am:

Call me old-fashioned but I note it's a first-time poster coming up with information who, although apparently being unable to provide a link to the source, is able add a link to a company selling 03 numbers. IMHO, the likelihood of it being a clever spam is high.

I did think that. I have since discovered dave1463 is infact David Bennett, Sales Director at Windsor Telecom. See here.



idb wrote on Oct 27^th, 2007 at 11:59am:

Windsor Telecom should be avoided. A major player in the NGN scam with a seemingly cosy relationship with the regulators and public bodies, I suspect its sales tactics are not dissimilar to those of NEG, ie based on lies and deciet. Just look at WT's responses to various Ofcom consultations and you'll see just how odious this organization is!

Indeed, to this day Windsor Telecom persists with referring to 0844 and 0845 as being "local rate".

A search of Windsor Telecom's website reveals:


Quote:

0845 Numbers – Cost of Calling 0845 Numbers have a long history as non geographic numbers. They are without doubt the UK’s most popular memorable numbers and have a high public awareness as ‘local rate numbers’, meaning the cost of calling them is approximately the BT local rate. Source

A quote from a letter from Neil Sherring, CEO and Marketing Director at Windsor Telecom, to Clive Hillier and Gareth Davies of Ofcom in December 2005:


Quote:

Advertising & Marketing Since WT was allocated it’s range of numbers by Ofcom, they have always been promoted and sold in good faith as local rate (0845 numbers) and national rate (0870 numbers) respectively. At the point of every sale, our customers are also advised to advertise their numbers as being ‘local’ and/or ‘national’ rate. To no longer allow these descriptions because they are deemed ‘misleading’ by the ASA seems too much of an unnecessary upheaval. As well as the costly re-printing of all promotional material to eliminate these descriptions, associations will have already been made in the minds of consumers with 0845 numbers being ‘local rate’ and 0870 numbers being ‘national rate’. It will therefore be extremely difficult to create a ‘disassociation’. WT believe that the two descriptions should remain but in order to clarify further, capped ppm charges should feature next to the descriptions. Full letter available here.

Remember this is from December 2005. It was Windsor's choice to use the "local rate"/"national rate" descriptions knowing full well that most telephone users don't pay such rates to call them. Telcos like Windsor know that the only way they can sell these numbers to service providers is to convince them that they are doing their customers a favour. What better a term than "local rate" which keeps alive the myth that there really is a difference between local and national calls.


Some 'promotional' material for Windsor's 0844 numbers:

http://www.windsor-telecom.co.uk/pdf/new/0844.pdf

In large type at the top of each page it says:

Quote:

0844 Local Numbers Lower call costs for your national callers

Remember, ASA upheld a complaint against Windsor for describing 0845 as "local rate" in January 2006. See here.....

Yes, but is the substance of the first post in this thread true?   I am in the middle of disputes with at least two organisations, a large part of the basis of these being the change in the status of 0870 nos from Feb 2008 (and I expect many other forum members are in similar situations).  Hence, forum users need to know the truth before we make idiots of ourselves and give a moral victory to those we are fighting.   I am waiting for a response from Clive Hillier at OFCOM regarding the (mis)use of outdated terms which might help answer this but I don't know when I will receive this so, in the meantime, maybe one of the most knowledgeable forum members can investigate this & provide some sort of answer?  While waiting, I will refrain from making any further complaints which involve the future charges/status of 0870 nos.

Please could anyone reading this please also read my latest post under National Trust to see why I need this info urgently.   Thanks.

Barbara wrote on Oct 29^th, 2007 at 9:21am:

Yes, but is the substance of the first post in this thread true?   I am in the middle of disputes with at least two organisations, a large part of the basis of these being the change in the status of 0870 nos from Feb 2008 (and I expect many other forum members are in similar situations).  Hence, forum users need to know the truth before we make idiots of ourselves and give a moral victory to those we are fighting.   I am waiting for a response from Clive Hillier at OFCOM regarding the (mis)use of outdated terms which might help answer this but I don't know when I will receive this so, in the meantime, maybe one of the most knowledgeable forum members can investigate this & provide some sort of answer?  While waiting, I will refrain from making any further complaints which involve the future charges/status of 0870 nos.

I sugest you also ask, in a seperate email, Clive Hillier whether Ofcom are postponing (or even thinking about it) the changes to 0870 and if so, why?

Bear in mind that everyone has had a year (I believe) to get themselves prepared for this change.

Barbara wrote on Oct 29^th, 2007 at 9:21am:

Yes, but is the substance of the first post in this thread true?

I have been unable to find any evidence that the assertion that there will be a delay to the 0870 policy change is factually correct, however given the inaction and dithering by the regulator, and the general clandestine process of NTS regulation which bypasses the consumer, I guess that it is possible a delay will be announced.

Whilst many 0870 users have shifted to 0844, some of the big players - Sky, BBC - have so far retained their 0870 offerings. Perhaps they are hedging their bets in case there is further delay to implementing the 0870 policy change.

Perhaps Windsor Telecom does indeed have some insight into forthcoming changes!

Heinz wrote on Oct 27^th, 2007 at 11:10am:

Dave wrote on Oct 27th, 2007 at 10:20am: Where has this information come from? Call me old-fashioned but I note it's a first-time poster coming up with information who, although apparently being unable to provide a link to the source, is able add a link to a company selling 03 numbers. IMHO, the likelihood of it being a clever spam is high.

I apologise.  Clearly, the OP had insider information (although the manner of presentation was clearly self-serving).

http://www.saynoto0870.com/cgi-bin/forum/YaBB.cgi?num=1193931593

Some more info on this delay !!!!


"Ofcom has postponed long-scheduled new rules designed to clamp down on the non-geographic number rip-off, after it realised that its rules could scupper burglar alarms and monitoring systems for vulnerable people.

Regulators have kept the news quiet. There's no announcement on its website. Ofcom told industry at a call routing focus group last week, according to operator Numberstore.

Ofcom told the Reg the hold-up has been prompted by a submission from a trade body called the UK Competitive Telecommunications Association (UKCTA). Its document, dated January 7 2005 (pdf, pages 12 and 13), warns on technical issues caused by plans for free pre-announcements on expensive calls.

An Ofcom spokeswoman said regulators had only become aware of the issue relating to alarm systems in the last few weeks.

When it drew up the new regulations more than 18 months ago, Ofcom decided to allow firms to opt out of providing standard rate national numbers - if they put out a free warning that the call will cost extra before it is answered. The problem is that many alarms automatically dial out to 0870 numbers when they are tripped. Some will time out if the call is not answered quickly, which could mean an emergency goes unreported.

The spokeswoman said: "Ofcom is investigating how to deal with the very specific case of alarm and safety services running on 0870. Ofcom is committed to introducing rules to make it clear to consumers what they will pay when calling 0870"


http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/11/01/ofcom_0870_snag/

If the reason for a suspension of the long overdue demise of the 0870 scandal is as suggested in the article referred to above, then it makes no sense in the context of my understanding of the situation ....


The UKCTA was aware in January 2005 that certain equipment could not be used to make calls that featured pre-announcements. The implications of Ofcom's decision were therefore clear to its members from the day it was announced.

If its members (the OCPs who compete with BT) made the decision to take advantage of the special opt-out to the general tariff requirement for 0870 numbers, this would prevent some customers from making some calls to 0870 numbers. They knew this, as it was they who made that very point to Ofcom!

Having made a decision to take this exceptional action and implement use of cost pre-announcements, despite having expressed serious concerns about their feasibility, it is they who must accept responsibility for the consequences, not Ofcom.


Have they provided warnings to their customers announcing that they will be deviating from the preferred simple Ofcom suggestion for transparent pricing and will therefore be introducing pre-announcements from 1 February 2008?

Have these warnings been provided with a sufficient period of notice so that customers who make 0870 calls using equipment that cannot deal with pre-announcments could make alternative arrangements?


Ofcom made its intentions very clear. It had decided to SAY "NO" TO 0870.

0871, with appropriate "premium rate" regulation, was available for those who wished to benefit from the terms currently associated with 0870. 0870 would return to its original charging basis (which was still dishonestly being claimed by many) as no more than the cost of a call to any UK geographic number. With the 08xx ranges still in something of a mess, a degree of clarity and transparency would be provided by the entire 03xx range being exclusively for non-geographic numbers charged on the same basis as geographic numbers.

The option of pre-announcements was not generally seen as desireable from any side. It seems that Ofcom was perhaps reluctant (or unable) to compel either a mass number change or a price reduction. If so, a pre-announcement offered the only secure way to ensure transparency by those who wished to deviate from the plan by retaining the present charging basis for calls to 0870. Given the suggestions of technical difficulties and cost associated with meeting the explicit pre-announcement requirements imposed by Ofcom, it may have been hoped and expected that few would take this option.

Ofcom was not quite saying "NO", more like "PROBABLY NOT, BUT MAYBE IF YOU REALLY WANT TO".


The reaction to this apparent sudden revelation about alarm systems seems like a great victory for some clever ****er who saw how the Met Police had been caught on a Health and Safety issue and decided to try a similar approach with Ofcom.

It is of interest to note that Ofcom now has more time in which to resolve the current competition case that may be more relevant to this decision than anything to do with alarms - http://www.ofcom.org.uk/bulletins/comp_bull_index/comp_bull_ocases/open_all/cw_963/
(the detail of this is way above my head so I could not offer any serious comment about how relevant it could be.)


So Ofcom is now saying "WELL OK THEN", with no conditions, for the time being. We cannot call this a delay until Ofcom provides a new date and confirms that it will not be making any revisions to the regulations. It has made no definitive statement about what is happening, it has simply advised, through an indirect source, that what was to happen will not now go ahead.

The least we can ask Ofcom for in the meantime is some serious help in promoting and encouraging public sector migration to 03. If this is not forthcoming, we may be forced to conclude that it has now lost all its resolve and is ready to say "YES" to any smooth-talking telco representative.

David

The rumour is that it seems Ofcom didn't think the whole thing through.  :o

I heard, Ofcom was warned in early 2005 by both UKCTA and BT not to use pre-call announcements, as they wouldn't work.
It was even warned about faxes failing for 070, but swept it aside in order to keep going  >:(

Then in September, some old lady pressed her emergency call pendant (which had a permanent 070 number programmed into it)
and it didn't work. Fortunately (for Ofcom) she didn't die. BT has sent out a warning about this.

Apparently the bombshell was dropped in the NTS Focus group only last Thursday, when Ofcom announced it was reconsulting on 0870 as a result of this incident . This left BT and the UKCTA members in a mess as they have already gone to huge expense to advertise the change. Some are already signing up direct debits to pay for receiving calls.
See BT for the full information, they look like they're in a tail spin.  :'(

Keith wrote on Oct 27^th, 2007 at 10:25am:

This surely begs the question - Why are organisations who are supply life critical emergency services using 07 or 0870 numbers in the first place. They should be using an 0800 AND Geo Number surely.

Apparently its because they are permanent. So if the geographic number is changed they just switch the 0870 or 070 number to point to the new exchange or office number. It was a good idea until Ofcom planned to accidentally break it!  ::)

They hardly ever make calls (hopefully none), so call cost isn't a problem, but the number being permanent, means that you do not have to rush all over the UK and reprogram over 1 million alarm systems.  8-)

DonQuixote wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2007 at 11:17am:

Then in September, some old lady pressed her emergency call pendant (which had a permanent 070 number programmed into it) and it didn't work. Fortunately (for Ofcom) she didn't die. BT has sent out a warning about this.

It is astonishing that in this day and age of a 'free' telecoms market that there are those who are actually profitting (profiteering) out of someone else's position of being elderly and in need of help. This lady had no choice of whether to use the service, but the service provider charges a premium each time her pendant device dials up. And of course there's the amount the telco takes above what it would have done had it been a 01/02 number.

DonQuixote wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2007 at 11:27am:

Keith wrote on Oct 27th, 2007 at 10:25am: This surely begs the question - Why are organisations who are supply life critical emergency services using 07 or 0870 numbers in the first place. They should be using an 0800 AND Geo Number surely. Apparently its because they are permanent. So if the geographic number is changed they just switch the 0870 or 070 number to point to the new exchange or office number. It was a good idea until Ofcom planned to accidentally break it!  ::) They hardly ever make calls (hopefully none), so call cost isn't a problem, but the number being permanent, means that you do not have to rush all over the UK and reprogram over 1 million alarm systems.  8-)

These devices are all connected to a telephone line.  From their inception, telephone lines had TWO-WAY capability.  So what's the problem with a (silent) call being made to each device to reprogram the number it dials out to?

Dave wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2007 at 12:10pm:

DonQuixote wrote on Nov 2nd, 2007 at 11:17am: Then in September, some old lady pressed her emergency call pendant (which had a permanent 070 number programmed into it) and it didn't work. Fortunately (for Ofcom) she didn't die. BT has sent out a warning about this. It is astonishing that in this day and age of a 'free' telecoms market that there are those who are actually profitting (profiteering) out of someone else's position of being elderly and in need of help. This lady had no choice of whether to use the service, but the service provider charges a premium each time her pendant device dials up. And of course there's the amount the telco takes above what it would have done had it been a 01/02 number.

I would agree with Dave normally, but perhaps he misses just one point...
This number could have been programmed in before 0870 and before phoneday. (070 numbers started in the early 90's I think).

In any case, Dave, surely calls are so rare in alarm cases, it can hardly be a great way to make money, surely the service fee is the bulk of the income for alarm companies? But perhaps you know better or think one 50 pence call per year is big money.

So I guess it was probably just an old system that had never been updated (don't fix it if it ain't broken).
Ofcom just forgot to think about, even though they should have done! ...and broke it anyway.  :o

DonQuixote wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2007 at 1:15pm:

In any case, Dave, surely calls are so rare in alarm cases, it can hardly be a great way to make money, surely the service fee is the bulk of the income for alarm companies? But perhaps you know better or think one 50 pence call per year is big money.

I don't suppose that the idea behind the 070 is to make lots of money. But the fact that the users of such systems must pay this 'premium' and that the need of use is not so much one of choice but of necessity.

 Am I missing something, the whole idea of the change was to make 0870 cost the same as 01/02, so there is no need for a pre-call announcement in this case, and this part of the change does not need to be delayed. The other argument about companies having a problem changing their 0870 number has been totally discredited by the raft of companies that have suddenly found a technical solution (in changing to 0871/0844 so very quickly and smoothly DESPITE the problem of informing customers) to the problem of needing 0870 as an unchanging point of entry into their offices that may need to constantly change the underlying geographic number without the need to update customers.

   Permanently programmed 070 alarms are a legitimate reason to delay the inclusion of a pre-recorded message on all such calls, since this would disadvantage consumers, and even be a risk to their safety.

  OFCOM could still go ahead with charging changes to 0870, but hold back on the other changes. There should be no option for some companies to negotiate a stay of execution on their own 0870 numbers, this would only add to public confusion, they should be forced to be honest and change to a recognised premium number such as 0871 with the choice of 6ppp to 10ppp bands.
  Hopefully, the public will quickly become educated as to the nature of 0871.
 Personally,  I would have wanted 0871 abolished, and a new 09 number introduced, as there is no problem with the general public recognising 09 as premium rate, and they also have the option of having the 09 series blocked on their outgoing line.

vinylweatherman wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2007 at 8:02pm:

Am I missing something, the whole idea of the change was to make 0870 cost the same as 01/02, so there is no need for a pre-call announcement in this case, and this part of the change does not need to be delayed. The other argument about companies having a problem changing their 0870 number has been totally discredited by the raft of companies that have suddenly found a technical solution (in changing to 0871/0844 so very quickly and smoothly DESPITE the problem of informing customers) to the problem of needing 0870 as an unchanging point of entry into their offices that may need to constantly change the underlying geographic number without the need to update customers.

This is a very complex area.
Ofcom seemed to be happy to  tinker with a sophisticated business model that has matured over 10 years.
So it isn't you missing something, it was Ofcom...
1. They forgot about modems and alarm failure.

2. They forgot that not all the 0870 providers use the 6p per minute for revenue share. Some use all of it to divert the call or give useful service e.g. like the cost to call a mobile phone.

3. They forgot about charities.

4. They forgot that international calls are not permitted to premium rate from Germany and other countries and so 0870 is a unique service with UK trade benefits IF USED PROPERLY.

5. They forgot that billing to receive each 0870 call would push up the cost for the taxpayer and internet shopper.

6. They didn't realise that their own 0870 rules meant that pre-call announcement would be needed if they wanted to avoid soviet style price controls.

This shallow organisation just goes for quick-fix crowd-pleasing spin, without thinking it through.

Everyone is really p**sed-off by this 0870 mess.  >:(

http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,,2204634,00.html

Ofcom puts cheaper 0870 numbers on hold

Miles Brignall
Saturday November 3, 2007
The Guardian

<<
There was bad news for home phone users yesterday after it emerged the telecoms regulator has quietly delayed plans that would have seen the end of expensive 0870 phone calls.
Following a consumer campaign, Ofcom had agreed that 0870 numbers, which typically cost up to 10p a minute, should be priced at no more than standard landline calls. That was due to come into force on February 1 next year.

However, it emerged last night that Ofcom has delayed its implementation by a "short period" because of concerns that some household alarm systems would not work under the new regime.

Consumer groups complained that Ofcom told the telecoms industry of the delay but did not make a formal announcement.
The 0870 numbers, which can cost as much as 40p a minute if dialled from a mobile phone, have become a money-spinner for the companies called as they typically get about 40% of the call's cost. Almost every customer hotline and many government departments routinely use 0870 numbers. The calls often feature long waits on hold. In 2003, calls to numbers with an 08 prefix cost UK consumers £850m.

Ofcom had ordered that all calls after next February should cost the same as standard calls to numbers with an 01 or 02 prefix. Companies that wanted to carry on charging the higher rate had to warn of the call's cost at the start - something it has now discovered would not work with home alarm systems.

A spokesman for Ofcom said: "There's no change to our overall policy. The key point about these changes is bringing down the price of calls to 0870, which will happen in spring next year. The pre-call announcement option would only be relevant to providers who chose to depart from that general rule. We will keep any delay to a minimum."

David Hickson, a member of the Saynoto0870.com group, which offers consumers alternative numbers to call, said: "We have been waiting patiently for the new rules to come into place and finally end the rip-off that 0870 numbers represent. To find that Ofcom has suspended this at the eleventh hour is both frustrating and very disappointing."
>>

idb wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2007 at 12:32am:

http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,,2204634,00.html Ofcom puts cheaper 0870 numbers on hold

Let us hope that the story will be picked up by other national media.


Quote:

"We have been waiting patiently for the new rules to come into place and finally end the rip-off that 0870 numbers represent. To find that Ofcom has suspended this at the eleventh hour is both frustrating and very disappointing."

Other members may wish to contact other outlets to get coverage and perhaps offer less moderate opinions. As there can be no formal spokesperson to represent the disparate views of those who post here, any published comment that refers to the site must have a personal attribution.

David

Dave wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2007 at 1:28pm:

DonQuixote wrote on Nov 2nd, 2007 at 1:15pm: In any case, Dave, surely calls are so rare in alarm cases, it can hardly be a great way to make money, surely the service fee is the bulk of the income for alarm companies? But perhaps you know better or think one 50 pence call per year is big money. I don't suppose that the idea behind the 070 is to make lots of money. But the fact that the users of such systems must pay this 'premium' and that the need of use is not so much one of choice but of necessity.

Totally agree with you. I have no choice but to accept my ADT alarm dials a premium rate 09 number, which costs much more than 070.
Now is that unacceptable? >:(
Not really. In fact the odd premium rate call is insignificant compared to my annual service fee, which is reduced as a result of the 09 revenue, so I don't complain, as we all pay in the end. The debate is just by what channel.

So shouldn't the real debate be about the inappropriate use of 0870, not 0870 itself?  :-/

DonQuixote wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2007 at 1:55am:

Totally agree with you. I have no choice but to accept my ADT alarm dials a premium rate 09 number, which costs much more than 070. Now is that unacceptable? >:( Not really. In fact the odd premium rate call is insignificant compared to my annual service fee, which is reduced as a result of the 09 revenue, so I don't complain, as we all pay in the end. The debate is just by what channel. So shouldn't the real debate be about the inappropriate use of 0870, not 0870 itself?  :-/

Just out of interest, what is your monthly/annual service fee?

I have an ADT monitored alarm, but I live in the United States. I pay around $34/month including all taxes. Any number called by the alarm is toll-free. ADT customer service is toll-free. I can speak to someone within one minute of calling.

If ADT can do this in the United STates without resorting to premium-rate numbers, why can't they do the same in the United Kingdom?

The answer is that the regulatory framework encourages the use of rip-off numbers with the full knowledge that those who use such numbers can and will 'get away with it'. The UK regulators simply do not give a toss about the average phone consumer.

DonQuixote wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2007 at 12:21am:

This is a very complex area.

Indeed, I wish to take issue with some of your points.


DonQuixote wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2007 at 12:21am:

Ofcom seemed to be happy to tinker with a sophisticated business model that has matured over 10 years.

Part of that maturing occurred when the link with “national rate” was broken. This may have occurred for sound business reasons, but the need for transparency of charging meant that continuing exploitation of an outdated link had become misleading and had to be stopped.

We may have good reason to regret it, but in the fast moving world of telecomms "mature" means 3-4 years old, different words are properly applied to a model that is 10 years old.  


DonQuixote wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2007 at 12:21am:

1. They forgot about modems and alarm failure.

The CPs were aware of the unsuitability of pre-announcements for lines used by modems and alarms in January 2005. Nobody has been required to use pre-announcements. One must wonder why CPs were still minded to make the choice to use pre-announcements having done nothing to resolve the problems they knew this would cause, in October 2007.


DonQuixote wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2007 at 12:21am:

2. They forgot that not all the 0870 providers use the 6p per minute for revenue share. Some use all of it to divert the call or give useful service e.g. like the cost to call a mobile phone. 3. They forgot about charities.

I hope that nobody is seeking to suggest that all those who use 0870 numbers and provide access to them are inherently evil. This is simply about restoring transparency in charging (which includes VAT for most customers).

Those who offer a valuable service or promote a good cause should have no problem in declaring a fair price for a call to a premium rate number. 0871 is one of a number of ranges available for this purpose.


DonQuixote wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2007 at 12:21am:

4. They forgot that international calls are not permitted to premium rate from Germany and other countries and so 0870 is a unique service with UK trade benefits IF USED PROPERLY.

I do not fully understand this point, but it sounds as though 0870 is being defended because it is "stealth premium rate" and thereby may be used as a scam to evade measures implemented for the benefit of other EU citizens. However much one may think it “proper” to scam Germans and other foreigners, 0870 is no less effective in scamming the British.


DonQuixote wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2007 at 12:21am:

5. They forgot that billing to receive each 0870 call would push up the cost for the taxpayer and internet shopper.

I hope Ofcom did not forget this perfectly valid point! 0871 is one of a number of ranges available for those who wish callers to provide subsidies for call centres, which are otherwise funded from other sources of revenue.

It would generally be accepted that many public services, e.g. NHS and the Police, should be funded in full by the taxpayer and not by citizens as they use the services. Public service providers, as with others, who charge fees to callers should be required to declare this openly.


DonQuixote wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2007 at 12:21am:

6. They didn't realise that their own 0870 rules meant that pre-call announcement would be needed if they wanted to avoid soviet style price controls.

As I understand it, it was because Ofcom’s powers as a regulator did not extend to price fixing that pre-call announcements were demanded as a last resort for those who chose not to comply with straightforward requirements to provide price transparency.

Competition in a free market relies on clarity, openness in dealing and transparency in pricing. This exists (to a significant degree) between CPs in geographic call pricing (which now includes 03) and is self-regulated in the interests of the market for premium rate calls (now to include 0871). Those presently involved in what you describe as “this 0870 mess” must decide which way they wish to go, so as to become part of a (relatively) free and open competitive market.


DonQuixote wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2007 at 12:21am:

This shallow organisation just goes for quick-fix crowd-pleasing spin, without thinking it through. Everyone is really p**sed-off by this 0870 mess.

I do not completely share your summarised analysis of the organisation in general, although its actions on this matter over recent days match your description very well.

I do however concur entirely with the latter point; it is unfortunate that Ofcom’s efforts to bring it to an end (by trying to get everyone to abandon, the rightly much-despised, 0870) have not been successful.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2007 at 3:44am:

As I understand it, it was because Ofcom’s powers as a regulator did not extend to price fixing that pre-call announcements were demanded as a last resort for those who chose not to comply with straightforward requirements to provide price transparency.

Your right, but for the wrong reasons...
Price fixing is illegal in the UK, EU and USA. So Ofcom tried to fudge it.

Telecoms is turning into a rip-off world because Gordon's 22billion stealth tax for mobile 3G frequencies must now being paid by the consumer.  ::)
So the mobiles are also doing it by stealth, because there is no price transparency...
Rip-off roaming charges, charging for freephone 0800 and marking up 0870 by over 90p (6p=>100p/min! :o ) is the big issue.
BT charge under 10p incl. VAT for 0870, which should never have been called National rate.

By the way, the 6p I quoted is the wholesale rate for 0870, so VAT does not count as it washes out of business transactions e.g. revenue share.

The mobile guys get paid by BT for an 0800 freephone call, so it costs less than a mobile-mobile call!  So why not make 0800 free or at least bundle it? Rip-off that's why! Ofcom won't go near them, but why?

After 0870day, mobile providers planned to to carry on with re-paying Gordon's tax by plonking on the announcement. Knowing the consumer had to dial the 0870 code.  ::)

You're right Ofcom left this big loophole, so that makes them either incompetent, shallow or what?

idb wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2007 at 2:12am:

I have an ADT monitored alarm, but I live in the United States. I pay around $34/month including all taxes. Any number called by the alarm is toll-free. ADT customer service is toll-free. I can speak to someone within one minute of calling.

Double the real cost and a tenth of the service.  :o

But poor old ADT in the UK is taxed to the hilt, via stealth national insurance (13%+11%) and fuel tax (80%+17.5%VAT), now at $9 per US gallon.
This pays for our fat Government and inefficient social services.  8-)

DonQuixote wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2007 at 9:19am:

So Ofcom tried to fudge it.

Everything that Ofcom does in this area has to be a “fudge”, due to the nature of its remit. The relevant statutory principle duty reaquires it to act to further the interests of consumers through the workings of a competitive market. (This seems to be an oxymoron, even before any sort of reality has to be considered.)

Any regulatory intervention must therefore be limited so that operation of the market is helped rather than impeded. Markets only work when providers are seeking to dominate other providers and exploit customers, but are prevented from doing so by competition. Interventions are therefore likely (if not bound) to have perverse and unintended consequences.

Futhermore, the instinct for fair competition in human beings is less strong than is commonly suggested. This is why campaign groups are effective, as people seek to work together to correct wrongs that are being perpetrated on others – we all know about 0870, but are seeking to protect those who do not. This also stops markets working properly as we see CPs having no interest in fair and open competition between themselves, as they combine to attack common enemies – Ofcom and BT.


DonQuixote wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2007 at 9:19am:

Telecoms is turning into a rip-off world because Gordon's 22billion stealth tax …

If Ofcom, or the former Chancellor, believe that money grows on trees, or is sitting in some readily accessible slush fund held by wealthy telecoms companies that may be raided without any effect on their operations, then they are indeed deluded.

If however these companies believe that their customers have excess funds that can be used to recover licence fees that they willingly paid over or costs that they choose to incur, by stealth, then they are no less in need of correction.

As you say, something has to be done to prevent telecoms from turning into a “rip-off” world. 0870 is the most obvious current example and it is unfortunate that Ofcom’s inevitably insufficent efforts to address this appear to have failed.

We may have to turn to market pressure, seeking to ensure that media attention causes all of these scams to be exposed and thereby rendered ineffective.

I HOPE THAT OTHER MEMBERS WILL JOIN ME IN PRESSING FOR MORE MEDIA COVERAGE OF THIS STORY.

DonQuixote wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2007 at 9:19am:

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Nov 3rd, 2007 at 3:44am: As I understand it, it was because Ofcom’s powers as a regulator did not extend to price fixing that pre-call announcements were demanded as a last resort for those who chose not to comply with straightforward requirements to provide price transparency. Your right, but for the wrong reasons... Price fixing is illegal in the UK, EU and USA. So Ofcom tried to fudge it.

This point was raised and Ofcom argues that fixing the price of 03 to that of 01/02 is not "price fixing". Telcos (OCPs) can charge what they like.

Dave wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2007 at 4:57pm:

DonQuixote wrote on Nov 3rd, 2007 at 9:19am: SilentCallsVictim wrote on Nov 3rd, 2007 at 3:44am: As I understand it, it was because Ofcom’s powers as a regulator did not extend to price fixing that pre-call announcements were demanded as a last resort for those who chose not to comply with straightforward requirements to provide price transparency. Your right, but for the wrong reasons... Price fixing is illegal in the UK, EU and USA. So Ofcom tried to fudge it. This point was raised and Ofcom argues that fixing the price of 03 to that of 01/02 is not "price fixing". Telcos (OCPs) can charge what they like.

Totally agree, but 03 has a total ban on revenue share. But 0870 does not.

The 0870 price point could either be moved by the OCP or the OCP could use a pre-call announcement for business as usual. So revenue share would be discouraged, not banned.
So 03 is a completely different situation.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2007 at 11:51am:

DonQuixote wrote on Nov 3rd, 2007 at 9:19am: So Ofcom tried to fudge it. Everything that Ofcom does in this area has to be a “fudge”, due to the nature of its remit. The relevant statutory principle duty requires it to act to further the interests of consumers through the workings of a competitive market. (This seems to be an oxymoron, even before any sort of reality has to be considered.) Any regulatory intervention must therefore be limited so that operation of the market is helped rather than impeded. Markets only work when providers are seeking to dominate other providers and exploit customers, but are prevented from doing so by competition. Interventions are therefore likely (if not bound) to have perverse and unintended consequences. Futhermore, the instinct for fair competition in human beings is less strong than is commonly suggested. This is why campaign groups are effective, as people seek to work together to correct wrongs that are being perpetrated on others – we all know about 0870, but are seeking to protect those who do not. This also stops markets working properly as we see CPs having no interest in fair and open competition between themselves, as they combine to attack common enemies – Ofcom and BT.

Excellent piece of philosophy, are you from Ofcom?


SilentCallsVictim wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2007 at 11:51am:

DonQuixote wrote on Nov 3rd, 2007 at 9:19am: Telecoms is turning into a rip-off world because Gordon's 22billion stealth tax … If Ofcom, or the former Chancellor, believe that money grows on trees, or is sitting in some readily accessible slush fund held by wealthy telecoms companies that may be raided without any effect on their operations, then they are indeed deluded. If however these companies believe that their customers have excess funds that can be used to recover licence fees that they willingly paid over or costs that they choose to incur, by stealth, then they are no less in need of correction.

Excellent point, but I don't think "willingly" applies when you have a gun to your head. Vodafone had no choice but to bid 6 billion or watch its share price crash if it lost.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2007 at 11:51am:

As you say, something has to be done to prevent telecoms from turning into a “rip-off” world. 0870 is the most obvious current example and it is unfortunate that Ofcom’s inevitably insufficent efforts to address this appear to have failed.

Yes, but what about doing a "proper job" and stop the rip-off on 0800 and 0845 by the mobile operators?
You'll see both Ofcom and Davekeep forgetting about mobile call costs to 0870, 0845 and 0800. Yet the vulnerable citizens uses pre-pay mobiles not BT lines according to a government report.


SilentCallsVictim wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2007 at 11:51am:

We may have to turn to market pressure, seeking to ensure that media attention causes all of these scams to be exposed and thereby rendered ineffective. I HOPE THAT OTHER MEMBERS WILL JOIN ME IN PRESSING FOR MORE MEDIA COVERAGE OF THIS STORY.

Obviously SilentCallsVictim is well versed with this media stuff, but is it really ethical to rabble-rouse, when the real problem is Mobile overcharging and Ofcom's failure to deal with it in a balanced, well considered manner?

DonQuixote wrote on Nov 4^th, 2007 at 11:16am:

Excellent piece of philosophy, are you from Ofcom?

No. You could never hear this from Ofcom, as it has to pretend that it has clear objectives and that the market works properly in the interests of consumers (helped by its modest interventions). The fact that it is necessary for us all to adopt “positions” that are readily understandable by others does not deny the underlying truth, which is always more complex and thereby different.


DonQuixote wrote on Nov 4^th, 2007 at 11:16am:

Vodafone had no choice but to bid 6 billion or watch its share price crash

I accept that this was not a happy choice, especially if, as you suggest, the former also required it to risk the effect on its share price of being found to be attempting to rip-off its customers at some later time. I do not however wish to undermine my key point for the sake of an argument over use of the word “willingly” to describe the way in which any business must accept responsibility for its decisions, and so ask for this to be disregarded.


DonQuixote wrote on Nov 4^th, 2007 at 11:16am:

what about doing a "proper job" and stop the rip-off on 0800 and 0845 by the mobile operators?

Ofcom sees 0845 in general as part of the “proper job”, but has chosen to go for the softer target of 0870 for now. I believe that it is waiting to see what happens with 0870/0871, 03 and use of dial-up internet services before making any decisions about 0845/0844.

You are quite right to point out that “freephone” calls from mobiles is the greatest breach of the principle of price transparency.


DonQuixote wrote on Nov 4^th, 2007 at 11:16am:

… is it really ethical to rabble-rouse, when the real problem is …

Yes, unfortunately there are always bigger issues than the one we are adressing at any moment. As volunteer campaigners we each apply our own ethical values in setting priorities.

Ofcom would tell you that its priorities are set on populist values. This is an improper position that I have openly attacked, as it touches on my core reason for becoming involved in campaigning.

For myself, I try to only apply my available free time and my limited skills and energies to campaigning on matters where I judge that I can make a difference. This sadly means that efforts are generally not proportionate to the relative scale of the wrong that is being addressed.

On this issue (which is not at the top of my personal list of priorities) I see both the need and an opportunity to draw attention to what Ofcom is doing. Media interest will help prevent Ofcom from diluting the action that was to come into effect on 1 February 2008.

When complementing the success with the Guardian yesterday you do not know how many of my attempts to get the media involved with issues have and have not been successful. There have been very many failures, but also successes where it was not necessary for there to be personal attribution. My general experience has been that it is relatively easy for an eloquent and determined citizen to get coverage for an issue that can be presented in terms that fall within the scope of the respective editorial policies.

I have been contacted by journalists who want members of the group to make comments on this issue.

Please contact me (by PM or otherise) with details if that is you.

Members may wish to watch Working Lunch on BB2 today.

I thought I should report a conversation that took place this afternoon between myself and Geoff Brighton at Ofcom.

I phoned Ofcom to try to speak to Clive Hillier (nominally still tasked with the 0870 price change issue) but was greeted with the message that dear old Clive was away on leave till next Monday (perhaps taking another week of the about 8 to 10 weeks a year holiday that most senior Ofcom employees seem to enjoy) and saying one should speak to Geoff Brighton instead.  Unlike most people at Ofcom Geoff has been there from the start and is someone I met in person at Ofcom's one and only meeting for consumers on the NTS issue held almost exactly two years ago.

I did have rather a go at poor old long suffering and basically well meaning Geoff and demanded how could Ofcom possibly delay 0870 price change implementation on the grounds of a few spurious 070 numbers (numbers that do even begin 0870) having connectivity issues when all they had to do was bring in the price change on time and defer the commencement of the price announcements until a later date.  But following this he then launched in to a most extraordinary tirade of claiming that most people had no problem at all with paying extra for 084/7 numbers and that it was only I and a few other extremists with bees in our bonnets about this issue that were causing all the problems.  He was also still sticking to the tired old lie that there are endless value added services on 084/7 that will disappear and not exist at all if we got our way and made all revenue share on numbers starting 084/7 illegal and forced it on to 09 where it belongs.

In any event he admits that Ofcom are delaying 0870 price change implementation but maintains it will only be a modest delay while they "consult" on the consequences for services affected by these call price announcements.  But what if they then decide there is a major issue following this consultation. No doubt they will then delay 0870 price changes for another 2 years.  When pressed on why there had been no press announcement he gave me a load of flannel about how their communications department were struggling with the right form of words that would not cause the delay to be misunderstood by journalists.  A bit late now when the story is already in the press.

I'm afraid my conversation with Geoff left me little short of despair given that the long termers at Ofcom are clearly all a bunch of weak willed classic civil servant types looking for an easy life who will blatantly always keel over and give in to powerful business interests as they fear that business has bigger and more powerful sticks to beat them with than consumers.

I wonder if the fact there has been no press announcement at all by Ofcom on this matter is in any way connected with the fact that Sky's former head of media relations is now Ofcom's Director of Communciations. :o >:( :'(

I heard today (Mon 5th November 2007) on BBC's Working Lunch programme that Ofcom are dragging their feet on bringing changes to 0870 rules.
Are you able to bring me up to date on this and are there any moves afoot to lobby Ofcom about this ??

gwr

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Nov 5^th, 2007 at 11:38am:

I have been contacted by journalists who want members of the group to make comments on this issue. Please contact me (by PM or otherise) with details if that is you. Members may wish to watch Working Lunch on BB2 today.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/working_lunch/7079839.stm

<<
Regulator Ofcom says that changes to make 0870 telephone charges more transparent will be delayed.
Ofcom had planned to cut charges for 0870 numbers from February of 2008.

Other proposed changes include making costs clearer, and allowing 0870 calls to be made using inclusive minutes packages.

The regulator has also promised to put a stop to revenue sharing between telecoms companies and businesses.

The campaign group Say No to 0870 say they think Ofcom is cancelling the plans, rather than delaying them.

Ofcom have denied these allegations in a statement citing the need to assess the impact of the new rules.

"There is no intention of cancelling this whatsoever.

"The commitment is absolutely there to protect consumers, but Ofcom has a duty to investigate the impact on critical safety services," Ofcom said.

Watch Gillian's report to find out more on this story.
>>

http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediaselector/check/broadband/mediaplayer/players/bbc2?redirect=console.shtml&package=4588709&nbram=1&bbram=1&nbwm=1&bbwm=1&clip=wl_mon_051107_segment3

gwr wrote on Nov 5^th, 2007 at 10:02pm:

I heard today (Mon 5th November 2007) on BBC's Working Lunch programme that Ofcom are dragging their feet on bringing changes to 0870 rules. Are you able to bring me up to date on this and are there any moves afoot to lobby Ofcom about this ??

Ofcom have postponed the proposed 0870 call price reduction on 1st Feb 2008 saying that there is an unexpected problem with ripoff burglar alarms like the ones sold by BT that dial an 0870 number to report an alarm call.  They say the call price announcement causes the burglar alarm auto reporting on alarm activation to fail.

If you read my post two above you will see I asked Geoff Brighton at Ofcom why they could not just proceed with the price reduction now and add the price announcements later.  He didn't seem to have a convincing answer.

Ofcom were told of these burglar alarm problems caused by call price announcements by the companies running them two years ago.  The burglar alarm companies have had all this time to reprogram their systems to use a geographic number.

In reality ICSTIS (or PhonePayPlus as they are now known) are way behind schedule on their regulations for 0871 numbers and Ofcom seems to be playing for time so that the two things are done together and only one set of regulatory changes are required.  They couldn't give a stuff that consumers have been waiting 3 years for these changes or that they promised faithfully that there would be no further delay.

Ofcom are serial liars and have total contempt for the UK's citizen consumers or any previous promises that they have given.

NGMsGhost wrote on Nov 5^th, 2007 at 5:59pm:

[...]I did have rather a go at poor old long suffering and basically well meaning Geoff and demanded how could Ofcom possibly delay 0870 price change implementation on the grounds of a few spurious 070 numbers (numbers that do even begin 0870) having connectivity issues when all they had to do was bring in the price change on time and defer the commencement of the price announcements until a later date.  But following this he then launched in to a most extraordinary tirade of claiming that most people had no problem at all with paying extra for 084/7 numbers and that it was only I and a few other extremists with bees in our bonnets about this issue that were causing all the problems.  He was also still sticking to the tired old lie that there are endless value added services on 084/7 that will disappear and not exist at all if we got our way and made all revenue share on numbers starting 084/7 illegal and forced it on to 09 where it belongs.[...]

Personally, I would have no issue with 087/084 numbers where they provided a value-added service, such as dial-up internet, fax-to-email, call recording and similar provisions. Whilst it would be tidier to have these services allocated an 09 number, insofar as 08X is often perceived to be free, I would accept the current range for low cost 'premium' services. Ofcom simply cannot grasp that NTS is being used for everyday calls to banks, airlines, government services and the like, often to make a complaint, and the consumer is having to pay premium rates for routine calls. I am not aware of any other country where the regulator contrives such an insane framework for the charging of mundane telephone calls as what happens in the United Kingdom. Either Ofcom is protecting its friends in the industry (Windsor Telecom, NEG etc), or it is receiving 'incentives' from its friends. Either way, you have a fraudulent system oversees by a rotten, incompetent and idiotic regulator that has no interest in consumer protection. The delay to 0870 changes is the last straw - there appears to be little hope of any change, and expensive calls for Britain are here to stay.

idb wrote on Nov 6^th, 2007 at 3:12pm:

The delay to 0870 changes is the last straw - there appears to be little hope of any change, and expensive calls for Britain are here to stay.

A further telephone conversation with Geoff Brighton at Ofcom this afternoon reveals the whole sick, sordid and tawdry unspoken truth behind the delays to 0870 call price changes falsely being blamed on a handful of unco-operative burglar alarm systems.

According to Geoff the real truth of the matter is that Ofcom actually expects nearly all call originating parties other than BT (especially all mobile phone companies) and probably TalkTalk, NTL etc to go on charging the old higher prices to 0870 and that means they have to have announcements for all their calls to 0870 numbers for their customers that will merely include the burglar alarm companies as a tiny fraction of those calls.

So it isn't per se the burglar alarm companies that are to blame as after 1st Feb 2008 they will actually cease to get any revenue share at all if they continue to use 0870 and do not move across to say 0844.  The problem that is actually causing all the delays is that basically all mobile phone customers and many landline customers not with BT will continue to go on paying the old high 0870 rates.  No doubt the burglar alarm companies originally thought Ofcom would possibly end up mandating other OCPs to only charge geographic rates as we have thought all along would be the case (except possibly on mobiles) but now it is clear this isn't so.

So in other words basically Sean Williams and his other Ofcom cronies basically totally lied to this campaign (yes Derrick even I feel moved to use the word lied on this occasion) when I pressed him several times at the Ofcom consumer meeting on 084/7 in Nov 2005 as to why they were keeping 0870 and when he implied that they didn't really expect anyone at all to go on charging the old higher rates and have a call price announcement as they thought telcos would find this too embarassing.  But now it actually turns out that even though the revenue share disappears seemingly companies like TalkTalk, NTL, TMobile etc plan to go on charging the old high 084/7 rate and thus will be trousering absolute shed loads of money that were previously going mainly to the call centre and the terminating call centre's call company partner.  Indeed one suspects that the purpose of the current burglar alarm delay is so that Ofcom will then turn round and say oh dear the additional call price announcements aren't possible but at least BT will be lowering its 084/7 prices.

Good old Geoff claims that Ofcom have no power whatsoever over these other telcos to control their prices  and that as they don't have Significant Market Power in Ofcom's terms (even though say Vodafone and O2 acting together blatantly do) it is up to them if they want to lower their 0870 rates.  He was unable to comment on how the EU was able to force all mobile companies in the market to compulsorily lower their prices from the same date this summer, even though Ofcom would apparently see this as wholly unacceptable market intervention.

So in a nutshell not only did Ocom fail to take action to close down the 0844, 0845 and 0871 ripoffs at all while now being in blatant cohoots with PhonePayPlus (nee ICSTIS) to make sure 0871 won't be regulated as proper premium rate numbers (so most 0870 numbers can then convert to 0871) but they now expect the reduction in call prices on 0870 numbers (when an if it ever happens) to 01/02 national rate to only to be for BT phone customers and everyone else in the industry will use it is an excuse to earn even more money from their customers by charging the old prices that they will now keep much more of.  Of course I suppose Ofcom will argue that BT may make a marketing feature of having lower 084/7 prices and that this may eventually cause at least other fixed line operators to lower their prices.  But there seems no hope of this at all on mobiles where there is no equivalent of BT that will have to lower its 084/7 prices by regulator dictat.

This outcome is a major scandal that shows that Ofcom is quite unfit to regulate competition in the telecoms industry and I will be pressing my MP to ask for an investigation of this issue by the Parliamentary Ombudsman to look in to this massive failure by Ofcom to fulfil its primary remit to ensure competitive markets for UK citizens and UK consumers and for misleading the public as to the intended nature of its planned market intervention.  It appears that Ofcom's idea of competition is quite clearly that the telcos should be able to outbid each other with ever more disgusting hidden ripoff charges to bolster up their own share prices and not that they should ensure the lowest possible prices through properly competitive markets for UK citzen consumers. :o >:( >:( >:( [smiley=thumbdown.gif] [smiley=thumbdown.gif] [smiley=thumbdown.gif]

NGMsGhost wrote on Nov 6^th, 2007 at 9:44am:

Ofcom have postponed the proposed 0870 call price reduction on 1st Feb 2008 saying that there is an unexpected problem with ripoff burglar alarms like the ones sold by BT that dial an 0870 number to report an alarm call.  They say the call price announcement causes the burglar alarm auto reporting on alarm activation to fail. If you read my post two above you will see I asked Geoff Brighton at Ofcom why they could not just proceed with the price reduction now and add the price announcements later.  He didn't seem to have a convincing answer. Ofcom were told of these burglar alarm problems caused by call price announcements by the companies running them two years ago.  The burglar alarm companies have had all this time to reprogram their systems to use a geographic number.

I see he's having a bit of a rant, but let's stick to the facts. Beside the BT warning, which isn't just burglar alarms, but also personal attack alarms. Ofcom forgot to publish a clear warning that alarm companies couldn't use 0870 after Feb 2008. Whoops! So no one has done the work.

Geoff is ex-Oftel, so is professional and trying to do a proper job in an organisation dominated by media savvy spin doctors such as Ed Richards, who trained Tony and Gordon.
Surely, event though alarms may be "a tiny fraction", isn't one death one too many? Lives are now at risk, so it's a good time for Ofcom to pause for thought and stop listening to the media frenzy, driven by cheapskates, who might at least acknowledge that it's the mobile operators who are ripping-off the punter, to pay for the debt  that THEY DECIDED TO INCUR? (fair point to SilentCallsVictim)


NGMsGhost wrote on Nov 6^th, 2007 at 9:44am:

But now it actually turns out that even though the revenue share disappears

For the record revenue share was never planned to disappear and will not be banned on 0870, only 03. So Geoff's other point is well made. It will be business as usual, except for a boring and sometimes dangerous announcement. Ofcom didn't lie! It's just irate saynoto0870 members didn't do their homework and they obviously haven't read the Ofcom literature properly. :o


NGMsGhost wrote on Nov 6^th, 2007 at 9:44am:

ever more disgusting hidden ripoff charges to bolster up their own share prices and not that they should ensure the lowest possible prices through properly competitive markets for UK citzen consumers.

Don't be silly! Do you really think that businesses, the banks, on-line shops and government want you to call them!?  No they don't. They want to be cost effective. They want you to use the internet! It's cheaper and more efficient. The last thing they want is people jawing-on for hours using bundled cheap calls.

Who wants to pay more for banking, shopping and taxes to subsidise callers? Not me. Businesses aren't charging more to make money, they want everyone to move to self-service on the net. Wake-up and smell the coffee! The internet revolution is here. Trying to kill 0870 is not much different from the Luddites.
Ofcom's media sensitive mandarins have lost the plot and so soon we'll all pay more to ring the bank. Well done, one and all.  :'(


NGMsGhost wrote on Nov 6^th, 2007 at 9:44am:

This outcome is a major scandal that shows that Ofcom is quite unfit to regulate competition in the telecoms industry and I will be pressing my MP to ask for an investigation of this issue by the Parliamentary Ombudsman to look in to this massive failure by Ofcom to fulfil its primary remit to ensure competitive markets for UK citizens and UK consumers

Now that is something I can wholeheartedly agree with. The loss of many key Oftel staff from Ofcom has left it incapable of understanding the complexities of the UK market. As as a result its policy is drifting at anchor. So much for low cost (cheapskate) "light touch" regulation.  :-[

DonQuixote wrote on Nov 7^th, 2007 at 3:03am:

… irate saynoto0870 members didn't do their homework … For the record revenue share was never planned to disappear and will not be banned on 0870 … Ofcom forgot to publish a clear warning that alarm companies couldn't use 0870 after Feb 2008. Whoops! So no one has done the work. … Wake-up and smell the coffee!

Most of us who post here are only secondary level students who do their homework by pinching stuff off the internet.

We read in the Ofcom  statement and press release of 19 April 2006 that the regulatory changes (which were later set to come into effect on 1 February 2008) would include the following:

1. Changes to the scope of the BT NTS Call Origination Condition will remove the regulatory underpinning for revenue sharing on the 0870 range. This is said to “end revenue sharing on 0870”.

2. OCPs may either charge no more for 0870 calls than national calls to geographic numbers or make a free-to-caller price pre-announcement at the beginning of the call. These are described as being “options”.

OCPs had advised Ofcom, in January 2005, that if they were to chose the second of these options their customers would not be able to use certain equipment to call 0870 numbers. The problem rests with the originating provider who exercises a choice and is responsible for the service offered to its customers, not with the terminating provider who rents the 0870 number to the alarm company, nor Ofcom.

(The situation is the same in relation to 070 numbers, where those who use announcements have chosen an option which they know will have the effect that has been seen to put lives at risk.)

One could argue that if Ofcom had suspected that companies would be that irresponsible (pushing someone else’s hand into a fire) then it should have acted as their nanny and taken action to stop them. The companies are however known to commend Ofcom for its “light touch” approach.


DonQuixote wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2007 at 9:19am:

Telecoms is turning into a rip-off world

We have all woken up to express our objections to this, we all note Ofcom’s inability to address it properly, we each see different priorities and may disagree about what is the best way of dealing with it. There may not be much that we can achieve, but let us focus our efforts on what little we can do.

Whatever the truth may be, Ofcom will continue to seek to appear to be furthering the interests of consumers. This must be exploited to the full.

Contributions from undergraduates or those with doctorates are very welcome to elevate the discussion and provide information to enable more effective action.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Nov 7^th, 2007 at 10:54am:

Most of us who post here are only secondary level students who do their homework by pinching stuff off the internet.

You speak for yourself SCV.  I'm a fully paid up member of the university graduates club with my BA Hons in Economics & Politics from Exeter University.  OK so it was only a 2:2 but that was entirely due to the rubbish teaching of and my total disinterest in basic Macroeconomics which constituted only one course and one exam paper out of 9. So a poor third in this paper offset high 2:1 scores in 6 other papers and good 2:2s in the other two.  A travesty in my opinion.  Anyhow under New Labour a degree isn't much good to you these days, you need to have a PhD at least to be anyone special.

With Labour raising the school leaving age to 18 even parking attendants and litter pickers are soon going to be highly academically qualified.


Quote:

We read in the Ofcom  statement and press release of 19 April 2006 that the regulatory changes (which were later set to come into effect on 1 February 2008) would include the following: 1. Changes to the scope of the BT NTS Call Origination Condition will remove the regulatory underpinning for revenue sharing on the 0870 range. This is said to “end revenue sharing on 0870”. 2. OCPs may either charge no more for 0870 calls than national calls to geographic numbers or make a free-to-caller price pre-announcement at the beginning of the call. These are described as being “options”.

Precisely so SCV but the only reason this burglar alarm thing is even an issue now is because Ofcom failed to do what they initially said they were intending to do (just as they now trying to do with 0871 where they originally said they would be regulated as full Premium rate numbers) which was to force all 0870 numbers to be charged at national rate regardless of who you called them with.  Then in their consultation paper they watered this down by adding the pre-announcement business.  And when I challenged Sean Williams about this directly as a SayNoTo0870 representative at their meeting on NTS with Consumer bodies he assured me this was only due to some arcane legal reasoning and they expected virtually no one to use such a provision because of the unacceptable embarassment of having to make an announcement that you were charging a different price from geographic 01/02 rates would cause.  I also challenged him about mobile phones and again he claimed he expected the cost of calls to 0870 on those to become 01/02 rate.

So the current issue with burglar alarms and personal alarm devices using 0870 numbers is in turn only caused by the greed and cynicism of TalkTalk, NTL et al no doubt planning to stuff millions in to their pockets while charging the old NTS rates (at least for a while before there is media outrage) and this behaviour is in turn entirely down to Ofcom who quite deliberately engineered the Trojan Horse in to their 0870 proposals that has now given them the excuse to delay implementing them indefinitely.  As ever Ofcom displayed theur usual total naivety in claiming everyone would do the decent thing rather than accepting that in the modern entirely ruthless commercial world most people will cheerfully sell their own grandmother for another £50,000 unless there is a law saying it is illegal for them to do so.

Also what is the point of the burglar alarm delay?  There are only three solutions possible that could all be decided on and implemented now:-

(a) scrap the proposal for call price pre announcements altogetherfor companies that go on charging more than 01/02 rates

(b) create a special database of automated mission critical data using systems that use certain 0870 numbers and ensure that call price announcements are not made for just those numbers (fat chance this will be workable across all OCPs I suspect)

(c) Abolish the get out that allows telcos not to lower their call charges to 0870 numbers to 01/02 rates if they add a call price announcement with the higher price.

To my mind option (c) is the only acceptable solution, especially given the furore that will develop once it is clear the 0870 price cuts only benefit customers with BT phone line rental and that mobile customers in particular are being totally and utterly fleeced without any justification whatsoever other than that the UK mobile phone operators cartel thinks bad regulation will allow them to get away with it.  Ditto for TalkTalk, NTL and other shysters who like to quote one low headline rate for calls in their sales material and then have loads of calls they won't carry at that rate even though the punters reckon they are blatantly obviously normal calls.

DonQuixote wrote on Nov 7^th, 2007 at 3:03am:

Ofcom forgot to publish a clear warning that alarm companies couldn't use 0870 after Feb 2008. Whoops! So no one has done the work.

No it was Ofcom that created the pre announcement get out that they were extensively cross questioned about at the NTS meeting they had with consumer groups and they said that in practice they expected no one to use it as there would be no point with revenue share abolished   Either they were naive and incompetent or they were simply lieing.  Probably both depending on which member of Ofcom staff you are talking about.

We the consumers pointed out the exemption on 0870 geographic pricing for companies that made call price announcements was totally unacceptable and would be abused.  It was Ofcom that chose to completely ignore our representations and press on regardless.


Quote:

For the record revenue share was never planned to disappear and will not be banned on 0870, only 03.

So why did Ofcom tell us and all the UK's national press that it was abolishing it and ensuring 0870 numbers were going to be charged as normal calls for all consumers.  They didn't qualify their announcement (geographic rate on 0870 from 1st Feb 2008 only guaranteed for those who have a BT Retail phone line).


Quote:

So Geoff's other point is well made. It will be business as usual, except for a boring and sometimes dangerous announcement. Ofcom didn't lie! It's just irate saynoto0870 members didn't do their homework and they obviously haven't read the Ofcom literature properly. :o

Couldn't decide on your origins or motivations for a while.  You now reveal yourself as a fully paid up member of the NTS Call Centre Industry Abusers camp.  You even describe the announcement as boring.  Only a call centre ripoff man making loads of money from NTS would see it that way.


Quote:

Do you really think that businesses, the banks, on-line shops and government want you to call them!?  No they don't. They want to be cost effective. They want you to use the internet! It's cheaper and more efficient. The last thing they want is people jawing-on for hours using bundled cheap calls.

Fine then let them use properly premum rate 09 numbers and provide call barring as standard on all phone lines which the line owner has to disable if he wants other household members to be able to use these numbers.  It is the fact that the extra charges for these numbers have relied on lies about the call price to hide them and that the incompetent regulator has still not banned the use of deliberately misleading terms like Lo-Call and National Rate in non advertising information material and on websites (which there is huge amounts of) which is what we are upset about.  This is a massive distortion of normal market forces and means people don't make a rational choice about whether to call 084/7 or not.  Also had it been revealed this was the real purpose of 084/7 NTS at the outset then no respectable regulator would ever have allowed the system in to being (not that OFTEL were a respectable regulator but instead a regulator hijacked by telco cronies and infiltrated by BT staff).

Also many of these companies are monopoly suppliers or have customers locked in long contracts and if you use email or the website they ignore the customer totally and don't reply.  The sort of companies you talk about are scam boys interested only in their directors ramping up the share price up and their own salaries and bonuses in the short term before they bugger off to asset strip and screw customer service at the next big company on another £5 million per annum salary package.

[quote]Now that (Ofcom is a regulatory laughing stock) is something I can wholeheartedly agree with. The loss of many key Oftel staff from Ofcom has left it incapable of understanding the complexities of the UK market. As as a result its policy is drifting at anchor. So much for low cost (cheapskate) "light touch" regulation.  :-[/quote]

At least we agree Ofcom are totally useless and/or even totally corrupt (actually following New Labour orders to regulate in favour of their business political allies while making out to be neutral consulting and acting in accordance with the public interest) if we disagree on everything else.  Those lower down the food chain at Ofcom don't see the big picture so deny this is so uit I'm sure those at the top of Ofcom who are after the knighthoods and the peerages are well aware this is what is really going on.

NGMsGhost wrote on Nov 7^th, 2007 at 1:21pm:

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Nov 7th, 2007 at 10:54am: Most of us who post here are only secondary level students who do their homework by pinching stuff off the internet. You speak for yourself SCV.

I do, and I hope this board is open to those who see themselves at only the primary or even nursery level, in the context of the "homework" to which I was referring.


NGMsGhost wrote on Nov 7^th, 2007 at 1:21pm:

There are only three solutions possible

May I offer what should have been listed first, which applied throughout, and could be recognised at any time. It is the preferred third option presented in a different way.

Simply acknowledge that telephone service providers have a duty to their customers.

If they chose to implement changes that they know will put the health and safety of their customers at risk, or prevent use of valuable features such as fax calls, then they must surely be obliged to address this or take responsibility for the potentially tragic consequences.

If they have left it too late to do so before they are required to otherwise lower their prices, then they will have to do just that, until such time as they are happy to use pre-announcements, should they wish to do so.

The OCPs have had plenty of time in which to request Ofcom to prohibit use of 0870 numbers by alarm companies and for faxes, or to warn such users of these numbers of what might happen if they remained on 0870.

And Ofcom have had plenty of time to realise that total abolition of revenue share and compulsory charging of 01/02 geographic prices on 0870 a la their 03 solution (thus making call price pre-announcements unnecessary) was the only acceptable route for them to take.

And Ofcom have also had last 18 months or more to revise their original proposals to this effect using the burglar announcement problem as the excuse for compulsory universal changes in case anyone was minded to sue them for shutting down an existing profitable scam (not something to worry Madame Reding at the EU it seems in her battle with the mobile phone roaming charges scammers)

But no Ofcom continue to have cosy little chats at the NTS Focus Group with the leading scammers followed by cosy drinks at the pub or meals at the restaurant to discuss what new arcane reasons they can come up with to ever stop the 084/7 NTS ripoff industry being put out of business.

NGMsGhost wrote on Nov 7^th, 2007 at 2:39pm:

But no Ofcom continue to have cosy little chats at the NTS Focus Group with the leading scammers followed by cosy drinks at the pub or meals at the restaurant to discuss what new arcane reasons they can come up with to ever stop the 084/7 NTS ripoff industry being put out of business.

An interesting point of view, but I'm not sure Ofcom would describe their experience as "cosy". Why not read the notes of the meeting. Ofcom have been warned for years about this mess. In pretty strident terms.

Still no mention on Ofcoms site about the "delay" What an inept bunch.  You can also complain about Ofcom on the site, but who will do the checks, let me guess Ofcom, so that will just be a waste of time.

jimjim wrote on Nov 8^th, 2007 at 1:08pm:

Still no mention on Ofcoms site about the "delay" What an inept bunch. You can also complain about Ofcom on the site, but who will do the checks, let me guess Ofcom, so that will just be a waste of time.

The Ofcom executive is accountable to its board, but it is right to suggest that an internal complaint would probably be a waste of time.

Ofcom as a body is accountable to parliament (not the government), so members should write to their MPs. The Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Select Committee is the channel by which Ofcom is called to account to parliament. This Committee was only established on Tuesday 6 November and members have yet to be appointed.

---

I note that apart from the item in the Guardian and a piece on Working Lunch, there has been no general media coverage of the story, which is now going "cold".

---

It is important to remember that Ofcom did not expect that anyone would use the pre-announcement option, so it was trying to SAY NO TO 0870. If only BT is going to drop its prices to callers, then the whole arrangement will not work. Even if the requirement to use the announcement is introduced later, Ofcom has failed.

Action to stop the 0870 scam can now only come from consumer pressure to SAY NO TO 0870. This can work by what actually happens. In practice, many changes occur simply through fear of such pressure.



Ofcom has done something that may be useful. It has changed the definition of "Premium Rate Services" to include 087x numbers (if charged at more than the rate for geographic calls - which means all of them.)

Users of these numbers had until 1 February 2008 to make the necessary changes to their arrangements if they wished to avoid joining the group that includes providers of "SES" (referred to in several recent Ofcom announcements).

An unannounced “delay" in possible regulatory enforcement action is no reason to defer whatever action users were going to take. Ofcom has not advised users of 087x numbers that the previously announced changes are not going to happen.


USERS OF 0870 and 0871 NUMBERS PAST 1 FEB 2008 ARE PROVIDING A "PREMIUM RATE SERVICE"

That is what they have been told. They need to be reminded of this and so do their customers.

Those who will be implementing new arrangements in the coming couple of months may be helped with publicity for their new (03, or geographic) number. Others may need encouragement to do the same.


A gently-worded message could be composed as follows:

Dear Chief Executive (copy to relevant media)

I understand that you will be changing your present 087x xxxxx number before 1 February 2008, so as to avoid your xxx service being classified as a "premium rate service", alongside discredited TV phone quizzes and Sexual Entertainment Services.

Would you please swiftly let us know what the new 03xx or geographic number will be.

(I know that many would think this far too weak to be effective - I only offer one suggestion)

David

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Nov 9^th, 2007 at 3:54pm:

It is important to remember that Ofcom did not expect that anyone would use the pre-announcement option

I'm sorry I can't believe that other landline providers like TalkTalk, Sky would continue to charge the premium for 0870 even when (or if) BT stop!  Both these landline providers generally price match BT even on these premium rate 084x/087x numbers which other landline providers don't.

I agree the likes of VM and some other landline providers may continue to charge the higher premium price at least possibly until their customers start complaining, etc but for their customers to start complaining would mean they'd have to know that BT don't charge extra for calls to 0870.

As for mobile networks then I believe that most, if not all, would continue to charge the excess premium they do now.

With regulatory support for revenue sharing removed (if that's what ofcom actually finally decides to do) then there is no reason for any OCP (Originating Communication Provider) to charge extra for these calls.  Those that do are purely after the huge profit they would then make and will hope that their customers wont complain (or only a few complain).

Right now with the current plans (although it's now possible that Ofcom may do a u-turn or part u-turn) then OCPs implementing an announcment would obviously mean that OCPs are then basically warning their customers of the actual cost of the call which most OCPs try and hide from their customers now.

This announcement will obviously generate complaints but how many depends on just how much knowledge their customers have that their provider are charging extra for the calls when BT aren't and even is included if on an applicable tariff.

BT, as a marketing tool, could easily exploit this by saying that they don't charge extra for calls to 0870 and that they are included (on an applicable tariff) compared to their competitors.  Something like this would cause a significant amount of complaints from customers to their current provider.

Personally, I believe that Ofcom are possibly telling porkies or are looking at worst case.

bbb_uk wrote on Nov 9^th, 2007 at 7:05pm:

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Nov 9th, 2007 at 3:54pm: It is important to remember that Ofcom did not expect that anyone would use the pre-announcement option Personally, I believe that Ofcom are possibly telling porkies or are looking at worst case.

We can decide whether Ofcom personnel are fools or knaves based on our personal experience. The position that has been laid out does not make sense.

In particular, I do not understand what bearing the ongoing Dispute between BT and various providers about 0870 termination rates has on this matter. Resolution of this would appear to be key to the alternative to "revenue sharing", which is reduced service charges to premium rate users by terminating providers in recognition of the termination rate they receive and will now have to retain. One assumes that maintenance of existing termination rates has been agreed with originators who are intending to use pre-announcements. As I say, I do not fully understand this issue, but it causes me concern, as it appears to be relevant.

My key point is that Ofcom has failed to put its declared intention to SAY NO TO 0870 into effect from 1 Feb 2008. Those who wish to take advantage of what has been done to help stop the scam from that time must turn their attention elsewhere.

When Ofcom publishes its two new consultations, "probably before the end of the year", we can turn back to looking at what Ofcom may be able to do in the future. I suggest action that can be taken now. Analysis of Ofcom's competence and motives can (and will) go on for ever.

David

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Nov 9^th, 2007 at 3:54pm:

USERS OF 0870 and 0871 NUMBERS PAST 1 FEB 2008 ARE PROVIDING A "PREMIUM RATE SERVICE" That is what they have been told. They need to be reminded of this and so do their customers.

Is this true? I thought Ofcom have work to do before this changed is enacted.
So surely 0871 & 0870 are legally unchanged so far?  ::)

bbb_uk wrote on Nov 9^th, 2007 at 7:05pm:

I agree the likes of VM and some other landline providers may continue to charge the higher premium price at least possibly until their customers start complaining, etc but for their customers to start complaining would mean they'd have to know that BT don't charge extra for calls to 0870. As for mobile networks then I believe that most, if not all, would continue to charge the excess premium they do now.

I agree. The mobile networks just continue to agree to rip-off customers. Even charging for free calls(0800)!  >:(
Why can't Ofcom put a price cap on 0870?
Just like the EU did for roaming charges?  [smiley=engel017.gif]
How hard can it be? ::)


bbb_uk wrote on Nov 9^th, 2007 at 7:05pm:

BT, as a marketing tool, could easily exploit this by saying that they don't charge extra for calls to 0870 and that they are included (on an applicable tariff) compared to their competitors.  Something like this would cause a significant amount of complaints from customers to their current provider.

Good marketing, but BT would then have to tell the Bank, Business or Government department that instead of 0870 call being delivered free (or with revenue share  [smiley=birthdays.gif] ) they would be charged up to 4.5 pence per minute to receive the call. :o

So is this really a good marketing tool?  ::)
Sounds more like business suicide  :'(

DonQuixote wrote on Nov 9^th, 2007 at 9:37pm:

I agree. The mobile networks just continue to agree to rip-off customers. Even charging for free calls(0800)!  >:( Why can't Ofcom put a price cap on 0870 like the EU did for roaming charges?  [smiley=engel017.gif] How hard can it be? ::)

Very. When you have a corrupt body, responsible for a major fraud that has netted billions of pounds of NTS revenue over the years, attempts to level the 'playing field' are virtually impossible. When a small but significant gain was in sight (Feb 2008), the corrupt body moves the proverbial goalposts.

I agree that the charging of 800 calls from mobile telephones is shocking. Not only did the operators remove these calls from bundled minutes, they also charged premium rates for such calls. In any other jurisdiction, the regulator would take positive action to stop this scam, especially as the netwoks receive termination fees for such calls.

Your regulator over there is a joke body, pandering to the powerful voices that need NTS revenue.

DonQuixote wrote on Nov 9^th, 2007 at 9:28pm:

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Nov 9th, 2007 at 3:54pm: USERS OF 0870 and 0871 NUMBERS PAST 1 FEB 2008 ARE PROVIDING A "PREMIUM RATE SERVICE" That is what they have been told. They need to be reminded of this and so do their customers. Is this true? I thought Ofcom have work to do before this changed is enacted. So surely 0871 & 0870 are legally unchanged so far?  ::)

Please forgive me. I come from a long battle over the powers under ss128-130, where Ofcom was happy to use an interpretation of the law and the status of enactments that suited its purposes from time to time. I believe that the interpretation I use in the quoted statement is far less contentious than many which I had to work with in that context. (Please contact me privately if you wish to go through the detail.)

In recent briefings to the media and through statements from its contact centre, Ofcom is happy to acknowledge an existing public understanding that services provided on calls charged at the 0871 tariff are set to be classified as "premium rate services", and be so regulated, with effect from 1 Feb 2008. That is the basis on which users of 087x numbers have been able to make their plans.

Following statements of policy and intent, enactment of regulations is only necessary to support enforcement action. Ofcom always seeks to operate without resort to regulatory action. I personally believe that use of the common term "premium rate" was thereby valid from the date of Ofcom's first determination that this is how 087x numbers should be regarded; use of the legal term "premium rate services" (as used in the Act) had to wait until inclusion under the provisions of ss120-124.

I do not believe that anyone who was planning to leave it to the last minute before changing their number has any good reason to delay or postpone their plans on hearing of a "delay" to the date when enforcement action could be taken against those breaching regulations announced well over a year ago. Those who are happy to remain on 087x and to thereby be seen as providers of a service that is worthy of a premium charge could be proud of this new classification, as it draws attention to the fact that a premium service is being provided. They may be less proud of some of the new company that they will be keeping!

My only point was to offer a suggestion to those members of this forum who wish to SAY NO TO 0870. I suggest that there may be a change in the meaning of language that could be employed to help serve that purpose. If there is nothing that can be done to improve the situation, then let us turn our attentions elsewhere. If more could be done, then let us have more suggestions to encourage potentially useful campaigning activity.

David

http://www.ofcom.org.uk/telecoms/groups/nts_focus/ntsletter.pdf

Letter to NTS Focus Group

14th November 2007

Dear Telecommunications Provider,

Next steps on 0870 numbers

I am writing to inform you that a critical development means that there will be a delay in
implementing the changes to the regulation of calls to 0870 numbers, previously intended to
take effect on 1 February 2008.

We have recently identified certain 0870 services, many of which protect human life and
property, where the option to use pre-call announcements causes them to fail. This
potentially endangers the life and security of people who depend on the reliability of such
services.

The problem relates to important alarm and security services which use automatic dialling
systems and are often used to communicate directly with the Police and fire stations.
Industry estimates that there are hundreds of thousands of these services in use in the UK.
These systems eventually “time out” if a recognised phone signal is not heard. Use of a preannouncement
may cause these safety services to fail with potentially catastrophic and lifethreatening
consequences.

For these reasons, I am sure you will understand why Ofcom will not make the changes until
a satisfactory solution can be found. We are already assessing the extent of the problem and
identifying potential solutions.

As you would expect, we will include consumers, consumer organisations and industry
through full public consultation. Ofcom was due to consult on the final regulatory process for
implementing the 0870 changes in time for implementation on 1st February 2008. The
consultation will proceed as planned but will be extended to include potential solutions for
these critical services.

As a result, implementation of the consumer protection measures on 0870 will be delayed
beyond 1st February 2008. Following our consultation, a statement confirming the changes is
planned for spring 2008.

While it is very disappointing to us that a delay is necessary, I am sure you will agree that
Ofcom’s duty in such circumstances is to ensure that this risk is addressed before
proceeding further. The overall objective of Ofcom’s approach remains unchanged: to
increase consumer protection for calls to 0870 numbers.

As you will be aware, following its NTS Review and its Numbering Review in 2006, Ofcom
set out steps to significantly improve consumer protection and price transparency for calls to
numbers beginning 08.

The planned changes to 0870 provide for the price of calls to 0870 numbers to be the same
or less than calls to geographic numbers (01 & 02). These calls should also be included in
call packages. If a communications provider wishes to depart from this general rule, it must
arrange for free pre-call announcements, stating how much the call will cost. Ofcom has also
decided to remove the regulatory support for revenue sharing on 0870 numbers.

In addition Ofcom has been investigating how the use of pre-announcements may impact
similar services running on 070 pre-fixed numbers. From September 2007, telephone
providers have been required to include free pre-call announcements about call costs for any
070 call costing more than 20 pence (either per minute or per call). The requirement applies
to calls to 070 from all providers, on all types of lines.

Meanwhile, Ofcom remains absolutely committed to the objectives of increased consumer
protection and price transparency on both 0870 and 070 calls.

Please forward this notification to your service provider customers.

Yours sincerely

Gareth Davies
Competition Policy Director
Ofcom

It is beyond belief that they did not realise this until three months before date of change, or being cynical is it just another excuse for a delay? Most other companies are abandoning 0870 for other numbers and I am sure the alarm companies etc are doing exactly the same. Just another examply of abject failure by Ofcom-who will fall on their sword for this monumental cock-up? The answer-don't hold your breath.

A matter of great relevance to the 0870 changes is the dispute between BT and various operators about 0870 call termination rates.

Ofcom has today published a Draft determination to resolve this dispute.

There is a consultation that ends on 30 November 2007. Those who are able to work out what is going on within that time may wish to respond using the online form, or in other ways.


I am just starting my studies and would be grateful for any objective informed comment. (We all have our views about the general character and competence of the parties.)

My initial understanding (which is open to modification) is that Ofcom's position may represent a "back-door" way of Saying "No" to 0870. We still have an indefinite delay and no guarantee that this will ever come in effect - so it is far too soon to celebrate.


The dispute arose because BT intended to take the first option offered by Ofcom and drop its charges for calls to 0870 numbers to that of geographic calls. It therefore proposed to reduce the payment that it made to the Terminating Providers (TCP's) for these calls.

Service providers (SP's) wished to continue benefiting from revenue share on their 0870 numbers and most Terminating Providers were happy to support this.

Originating Providers (OCP's), other than BT, had decided to take the second Ofcom option, keeping their charge rates high to support continuation of revenue sharing and therefore having to use the pre-announcement.

(This can be confusing because many companies are involved as both OCP's and TCP's, although these are distinct roles, and determine their policy to cover both.)


If, as Ofcom proposes, revenue share is effectively denied from calls originated by BT on 0870, then those who are proud to offer a relatively low cost premium rate service would surely be driven onto 0871. Originators who continue to charge more than geographic rates for calls to 0870 would simply be profiteering.

Someone may be able to explain how revenue sharing could continue on 0870 if unsupported by termination charges paid on calls originated by BT. If not, then 0870 is indeed dead.

(Issues surrounding 0871 are covered in another thread.)

David

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Nov 19^th, 2007 at 3:05pm:

The dispute arose because BT intended to take the first option offered by Ofcom and drop its charges for calls to 0870 numbers to that of geographic calls. It therefore proposed to reduce the payment that it made to the Terminating Providers (TCP's) for these calls. Service providers (SP's) wished to continue benefiting from revenue share on their 0870 numbers and most Terminating Providers were happy to support this. Originating Providers (OCP's), other than BT, had decided to take the second Ofcom option, keeping their charge rates high to support continuation of revenue sharing and therefore having to use the pre-announcement.

I may have got hold of the wrong end of the stick but if revenue share is removed then TCPs will not get the money they get now and therefore OCPs will only have to pay TCPs around (a guess at this point) what TCPs would get for calls to geographical numbers.

bbb_uk wrote on Nov 19^th, 2007 at 8:40pm:

I may have got hold of the wrong end of the stick but if revenue share is removed then TCPs will not get the money they get now and therefore OCPs will only have to pay TCPs around (a guess at this point) what TCPs would get for calls to geographical numbers.

What about where BT acts as a transist communications provider? That is where a call originates from a non-BT CP and terminates with a non-BT CP but where the two CPs don't have an arrangement and use BT to carry calls. The amount BT charges the OCP and pays to the TCP, we must assume, will be pretty much what it pays/receives itself.

http://www.politics.co.uk/press-releases/opinion-former-index/business-and-industry/bsia-welcomes-further-consultation-on-0870-regulation-$482112.htm

BSIA welcomes further consultation on 0870 regulation
Monday, 26 Nov 2007 15:58

<<
The British Security Industry Association has welcomed Ofcom's further consultation and delay on the regulation of calls to 0870 numbers, previously intended to take effect on 1st February 2008. The decision has come following lobbying from the BSIA and a number of partner organisations.

BSIA Technical Director, Alex Carmichael, comments: "Ofcom has been looking at changing the charging of calls to 0870 numbers and increasing transparency with regard to the cost of call charges. One proposed change, which was due to come in on the 1st February 2008, was the introduction of pre-call announcements, detailing what the charges are for that number before the caller is connected."

"This change brought up a number of significant issues for the security industry and its customers as many security communication devices use the 0870 range of numbers. Such devices may well 'time-out' if a pre-call announcement is added and a recognised phone signal is not heard. This may result in alarm signals not getting through to the emergency services, with potentially life-threatening consequences."

The BSIA has worked closely with Flextel and other key partner organisations to successfully lobby Ofcom to rethink their plans to introduce pre-call announcements from February 2008. Ofcom has agreed to consult more widely on this issue and a statement confirming the changes is now due for Spring 2008.

For more information, see the Ofcom website www.ofcom.org.uk
>>

idb wrote on Nov 27^th, 2007 at 12:18am:

BSIA welcomes further consultation on 0870 regulation   Monday, 26 Nov 2007 15:58

Might I suggest a moderately worded press release on behalf of the saynoto0870 campaign along the lines of the following rough draft:

---

1. We note the press release issued by the BSIA on Monday 26 November 2007 and are disappointed at the inaccuracies it contains.

2. We trust that BSIA members are now urgently concluding the arrangements they have been making over the last 18 months since this change was announced by Ofcom. They will be either transferring systems onto other numbers, or transferring the remote telephone service from the alarm to companies who have chosen to comply with Ofcom’s intention of providing transparency in call charges, and therefore do not need to use the pre-announcement.

3. It is unfortunate that those who provide the remote telephone service for systems operated by BSIA members have chosen to defy Ofcom’s intention of providing transparency in call charges and have instead chosen the highly unsuitable option of using individually tailored call price pre-announcements.

4. The latter decision is particularly disappointing as their industry group was aware in January 2005 that pre-announcements would interfere with the operation of certain equipment.

5. We are astonished and deeply disappointed that Ofcom has decided to allow an indefinite extension to the time it had already allowed for the necessary changes to be made.

6. We are however pleased by the recent Ofcom proposal that users of 0870 numbers will no longer be able to draw any income from them when calls are originated on the BT network.

---

I am still awaiting “objective informed comment” about the consultation (see reply #57 above) – PLEASE CAN SOMEONE HELP!!

David

http://www.info4security.com/story.asp?sectioncode=10&storycode=4116152&c=1

Ofcom delays 0870 regulation
27 Nov 07

By Steven Vickers

<<
Communications regulator Ofcom has decided to delay its regulation of 0870 phone numbers, to the relief of many in the security industry.

Ofcom wanted to make companies add pre-recorded tariff warnings to non-geographic numbers that begin with 0870.

Many banks and call centres use the prefix, calls to which often involve long waits and can cost up to three times the standard national rate.

Ofcom decided to take action on the numbers following consumer complaints that firms were taking as much as 40 per cent of the total call cost in profit.

But following pressure from trade bodies Ofcom has postponed its plans, which were due to take effect on the 1st February 2008.

Organisations like the British Security Industry Association (BSIA) said the proposed pre-call announcements could prevent important burglar alarm calls from getting through in an emergency.

Many security communication devices – including monitoring systems for the vulnerable – use the 0870 range of numbers.

“Such devices may well 'time-out' if a pre-call announcement is added and a recognised phone signal is not heard,” said the BSIA’s technical director Alex Carmichael.

“This may result in alarm signals not getting through to the emergency services, with potentially life-threatening consequences."

Ofcom’s decision has sparked anger from members of Saynoto0870.com, a website which aims to give consumers alternative landline numbers to avoid the ‘0870 scam’.

"We have been waiting patiently for the new rules to come into place and finally end the rip-off that 0870 numbers represent. To find that Ofcom has suspended this at the eleventh hour is both frustrating and very disappointing," one member told The Guardian.

Ofcom has kept its decision quiet and has not yet issued an official statement. The regulator has agreed to consult more widely on the issue and a statement confirming the changes is now due for Spring next year.
>>

It's totally daft anyway.  I use occasionally call18866 on the home phone.  These have an anouncement of the cost of the call on EVERY number you dial.  BUT while it's being read out, the phone at the other end is already ringing - so, if someone answers quickly, the announcement is interrupted.   It doesn't last long anyway - surely this would work as alarm services would answer immediately?  How long does it take to say "ten pence per minute"?  It takes longer to dial the number!

Anyway, it was only alternate telcos that were proposing to use pre-call announcements - BT was to be obliged to reduce the costs.  I'd expect that most alarm systems either have their own phone lines, or are wired direct into line, so are unlikely to be routed via alternate providers.

REMINDER - YOU HAVE ONLY THREE HOURS LEFT TO REPLY TO THE CONSULTATION

Draft determination to resolve 0870 call termination rate disputes between BT and various operators

Those who may wish to join me in responding to what I see as a key element of this issue need to get their responses in by 5 pm today.

As nobody was able to help me to any alternative understanding, I have said BRAVO - WELL DONE OFCOM.

David

The problem, so we are lead to believe, is that certain electronic devices don't like the announcement. What about a prefix beginning 1 to supress the announcement?

Dave wrote on Nov 30^th, 2007 at 7:44pm:

The problem, so we are lead to believe, is that certain electronic devices don't like the announcement. What about a prefix beginning 1 to supress the announcement?

Or what about lowering the prices on 1st Feb anyway (although only for BT customers) with no call price announcements and sorting out the call price announcement issue later.

Come on we all know Ofcom actually got cold feet about all these 6p per minute 0870 services changing to 0871 10p per minute with damn all extra controls over them and Ofcom carrying the can for a 66% price hike in the cost of these calls to the companies who operate these numbers.

Thus using the burglar alarm excuse is their way out of implementing 0870 changes permanently and instead pushing 03 as the solution for those who actively want to not scam their customers.

Their overpaid CEO, Ed Richards, hasn't even acknowledged or responded to my email accusing them of failing in their principal duty to the UK citizen consumer by making this further delay.  The only people Ofcom respond to are those in the telecoms industry........

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Nov 30^th, 2007 at 2:01pm:

As nobody was able to help me to any alternative understanding, I have said BRAVO - WELL DONE OFCOM.

You didn't mention the ludicrously short deadline, although history shows that Ofcom will accept anything that is with them up to 9am on Monday morning.  I was about to get to reading it but had no idea there was such a short deadline for comment.

Anyhow do Ofcom ever take any notice of comments from the public?

I responded to PhonePayPlus's (then ICTSIS) Pre consultation and consultation on 0871 numbers at length and they just dismissed the views of over 600 consumers as being those of a well organised pressure group and instead went with the views of their 20 chums in the NTS ripoff industry.

So does making comments to Ofcom make any difference?  History shows it does not.  Its CEO can't be bothered to even reply to a direct email to him from me (and copied to numerous other regulators, ministers and MPs) accusing Ofcom of failing in their principal duty to UK citizen consumers under Part 3(i) of the Communications Act 2003 by delaying 0870 call price reduction on the spurious excuse of the burglar alarm problem that they had actually known about all along and that could easily have been worked around.

So I repeat does mere citizen cnsumers giving their views to Ofcom actually influence their thinking or intended course of action?  I think history shows otherwise.

Also I was down in Bristol all day yesterday as some of us do occasionally do other things than posting on this website.  So I couldn't have responded in the timescale.

I respond to consultations and communicate with those whom I seek to influence in the hope that I may contribute to a postive outcome, not to provide justification for subsequent complaints about having failed. I cannot be sure of making a difference, but if I was confident that I would not, then I would not waste my time.

If potential respondents have until 9 am on Monday, it is not too late for informed discussion, if anyone believes that it is worth bothering to respond.

David

P.S. a link to the following belongs in many of the threads on this board – http://www.saynoto0870.com/cgi-bin/forum/YaBB.cgi?num=1195580114/22#22

Can i fan the flames slightly, but this isnt designed to antagonise.

If the outcome of the Ofcom consultation is that 0870 numbers can remain, this could be a positive as the recent renumbering that has been seen is that 0870 either become 0871 at a higher cost, or 0844 (5ppm). The downside of both of these is that the cost to call remains the same 24/7, and therefore are more likely to be called from a  residence at the higher rate, as appossed to the current numbers that the majority will call from a workplace during the day, but are discounted off peak.

This will ultimately result in higher bills for domestic users.  

Whilst this site is against 0870, it is surely better than the alterantive that is being promoted for use.




(and yes, i work within the industry, but that doesnt change my thoughts on appropriate and innappropriate uses for NGN's)

NGMsGhost wrote on Dec 1^st, 2007 at 10:37am:

Come on we all know Ofcom actually got cold feet about all these 6p per minute 0870 services changing to 0871 10p per minute with damn all extra controls over them and Ofcom carrying the can for a 66% price hike in the cost of these calls to the companies who operate these numbers. Thus using the burglar alarm excuse is their way out of implementing 0870 changes permanently and instead pushing 03 as the solution for those who actively want to not scam their customers.

Actually not true. Sadly they're just incompetent. The ITU has banned pre-call announcements since at least 1988, for very good reason.

For those who want the facts instead of wild theory just read recommendation 3 of ITU E.182

that when a subscriber should wait for a network reaction, no tones or announcement should be given. This condition applies during, e.g., dial-tone delay and post-dialling delay.

Yawn! But ignore it and alarms can fail, risking lives! Oops!

So "Their overpaid CEO, Ed Richards, hasn't even acknowledged" your email or the ITU! I hope this makes you feel better!

Following on from the announcement, if you can call it that, about the changes to 0870 being suspended, Ofcom has today declared that 070 numbers don't have to have pricing announcements because of the issues they cause with equipment such as burglar alarms.

http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/numbering03/070precall/

<<

Removal of the requirement for pre-call announcements on 070 numbers

The 070 number prefix is intended to identify those numbers as being “personal numbering” services which enable the holder of the number to be contacted whatever their location. 070 numbers have been widely abused, in particular for scamming purposes, in many cases with consumers believing they are responding to a missed call from a mobile number, which also commences with “07”.

In Ofcom’s statement Raising confidence in telephone numbers, published on 31 May 2007, we announced measures aimed at protecting against such abuses by two principal means:

   * first, from 1 September 2007 Communications Providers have been required to provide free pre-call announcements (PCAs) for calls to 070 numbers where either the per minute or the per call charge exceeds 20p so that consumers would be aware of the maximum charges that could apply to such calls;
   * second, we reiterated our earlier policy decision from 27 July 2006 to evaluate the long term future of personal numbers by reviewing the situation at the end of 2007. Our original intention was to migrate current 070 services to another number range by the end of July 2009.

Since the introduction of the PCAs in September, Ofcom has received a number of complaints about them. In particular, we have identified certain automated calling services provided on the 070 range designed to protect human life or property, where use of the PCAs has caused these remotely activated calling services to fail because of the dialling delay introduced by the PCA. This potentially endangers the life and security of people who depend on the reliability of such services.

Examples of this would be a personal safety or burglar alarm which, when activated, triggers an auto-dialler to contact a monitoring centre. The reason for the time-out is that in the event that the call is not completed, the unit will automatically disconnect and try again for a set period or a certain number of times. For many such units the duration of the time-out means that after the PCA has been played there is little or no time for the call to be completed before the unit disconnects and retries. Ofcom does not regard the use of such services as falling within the generally understood use of personal numbering services. One option would be to require these applications to be moved from the personal numbering range however, this would require a minimum of several months lead time and not address the risks quickly enough.

Given the risk of such services not working as a result of PCAs, Ofcom has already asked the major fixed line providers to lift the PCA in respect of three 100k 070 number blocks where we have identified such systems as being used. We have taken steps to identify the full extent of the use of such emergency-type service. However, given the widespread use of 070 numbers, and the number which have been allocated, it has been impossible to identify all of them. There remains, therefore, a residual risk which we are unable to eliminate, that there are still emergency-type services in use which we are unaware of.

In light of this risk we have decided that we will withdraw the requirement for PCAs on 070 numbers with immediate effect. We have already asked the fixed line providers representing the majority of users to remove the PCA, and one of the purposes of this statement is to ask all other Communications Providers to do so.

>>

Why is it that those at Ofcom appear to have no technical knowledge in the area they regulate? Is it not their job to realise these sorts of issues exist?  ::)

Ofcom are well aware of what they are doing. It is just that they are somewhat politically and strategically inept and immature. They have plenty of technically-aware people on their staff in fact.

As always with Ofcom, the real reason they have taken this step is not the reason which they claim here in their announcement. That is just their usual attempt at camouflage, as in all their announcements and consultations. The real reason is that there has been outcry amongst those with influence over Ofcom about the introduction of PCAs, let alone of course the prospect of the 070 PNS "service" being moved from its deceptive identity as a fake mobile number to another clear category, where they could be identified for what they are! Don't forget also that call-queuing is not prohibited on 070 PNS calls. Those with a vested interest here do not of course want any changes, and some with sufficient influence/sway over Ofcom have been able to bring that influence firmly to bear, to ensure that they get what they want! Ofcom sometimes lack the foresight and maturity to anticipate the influence and pressure which will be brought to bear upon them if they take certain decisions, and this is why they occasionally decide to change their decisions after they have been previously announced.

The most important issue to observe is that Ofcom have still done nothing to address the heart of the continuing abuses with 070 PNS since Oftel (only temporarily) supposedly prohibited revenue sharing any longer with terminating subscribers of 070 PNS numbers. This decision announced here is part of this same scenario, since they are well aware, as we are, that the way the scam now is continued is for a dummy terminating subscriber to be registered, and the real terminating subscriber to be registered as a supposed "intermediary", so that the abuses for use as covert Premium numbers may continue unabated. This is the only reason that Security/Alarm entities and supposed services "protecting Human life" use 070 PNS numbers - to get the Premiums! Ofcom are well aware of this which is why under pressure they are now reverting to restore the original revenue-generating potential of 070 PNS (for those with influence who do not want change) without the PCAs upsetting it all! It is also significant that Ofcom use the description "to protect Human life.." without qualifying in any way exactly what applications they believe are included within that description - because in reality there aren't any; it is stated solely for effect!

This is, in effect, the news we were waiting for.

Ofcom has decided not to require use of PCAs.

The planned changes to 0870 cannot go ahead, as they relied on PCAs. They are therefore abandoned, not delayed.

David

Is this being done at the demand of the Department of Health in order to make Patientline saleable to another buyer?  I have a nasty feeling that may be what lies behind this later announcement as other uses of 070 are comparatively trivial.

Ofcom have now revealed themselves as the total bunch of complete and utter serial liars that they actually are with nothing but blatant contempt for the views of UK citizen consumers.

It is a waste of time for consumers to respond to any Ofcom consultations as they always ignore what consumers say and even any commitments they do make that are vaguely pro consumer are utterly worthless as they then renege on them totally when subjected to any modest form of pressure from those with important New Labour contacts.

Ofcom are one of the most corrupt, expensive and totally ineffective regulators that the UK has ever seen. :o >:( [smiley=thumbdown.gif] [smiley=thumbdown.gif] [smiley=thumbdown.gif]

Dave wrote on Dec 17^th, 2007 at 2:01pm:

Why is it that those at Ofcom appear to have no technical knowledge in the area they regulate? Is it not their job to realise these sorts of issues exist?  ::)

or

dorf wrote on Dec 17^th, 2007 at 2:48pm:

Ofcom are well aware of what they are doing. It is just that they are somewhat politically and strategically inept and immature. They have plenty of technically-aware people on their staff in fact.

...So who's right? ...Dave of course!

Because unlike Oftel, Ofcom is actually very, very technically incompetent and doesn't listen to advise from telecom experts. Instead it listens to BT's commercially driven input (BT & Ofcom are just a short walk apart across the Millennium Bridge) and their media savvy bosses "policy objectives" e.g. "lets get saynoto0870 off our backs" and "oops! the Daily Mail is at it again! ".

So to survive and since the CEO trained Tony and  Gordon Ofcom must "spin" it all in their favour. Ofcom claims...

Quote:

Ofcom does not regard the use of such services as falling within the generally understood use of personal numbering services.

This ignores their own PN guidelines (which in fact permits use of 070 for very high security alarms with GSM mobile backup, (WHERE THE COST OF 1 CALL PER ALARM IS NO OBJECT!) and where Premium rate is no good for alarms as users bar 09x and this accidentally disables the alarm.  ::)

Instead Ofcom pretends it was naughty users misusing the service and not its own fault at all!

But it was all Ofcom's fault and its fault alone:
:o The use of PCA's has been in breach of ITU recommendation 3 of E.182 for over 20 years and for very good reasons... modems (e.g. alarms) won't work properly!

::) Since early 2005 industry (BT, UKCTA and the rest) has warned Ofcom that PCA's were a stupid and dangerous idea.

:'( Ofcom didn't understand the Personal Number market until now. It only saw scams, which it had never dealt with properly e.g. by enforcement using big fines and removing 070 numbers from the bad guys.  >:(

Bad targeting, dangerous intervention, fudge and fiddle how bad can it get?

This isn't just any old U turn...
This is an Ofcom inspired U turn, using generous helpings of ignorance, selective deafness and political spin.

But the alternative to the U turn was a major motorway pileup, followed by a Health and Safety Executive investigation of Ofcom.  :o

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Dec 17^th, 2007 at 3:31pm:

This is, in effect, the news we were waiting for. Ofcom has decided not to require use of PCAs. The planned changes to 0870 cannot go ahead, as they relied on PCAs. They are therefore abandoned, not delayed.

Spot-on. Ofcom's flawed policy is now in tatters. You cannot spin engineering and physics!

They now need to reconsult on 0870 and 070, because they didn't do it right last time!

Ofcom back to school; do your homework and please try harder!

NGMsGhost wrote on Dec 17^th, 2007 at 4:23pm:

Ofcom are one of the most corrupt, expensive and totally ineffective regulators that the UK has ever seen. :o >:( [smiley=thumbdown.gif] [smiley=thumbdown.gif] [smiley=thumbdown.gif]

Who could disagree with such a crisp, clear and accurate observation?

DonQuixote wrote on Dec 17^th, 2007 at 4:53pm:

Because unlike Oftel, Ofcom is actually very, very technically incompetent and doesn't listen to advise from telecom experts. Instead it listens to BT's commercially driven input (BT & Ofcom are just a short walk apart across the Millennium Bridge) and their media savvy bosses "policy objectives" e.g. "lets get saynoto0870 off our backs" and "oops! the Daily Mail is at it again! ".

If Ofcom were regulating the railways, the result would be fatal, as has been the case since privatisation. Instead, we have a situation where its incompetence plays into the hands of the telcos.

What about other industries Ofcom regulates? Transmission of television and radio services. Should we prepare ourselves for caos as the analogue services are replaced by all-digital ones?

Dave wrote on Dec 17^th, 2007 at 5:21pm:

Should we prepare ourselves for caos as the analogue services are replaced by all-digital ones?

Certainly Ofcom seems to have spectacularly screwed up over DAB by allowing a low quality audio codec that also makes poor use of the bandwidth to become established and having no obvious plans in place to shift UK transmission across to AAC+.

As to DTT if Ofcom permits Sky Picnic then we will then know that our fears that Ofcom only ever does what the friends of New Labour (in this Sky/Newscorp) ask it do for them in return for promised later political paybacks (The Sun comes out in favour of Labour again at the next election) are entirely soundly based.

Oh dear oh dear oh dear,

Now we have newbies here who evidently think they know all about these issues after making a few posts! So I am completely wrong am I?

I suggest you look again at what you have actually posted. Most of what you have posted agrees with what I stated. I suggest as a newbie that you orient yourself rather more politely and less arrogantly, otherwise you will just make yourself look rather foolish.

It seems in reality that all you are disputing in my post is whether Ofcom collectively have technical competence. I did not claim that their senior staff listened to the technical advice which they received. I stated that they have collective technical competence. That is quite different.

I also repeat that this is clearly yet another example of Ofcoms' smoke and mirrors! The reasons they claim they have made these "u" turns are not what their real agenda is about. Some are easily deceived it seems! Those of us who know Ofcom well and the way they manipulate these things can see the normal profile of their deceit and lies here. They increasingly remind me of internet mobile telephone distributors!

dorf wrote on Dec 17^th, 2007 at 11:09pm:

I also repeat that this is clearly yet another example of Ofcoms' smoke and mirrors! The reasons they claim they have made these "u" turns are not what their real agenda is about. Some are easily deceived it seems! Those of us who know Ofcom well and the way they manipulate these things can see the normal profile of their deceit and lies here.

As so often my dear dorf you and I appear to be as of one mind on these issues.

As to grossly overpaid New Labour spin doctor Ed Richards he simply deleted my email addressed to him demanding that he make a public statement about Ofcom's hidden delay on 0870 calls without even having the courtesy to read it.  This despite the fact that my email was also copied to a large number of MPs interested in this matter.

I was going to make a fuss about this now but fear it will just get lost in the pre xmas festive malaise.  I intend to strike back against Ofcom regarding their secret hidden real intentions on 0870 and 070 early on in the New Year.

dorf wrote on Dec 17^th, 2007 at 11:09pm:

Now we have newbies here who evidently think they know all about these issues after making a few posts! So I am completely wrong am I?

Yes.

By the way, what make you think being a "supreme member" of this forum gives you any qualification in Telecom's regulation? I think it just means you have made over 500 posts. Are you really seriously suggesting that anyone with less than 50 posts can't know more than you about this business? Come-on, get real!

DonQuixote wrote on Dec 18^th, 2007 at 12:10am:

By the way, what make you think being a "supreme member" of this forum gives you any qualification in Telecom's regulation? I think it just means you have made over 500 posts. Are you really seriously suggesting that anyone with less than 50 posts can't know more than you about this business? Come-on, get real!

DonQuixote perhaps then it is time you removed your Koala mask from your swashbuckling forum name since on the one hand you have taken notably defensive positions on the value of the 084/7 number industry and the wondrous services you say it allegedly provides and that may be lost forever due to our actions but in the next breath also seem to be happy to see Ofom personnel roundly condemned as a bunch of double dealing careerist charlatans.

Perhaps if we knew more about your own involvement and background in this industry then we would be in a better position to assess the validity of your own forum contributions.

Back vaguely on topic, the industry seems pretty happy with Ofcom at the moment.  I received this missive this morning:


Quote:

service.update@flextel.com to me 00:39 (7 hours ago) 070 Pre-Call Announcement - Going, Going, Gone! FleXtel have always been opposed to mandatory pre-call announcements and indeed advised Ofcom that they were a stupid idea and in breach of international regulations. Unsurprisingly, as soon as Ofcom imposed pre-call announcements, health and safety issues started to appear. FleXtel have been lobbying Ofcom to remove these dangerous, misleading and annoying announcements, that don't even comply with international standards and have left the UK networks out on a limb! We are now delighted to tell you that our efforts, on your behalf, have been rewarded. Ofcom have withdrawn the requirement for pre-call announcements on 070 numbers. Ofcom have also issued a notice to all communication providers instructing them to remove the pre-call announcements. We can confirm that they have now been removed from the BT network and we look forward to their total removal from all other networks, as soon as possible. ______________________________________________ Kevin Archer Marketing Manager

irrelevant wrote on Dec 18^th, 2007 at 8:13am:

Quote: FleXtel have always been opposed to mandatory pre-call announcements and indeed advised Ofcom that they were a stupid idea and in breach of international regulations.

If FleXtel and others believe that Ofcom should have used some other method of ensuring that those who breach necessary general pricing limits provide price transparency to their customers, we await their suggestions.

Quote:

As so often my dear dorf you and I appear to be as of one mind on these issues.

Yes I concur that this is indeed so NGMsG. We have been around long enough campaigning on these issues to know the characteristics of Oftel and Ofcom only too well!

And Yes "Newbie tilting at windmills Spanish impostor man", what are your real attributes in Telecoms, what formal technical qualifications do you have in order to be able to make such castigating statements and criticisms concerning the technical competence of others? It has nothing to do with how many posts one has made here, although that does demonstrate a certain dedication and experience in the field of campaigning against these abuses for sure. I probably have superior formal qualifications to you and also more significant specific telecommunications experience than you, to be able to make statements about these technical issues. However, I also have the attributes of modesty and humility which clearly you do not, so I do not normally boast about them. You have also implied in an earlier post here that Oftel were "technically competent" and you clearly do not understand the difference between "advise" and "advice". Yet you believe you have superior knowledge to me and can state that I am completely wrong. What arrogance!  If you had put forward a logical argument to prove that I was completely wrong and why your claim was valid, it might have been acceptable. To just make such an unsubstantiated arrogant statement is certainly not acceptable. I would not post such wild insults myself concerning any other member of this forum, and I do not expect any other members to do so, regardless of how many or how few posts they have made here.

As those of us who have been campaigning in this field for the longest are fully aware, Oftel were if anything even more incompetent and corrupt than Ofcom. It was entirely due to their failure to enforce their own original NTNP (which they had published) that all of these NGN scams commenced and were allowed to escalate to the position of abuse we have now. They failed to protect the Citizen Consumer just as Ofcom fail to protect the Citizen Consumer. They deliberately invented (with BT) the term "revenue sharing" to attempt to deceive the Citizen Consumer, and for years they then pretended that it was different from use as a Premium number, to protect illicit call queuing revenue! They deliberately prohibited revenue sharing for the terminating subscriber with 070 PNS (only temporarily) as a sop with the intended ploy that the industry could continue the scam by using dummy terminating subscribers thereafter.

The fact that you make such statements as you do seems to me to indicate that you have a vested interest in the status quo. As NGMsG seems to suspect, I also suspect that you are another "plant". They register here from time-to-time, to try to propagate the industry line. You can always see the classic profile - newbies after a few posts laying down the law as if they know everything there is to know about these abuses and the regulation of telecoms, but with an evident orientation of supporting the NGN scams in reality.

Come clean: tell us who you really are and what your formal qualifications and actual experience in Telcoms really are?  

dorf wrote on Dec 18^th, 2007 at 12:29pm:

As those of us who have been campaigning in this field for the longest are fully aware, Oftel were if anything even more incompetent and corrupt than Ofcom. It was entirely due to their failure to enforce their own original NTNP (which they had published) that all of these NGN scams commenced and were allowed to escalate to the position of abuse we have now. They failed to protect the Citizen Consumer just as Ofcom fail to protect the Citizen Consumer. They deliberately invented (with BT) the term "revenue sharing" to attempt to deceive the Citizen Consumer, and for years they then pretended that it was different from use as a Premium number, to protect illicit call queuing revenue! They deliberately prohibited revenue sharing for the terminating subscriber with 070 PNS (only temporarily) as a sop with the intended ploy that the industry could continue the scam by using dummy terminating subscribers thereafter.

OFTEL were probably even more incompetent but certainly even more corrupt and even more in the pockets of the telcos than Ofcom (if such a thing is even possible).  Without OFTEL the Trojan Horse of hidden Premium Rate numbers without Premium Rate protection would never have been permitted in the first place.

The fact that Ofcom were able to persuade the government to let them have all the normal duties of the OFT in regulating telecoms competition while blatantly Ofcom in fact only ever see things only from an industry and never from a consumer perspective and are also able to drive a cart and horses through their main duties under Section 3(i) of the Communications Act 2003 remains truly staggering and quite shocking.

NGMsGhost wrote on Dec 18^th, 2007 at 1:40am:

...but in the next breath also seem to be happy to see Ofom personnel roundly condemned as a bunch of double dealing careerist charlatans.

I am quite sure that I never said that. You exaggerate.  ::)

DonQuixote wrote on Dec 18^th, 2007 at 4:33pm:

NGMsGhost wrote on Dec 18th, 2007 at 1:40am: ...but in the next breath also seem to be happy to see Ofom personnel roundly condemned as a bunch of double dealing careerist charlatans. I am quite sure that I never said that. You exaggerate.  ::)

NGMsGhost, please point out to us where DonQuixote makes the claim. As he has only made 30-odd posts, it will not be difficult to find.

dorf wrote on Dec 18^th, 2007 at 12:29pm:

Yet you believe you have superior knowledge to me and can state that I am completely wrong. What arrogance!  If you had put forward a logical argument to prove that I was completely wrong and why your claim was valid, it might have been acceptable. To just make such an unsubstantiated arrogant statement is certainly not acceptable.

Clearly I have upset you. I originally said...

DonQuixote wrote on Dec 17^th, 2007 at 4:53pm:

...So who's right? ...Dave of course!

This is not the same as calling you "completely wrong" is it?

But you then seemed annoyed at this and said...

dorf wrote on Dec 17^th, 2007 at 11:09pm:

Now we have newbies here who evidently think they know all about these issues after making a few posts! So I am completely wrong am I?

So it was you that suggested that you were "completely wrong", not I.
I obviously shouldn't have agreed with you. Sorry for any offence.  8-)

Finally, if you read the ITU recs that I referenced, you will see why Ofcom had no choice but to withdraw PCA's. They should never have suggested them, in the first place. Ofcom has just made a basic error of enormous proportions and have now fixed it in the only way possible.

Dave wrote on Dec 18^th, 2007 at 5:19pm:

NGMsGhost, please point out to us where DonQuixote makes the claim. As he has only made 30-odd posts, it will not be difficult to find.

He did not use those exact words but he certainly unequivocally supported my own resounding attack of yesterday on the competence and ethical probity of both Ofcom and the majority of its personnel.

DonQuixote wrote on Dec 18^th, 2007 at 5:23pm:

Ofcom has just made a basic error of enormous proportions and have now fixed it in the only way possible.

Does that also apply for PCAs in respect of 0870 calls too?

If so Ofcom could obviously address the problem and rectify their own glaring error by instead insisting all call carriers carry calls to 0870 numbers at geographic rates (as per 03 numbers) and at the same time also abolish the existence of revenue sharing arrangement possibilities on the 0870 number range.  There is then no need for any form of all price announcement before the 0870 call is connected.

A couple of months notice of such a change should be sufficient given that the conmen call centres in question have now had their snouts in the trough for the last 10 years and that this action is clearly the one that Ofcom tried to give journalists and the public the impression that it was taking in the first place.

NGMsGhost wrote on Dec 18^th, 2007 at 5:47pm:

DonQuixote wrote on Dec 18th, 2007 at 5:23pm: Ofcom has just made a basic error of enormous proportions and have now fixed it in the only way possible. Does that also apply for PCAs in respect of 0870 calls too?

The fact that some 070 "services" now fail also raises the question of why they are using such numbers. The "personal number" aspect is a load of rubbish. Burglar alarms, panic buttons and the like are using them to get revenue. Why else would they need to?

NGM puts his finger on the only sane and practical solution to the “problem of price announcements”.

NGMsGhost wrote on Dec 18^th, 2007 at 5:47pm:

...Ofcom could obviously address the problem and rectify their own glaring error by instead insisting all call carriers carry calls to 0870 numbers at geographic rates (as per 03 numbers) and at the same time also abolish the existence of revenue sharing arrangement possibilities on the 0870 number range.  There is then no need for any form of all price announcement before the 0870 call is connected.

I agree.

However, I don't know if Ofcom will do this.  In the many, many consultations over this (and the one about 03x), a lot of CPs mentioned to Ofcom that they (Ofcom) were effectively setting the price of calls.  Ofcom denied this by stating that all they were doing is, with regards to 03x numbers, insisting that calls are charged at same rate as a national rate call and what each OCP charge for national rate calls are upto themselves.

I agree a very similar thing could easily be applied to 0870 now although this will be met with severe opposition from CPs and we all know how Ofcom wants to please them moreso than ordinary consumers.

I also agree with Dave that alarm companies, etc that are using 070x so-called personal numbers are doing so for the revenue.  They're aware, as pointed out by Ofcom, that they can't use 09x because 09x calls may be blocked and besides consumers are aware that 09x is a premium rate so they've gone for the next highest in return of revenue without consumer knowledge that it's a premium number.

Alarm companies, etc would probably need a NGN to ensure they could handle the amount of calls they may get at any one given time so there are other ranges they could choose and if they really wanted to retain revenue could use 0871, or 0844.

The problem with this is that I'm not too sure if 0871 numbers will be blockable by ourselves (once 0871 is effectively under ICSTIS regulation) just like 09x numbers can be now.

Does anyone know if Ofcom are going to take action or look into at more depth 070x use by alarm companies, etc or have they just decided that PCA's are removed and that's it.

I sense that our discussion has come full circle.

When referring to UKCTA members who were not intending to drop their 0870 rates to those of geographic calls:


SilentCallsVictim wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2007 at 4:11am:

Having made a decision to take this exceptional action and implement use of cost pre-announcements, despite having expressed serious concerns about their feasibility, it is they who must accept responsibility for the consequences, not Ofcom.

Ofcom has never actually "required" anyone to use PCAs. It had its own bizarre reasons for presenting an unacceptable alternative rather than simply prohibitting deviations from charging structure associated with the numbering plan.

Please stop bickering, I know less about this than any of you, and I am therefore willing to listen and learn. Ofcom has approached me to offer a briefing on certain aspects of this matter, which I hope to receive tomorrow. I will attempt to pass on anything which is not already known.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Dec 18^th, 2007 at 9:43pm:

Please stop bickering, I know less about this than any of you, and I am therefore willing to listen and learn. Ofcom has approached me to offer a briefing on certain aspects of this matter, which I hope to receive tomorrow. I will attempt to pass on anything which is not already known.

And why have they approached you for such a briefing SilentCallsVictim rather than myself given that I am extremely well known to them.

Is it because they believe you will dress up the many glaring and crass failings by Ofcom in their principal duty to UK citizen consumers in some form of more politically correct language that wholly disguises the fact that it is Ofcom that is entirely to blame for this entire shoddy fiasco, including the numerous lies that it has previously peddled to the media about its 0870 charging plans in official press releases.

SilentCallsVictim I think you need to make it clearer in what manner your day job in the telecoms industry seems able to give you such special and privileged access to the great and the good in the government and at Ofcom that is so firmly and repeatedly denied to the rest of us.  Also you claim to have sent me an email about the reasons why I was at the last minute not invited to a meeting with a senior government official but mysteriously I never received the said email.

If Ofcom had wanted to call a meeting with SayNoTo0870 campaigners to find out where it was going wrong in its approach to 084/7 in the last two years it had only to pick up the phone (or perhaps they could have just read our numerous responses to their previous consultations).  So why is it that they suddenly feel comfortable asking for a paper from your good self but not from the several other members of this campaign who they must know are equally familiar with the subject matter.

SCV your latest comments give me the same level of concern about your motivations that I previously experienced as a result of one of your very early posts in this discussion forum.  Do I perhaps detect a Fifth Column somewhere in our midst? :-/

I agree with the points made here by Dave, bb_uk and NGM'sG about PCAs and the use of the 0870 and 070 PNS range of numbers for auto-dialing applications. These types of applications should never be on either of those number ranges. Any application using an auto-dialer is delivering a call to an underlying geographical number or series of underlying graphical numbers. They do not need the features of NTS on 0870 or 070 PNS in its true sense for this purpose. The only reason that they are using 0870 or 070 PNS numbers is solely to collect the Premium revenue out of total greed, since they are already being paid a subscription for the service provided to their customers! If they were not demanding the Premium revenue they could have continued to use 0870 charged at the geographic rate, and there would have been no PCA required under the Ofcom proposals, so auto-dialers could not have been affected in any way! The fact that Ofcom have therefore paid any attention whatever to their false pleas demonstrates what has really gone on and what Ofcom's hidden agenda really is!

In any case as a qualified Electronic Engineer with much Telecoms design experience including many automated and auto-dialing functions, I can assure you that the stuff Ofcom have stated is completely incorrect. This clearly is an invented reason to attempt to justify their complete change of direction. Particularly, there is no proper justification that PNS numbers would be or should be used for such services, since they are supposed to be solely for Personal communication with the holder of a Personal Numbering Service number. It is perfectly feasible to design PCAs so that they are made whilst dialing continues in the background, and any automated call would not then be affected particularly with any intelligent auto-dialer. Additionally a call-in-progress tone could be included within a PCA so that automated devices would detect that the call was proceeding, or as Dave has suggested a particular additional digit could be dialed by the auto-dialer to inhibit the PCA. There is no technical reason why PCAs cannot be used without any problem for properly designed auto-dialers even if they are dialing 0870 or 070 PNS series numbers. The fact that the ITU depreciate them is not entirely of relevance since other requirements made by the ITU are flouted by both Ofcom and BT continuously (as well as other EU states - e.g. Italy's dial tone), after all they are only "recommendations" not mandates, so why should this issue alone be a special case? Only to suit the cries of the industry collecting the revenues I suggest!

It is clear therefore that, as I posted previously, the real reasons for Ofcom's change of direction with both 0870 and 070 PNS are quite different from the reason which they give; I believe in fact that they have probably already decided to allow Premium revenue collection to continue with 0870 numbers, and that this is all part of their new strategy, which is eventually to move all the existing NGNs being used as disguised Premium numbers over to PhonepayPlus, as they are doing firstly with 0871, so that they will then be able to classify them formally as Premium numbers, but with per minute charged call queuing permitted, without any restrictions.

DonQuixote, I accept your apology. Clearly you had indeed upset me, but after your apology I have ceased to be upset.

Dave, I think what NGM'sG meant was that DonQuixote's post:
Quote:

Quote from NGMsGhost on Dec 17th, 2007, 4:23pm: Ofcom are one of the most corrupt, expensive and totally ineffective regulators that the UK has ever seen. Shocked Angry Smiley Smiley Smiley Who could disagree with such a crisp, clear and accurate observation?

implied that he was agreeing with what NGM'sG had posted concerning Ofcom and their senior management?

dorf wrote on Dec 19^th, 2007 at 12:15am:

There is no technical reason why PCAs cannot be used without any problem for properly designed autodialers even if they are dialing 0870 or 070 PNS series numbers. The fact that the ITU depreciate them is not entirely of relevance since other requirements made by the ITU are flouted by both Ofcom and BT continuously (as well as other EU states - e.g. Italy's dial tone), after all they only "recommendations" not mandates, so why should this issue alone be a special case? Only to suit the cries of the industry collecting the revenues I suggest!

I partly agree with dorf here. However, we are not dealing with properly designed autodialers we are dealing with millions of legacy modems. These modems use the ITU recs as the design assumption, therefore they typically cannot tolerate excessive post dial delay.This leads to handshake failure for fax and data (alarm) modems, as specified in ITU V.8 et al. Apparently a large number of these alarm modem have retry timeouts hardcoded at 30S or less. This is why Ofcom had to recant.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Dec 18^th, 2007 at 9:43pm:

Ofcom has never actually "required" anyone to use PCAs.

It did by implication.

The OCP's (retailers) are not in control of the wholesale price for 0870 as set by a TCP. Therefore if a wholesaler set its cost above Geographic, then the retailer was forced to use PCAs or operate at a loss.

This was an unintended consequence of Ofcom's well-intended intervention. Ofcom should have seen this coming in its impact assessment.

dorf wrote on Dec 19^th, 2007 at 12:15am:

The fact that the ITU depreciate them is not entirely of relevance since other requirements made by the ITU are flouted by both Ofcom and BT continuously (as well as other EU states - e.g. Italy's dial tone), after all they are only "recommendations" not mandates, so why should this issue alone be a special case? Only to suit the cries of the industry collecting the revenues I suggest!

Here, Here.

For 2 years Ofcom have repeatedly lied to the media that a solution on 0870 and 0871 would soon be to hand while continually sweeping under the carpet their indefensible position on 0844 and 0845 but now at the last minute PhonePayPlus has come up with rules for 0871 that do not constitute the promised premium rate regulation as we know it (whilst also disgracefully totally ignoring 500 private individuals who responded to their consultation condemning it) and have waited till the 11th hour to use the flimsiest of obscure and unconvincing technical excuses to withdraw their whole promised ending to 0870 premium rate charging.

We all know the real reason is because James and Rupert at a certain well known broadcaster as well as a certain peer connected with a major outsourced 0870 call handling company along with various other significant 0870 using companies with New Labour contacts have privately indicated that it will be very bad indeed for the business interests of important New Labour benefactors and that if it is not stopped New Labour will find that in due course it is also bad for them.  And so a few phone calls later to New Labour croney Stephen Carter and after a couple of smoke screening and stonewalling Ofcom announcements to hide the real truth we now find that bizarrely enough the business interests of these important New Labour friends can now continue exactly as before and wholly umolested by any regulatory intervention that might have impeded the orderly flow of business profit.

DonQuixote wrote on Dec 19^th, 2007 at 12:52am:

Ofcom should have seen this coming in its impact assessment.

Well three SayNoTo0870 campaigners who attended an Ofcom meeting for consumer groups in Nov 2005 were certainly aware that Ofcom's willingness to allow carriers to charge more than geographic rate provided they had PCAs would be a Trojan Horse that could undermine Ofcom's entire alleged course of action on 0870s.

But when this was put to Ofcom Partner Sean Williams he simply poo-pooed this because he claimed no one would want to charge any more than geographic rate to 0870 after 1st Feb 2008 as Ofcom was scrapping the entire revenue sharing apparatus for 0870 calls.  But it seems from what you tell us that Ofcom was lieing and/or the shameless greed of certain telecoms operators in taking the view that because the public are now used to paying more for 0870 then it must be allowed to carry on has got the better of them.

The bottom line is that all of Ofcom's proposals for reforming 084 and 087 numbers were irrational and illogical.  They should have insisted the 08 being returned only to Freephone numbers and that after a period these 084 and 087 numbers must move either to 03 if they no longer wished to revenue share or to 09 or alternatively possibly to say unused 04 or 06 if we subscribe to the view that lower cost premium rate numbers must be somehow not be associated with the high cost connotations of 09 for marketing reasons.

Instead I believe Ofcom all along deliberately misled the public knowing full well that its only real intended solution was introducing 03 numbers and getting organisations who did not want to extra to callers to move there while leaving everything else intact.  I am sure it was quietly planned in various undocumented conversations from the outset that these last minite excuses over ITU rules and burglar alarm systems were always going to be used to completely scupper any actual change in charging or revenue sharing on all 084 and 087 number ranges. ;) :o [smiley=thumbdown.gif] [smiley=thumbdown.gif] [smiley=thumbdown.gif]

DonQuixote wrote on Dec 19^th, 2007 at 12:52am:

The OCP's (retailers) are not in control of the wholesale price for 0870 as set by a TCP. Therefore if a wholesaler set its cost above Geographic, then the retailer was forced to use PCAs or operate at a loss.

Thanks for this important correction to a misunderstanding.

The exception of course is BT, where we see Ofcom attempting to intervene to protect its margin by adjudicating in a dispute about the wholesale price that it pays for connecting 0870 calls. It is unfortunate that the other OCPs cannot enjoy the benefit of Ofcom's assistance and so are forced to endanger the Health and Safety of their customers.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Dec 19^th, 2007 at 1:43am:

Thanks for this important correction to a misunderstanding.

But Ofcom Competition Partner Sean Williams specifically told a meeting for consumer stakeholders that the whole revenue share system on 0870 was being abolished and thus even though Ofcom was allowing OCPs to go on charging more than geographic rate if they added a Pre Call Ancouncement of the price after 1st Feb 2008 he did not anticipate any reason for any OCP needing to do so since as revenue share was no longer possible there would be no reason for TCPs to charge OCPs more than for 01/02 calls.

When pressed on why Ofcom would allow the Pre Call Announcement at all Williams muttered about European competititon legislation etc but still claimed that in the real world no one was going to be using these announcements or charging extra for the calls.

Now as Sean Williams has fled Ofcom to the OFT perhaps his successors can again turn round as Ofcom staff did after it changed from OFTEL and say they know nothing of how Mr Williams ever came to give these assurances and they are only new kids on the block etc, etc, etc ::)

The fact of the matter is that Ofcom is in fact engaged in a deliberate high level conspiracy with the telecoms industry to preserve revenue share on NGNs but is going to quite unbelievable lengths to try and hoodwink the public and the press to pretend that this is not what it is doing. >:( >:( >:(

NGMsGhost wrote on Dec 18^th, 2007 at 11:52pm:

And why have they approached … for such a briefing … rather than myself given that I am extremely well known to them.

I may have been misunderstood, I said:


SilentCallsVictim wrote on Dec 18^th, 2007 at 9:43pm:

Ofcom has approached me to offer a briefing on certain aspects of this matter

It is Ofcom who is offering the briefing. I expect that this will simply provide those who responded to a recent consultation with an explanation of a further development.

I posted an announcement of this consultation, asking more knowledgeable members to offer helpful comments about how one might respond. I posted a final reminder just before the consultation period expired.

I think the answer to the specific question that is posed may be found here:


NGMsGhost wrote on Dec 1^st, 2007 at 10:46am:

So does making comments to Ofcom make any difference?  History shows it does not.

If anything that would add to the understanding of those who follow this thread emerges from the briefing, then as I said:


SilentCallsVictim wrote on Dec 18^th, 2007 at 9:43pm:

I will attempt to pass on anything which is not already known.

I say “attempt”, because I might expect that whatever may be said will be violently contradicted by those who have no need of any exchange with Ofcom, nor have anything to gain from reading postings here, as they already know what is going on, e.g.


NGMsGhost wrote on Dec 19^th, 2007 at 2:11am:

The fact of the matter is that Ofcom is in fact engaged in a deliberate high level conspiracy with the telecoms industry to preserve revenue share on NGNs but is going to quite unbelievable lengths to try and hoodwink the public and the press to pretend that this is not what it is doing.

NGMsGhost wrote on Dec 18^th, 2007 at 11:52pm:

dress up the many glaring and crass failings by Ofcom in their principal duty to UK citizen consumers in some form of more politically correct language

Basic politeness is sometimes helpful if one wishes to engage in dialogue and gain balanced media attention in respect of  …


Quote:

… the fact that it is Ofcom that is entirely to blame for this entire shoddy fiasco, including the numerous lies that it has previously peddled to the media about its 0870 charging plans in official press releases.

The abundance of conspiracy theories that are found to be groundless causes many to be suspicious of them. Sticking to more limited assertions that can be supported by indisputable facts tends to give one more chance of a sympathetic hearing in some quarters, even if this understates the truth or one’s sincerely held views. Whilst some may find unrestrained methods to be more effective, I follow this approach. I believe that this is why I have been able to achieve some success in campaigning, but only on a limited scale. I retain an admiration for those who are able to achieve more by being more direct.

Those who are inclined towards conspiracy theory may be tempted to assume that I must have a professional or political interest to draw on, even though they dismiss what I may be seeking or achieving. I know that this is untrue, but cannot offer the amount of detail that would be necessary to prove a negative in a public forum.

Whilst exchanges of this type may provide entertainment, I fear that they do little to advance the cause that we share. Some may believe that we can say whatever we like here as it will not make any difference anyway. I disagree, and would not seek to undermine the efforts of fellow campaigners by publishing inferred claims of dishonesty.

Report on briefing from Ofcom - as promised.

As expected, this briefing was to draw my attention to the update to the termination charges dispute case that was added yesterday. I was able to take the opportunity to add to my understanding and clarify my thinking through polite discussion.



The briefing enabled me to draw the following conclusion from reading published information.

Ofcom has tried two indirect ways of ending the 0870 rip-off. Firstly, by requiring OCPs who wish to charge more than the cost of a geographic call to use a PCA. Secondly, by allowing BT to be able to drop its retail charges for calls to 0870 numbers as a result of paying only reduced termination charges.

We now know that the first of these has failed totally (as it was perhaps bound to do).

The second would now also be expected to fail because a major element of the methodology used by Ofcom in making its determination in favour of BT is under serious challenge in the context of another case before the Competition Tribunal. Whilst Ofcom is simply awaiting the outcome of the Tribunal case, in my opinion it is likely to find that its methodology will not be upheld.

A possible effect of this is that BT would have to join other OCPs in not reducing the retail charge for calling 0870 numbers to equal that for geographic calls. In these circumstances, the changes originally scheduled for 1 February 2008 would never be brought in, because they would make no difference.


With a disappointingly poor take up of 03 numbers, the 070 changes withdrawn and the 0870 changes dropped, the whole of the "Raising confidence in telephone numbers" strategy is now in tatters. (Forgive the politically correct language, and I know that many believe the strategy was only a fiction.)

As well as predictable calls for unspeakable punishments for employees of a particular public body, it would be great to hear some suggestions about a positive way forward.

One suggestion made previously is that the only way for the 0870 rip-off to be ended is by a major public campaign to SAY NO TO 0870 - even if there is no alternative number. A "please ring me back on my mobile" campaign for those who do not themselves publish alternative numbers, nor offer a true premium service so as to warrant an additional charge, could be one way of promoting this.

I will turn my attentions to other areas where there is hope of progress.

DonQuixote,

I am glad that you can partly agree with my point.


Quote:

I partly agree with dorf here. However, we are not dealing with properly designed autodialers we are dealing with millions of legacy modems. These modems use the ITU recs as the design assumption, therefore they typically cannot tolerate excessive post dial delay.This leads to handshake failure for fax and data (alarm) modems, as specified in ITU V.8 et al. Apparently a large number of these alarm modem have retry timeouts hardcoded at 30S or less. This is why Ofcom had to recant.

However, the excuse given by Ofcom for their "u" turn does not mention auto-dialing "modems" anywhere at all!  Their excuse for their "u" turn on both 0870 and 070 PNS numbers refers only to automated applications using auto-dialers which are used for life critical emergency numbers or security numbers! These do not involve the use of modems of any sort at all! So I do not understand why you are concentrating on modems in your statements? Again I repeat that the ITU published parameter outlines are "recommendations" only - not mandates. Thus they do not have to be followed and more often than not in all EU countries and the USA they are ignored whenever it suits the telcos and regulators, so to quote them here relative to these issues alone is totally inappropriate. Any properly designed auto-dialer even from 28 years ago does not just use a handshake only with a simplistic time-out after dialing unintelligently. Such incompetent rubbish would be the output of schoolboys or amateurs only! At least a proper ring-tone detector is included, and the time-out does not occur until after the normal cycle of dial-tone detection, dialing and ring-tone detection within the cycle time window. The decisions of Ofcom relative to such key issues in the UK telecoms PSN cannot be based on a minority of cowboy produced auto-dialers which are totally inadequate and could have only have ever been sold to fools with no understanding or judgment of the difference between cowboy "products" and those designed by professional engineers. Such rubbish products will not work reliably even with or without PCAs. Any PCA is not therefore a problem to a professionally designed auto-dialer (even a "legacy" product),  whether used for a modem or any other device.

But even if it were, you are still conveniently side-stepping the fact that under Ofcom's announced requirements for 0870, PCAs were only to be implemented on 0870 numbers dialed where they would have been still charged at the current Premium rate  rather than the normal geographic rate. If such applications had been used without the collection of Premium revenues on 0870 there would have been no difference in the situation now and the situation after the introduction of PCAs for continuing Premium uses of 0870 with any auto-dialers. The reality is that this whole scandal is about a refusal to end the collection of Premium revenue with these abuses of 0870 and greed! It is thus all about smoke and mirrors again - in other words deceitfulness, and most of all about permitted call queuing.

The truth is that all along Ofcom have played their usual sort of deceitful game. I had raised this point previously on this forum, that Ofcom had planned with their original announcements concerning the "changes" on 0870, to allow Premium revenue sharing to continue on 0870 numbers, where PCAs were provided, but most members of this forum would not accept what I pointed out to them, and were fooled by Ofcom's smoke and mirrors! It has now transpired that I was correct. Ofcom did clandestinely intend that Premium revenue sharing would be able to continue on 0870 (in one form or another) where there was a PCA, after February 2008. (You have previously posted the same reality within this topic of this forum.) Now Ofcom have decided to welch on their original announcement for 0870 restoration, because of the pressure which has been put on them, from the current government, telcos and other vested interests, not to end call queuing on disguised Premium numbers. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the supposed reason which they state. This is Ofcom - after all!

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Dec 19^th, 2007 at 10:08pm:

As well as predictable calls for unspeakable punishments for employees of a particular public body, it would be great to hear some suggestions about a positive way forward.

Your first suggested option sounds a good one.

Also with respect to your blandishments on responding to Ofcom consultations I must point out I have responded to about 10 of them and not one of my long and thoughtful previous inputs has led to Ofcom altering any of its pre-determined views on what it wanted to do.  Ditto I responded at great length to PhonePayPlus's (then ICSTIS) pre-consultation and then consultation on its regulation of 0871 numbers.  My views along with the views of over 600 consumers to the ICSTIS consultation were completely rejected on the grounds that we were an unrepresentative organised pressure group and that ICSTIS knew best what was good for us.  So is it any wonder that by now I feel all consulted out.

When Ofcom gets instructions from on high in New Labour (as it did over broadband MAC codes) it acts speedily in less than 2 months and without any excuses about competition law (even though requiring immediate broadband MAC code issueing bites heavily in to the ability to enforce 18 month long broadband contracts).  The only time Ofcom sudenly finds competition law an obstacle to taking action is in fact when various important government forces or business interest with high friends in government find an Ofcom proposal a threat and demand that it be stopped.  Only then does Ofcom find competition law manages to prevent it taking the action required in the wider public interest.

We all know competition law does not actually stop this kind of intervention to end scams as if it did how has Madamae Viviane Reding successfully manage to cap the cost of incoming and outgoing mobile phone charges when roaming across the EU without any court action by any EU mobile company to prevent her restrictive and proscriptive price structure coming in to effect.

If Ofcom had ended revenue share on 084/7 and forced all these users to relocate to 09 or alternatively 04 or 06 that would have beena level playing field so it could not have been challenged.  Ditto if Ofcom properly publicised its launch of 03 and that anyone dialling 03 finds it is included in call packages etc that would have again not been subject to challenge.

The fact of the matter is that most Ofcom staff have unhealthy and inappropriate previous backgrounds in the commercial telco industry and the rest who do not have unhealthy backgrounds as cosy former chums of New Labour.  As a result the whole integrity of this so called regulator is utterly compromised and that is why after trying to work with it for several years I simply now give it a resounding vote of total no confidence. :o >:( [smiley=thumbdown.gif] [smiley=thumbdown.gif] [smiley=thumbdown.gif]

I have also previously pointed out here that the base and focus of this NGN scam in all its aspects is chargeable call queuing. The original reason for the abuse of all NGNs as disguised Premium numbers was that chargeable call queuing is prohibited on 09 Premium numbers. Once BT had realised that because NTS numbers had been set at a Premium level of per minute charge they could be used as covert Premium numbers but with permitted call queuing rather than prohibited call queuing the scam was born! The principal reason that the vested interests want this scam to continue unrestricted is that enormous revenues may be generated from permitted chargeable call queuing, with all the extrapolation tricks. Ofcom are trying everything they can possibly do to avoid their responsibilities and to allow chargeable call queuing to continue.

So I repeat again, that I believe these "u" turns are part of Ofcom's now established strategy for NGNs, so as to allow per minute chargeable call queuing to continue. I believe that what they now intend eventually to do is to gradually move all these "problem" disguised Premium numbers with permitted call queuing over to the new category of overt Premium numbers with permitted call queuing to be controlled by PayphonePlus; i.e 0871, 0844, 0845, 070 PNS, 0870, and then plus some new 08 series Premium numbers which they have planned. This will enable Ofcom to get rid of the problem which they know they have and do not like, because it is so embarrassing for them. This series of current Disguised Premium numbers will then become overt Premium numbers, but of a new genre - with chargeable call queuing permitted, totally contravening the spirit of the original New Telephone Numbering Plan issued by Oftel, where per minute chargeable call queuing was recognised as potentially bad, and totally against the interest of the Citizen Consumer; so it was prohibited! You will see in due course whether I am correct again in my anticipation of the tricks and deceit of Ofcom.  

TODAY IS DON'T SAY NO TO 0870 DAY

I celebrated with a call to my insurance company (no alternative listed).

Research tells me that it is the feast day of St Brigid of Ireland, renowned for her "boundless charity". This is the quality that Ofcom shows towards those who seek to make money out of the telephone system that it regulates.

Is anyone else celebrating?

David

This may have already been mentioned/noticed but I just noticed the following:-


Quote:

UPDATE 31/10/07: *** OFCOM DUE TO ANNOUNCE DELAY TO 0870 REGULATORY CHANGES ***

taken from here.

Now as far as i'm aware, this is the earliest that CPs (not us consumers bear in mind) knew about the delay to 0870 but of course they could have known earlier.

Can someone remind me when it was officially announced to us normal joe public (ie on their website)?

The print media were certainly aware of the changes on Nov 1, 2007 as articles were published on that date. My recollection is that Ofcom did not provide any official statement until some considerable time after this date, and even then, the statement was published on an obscure area of its website (NTS Focus Group). The publication that I am aware of is dated Nov 14, 2007:

http://www.ofcom.org.uk/telecoms/groups/nts_focus/ntsletter.pdf

GREAT NEWS - SOMETHING IS GOING TO HAPPEN

The Ofcom workplan for 2008/9, published today, includes the following:

NTS 0870/0871 | NTS 0870/0871 Implementation | Implementation of regulatory reforms for 0870 numbers | Gareth Davies | Publication: Statement 0870 Q1

Ofcom plans to publish a statement before the end of June 2008.

No further work on NTS is planned before April 2009. As all that is planned is the issuing of a statement, no consultation, no new regulations. We can assume that the statement will simply explain why Ofcom has changed its mind and is saying "Yes" to 0870.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2008 at 5:47pm:

No further work on NTS is planned before April 2009. As all that is planned is the issuing of a statement, no consultation, no new regulations. We can assume that the statement will simply explain why Ofcom has changed its mind and is saying "Yes" to 0870.

And what really annoys me is that one of their most senior and longserving members of staff on NTS regulation (named after a well known UK seaside resort) had the cheek to assure me in the Autum last year that there would only be a very short delay in the 0870 changes and this was definitely not a permanent volte face by Ofcom.  This same gentleman also told me that anti 0870 campaigners were only a small and unrepresentative bunch of extremists and that the general public at large had no problem having to pay extra to call these numbers. :o >:( [smiley=thumbdown.gif] [smiley=thumbdown.gif] [smiley=thumbdown.gif]

This is even before we consider other outrages such as Ofcom failing to prevent Post Office Homephone and numerous other operators still describing 0845 and 0870 as Lo-Cal/Local Call or National Rate on their phone bills and Ofcom even having failed to ensure all telco operators only charge 03 numbers at geographic rates and include them in bundled minutes packages.  Don't tell me they have no powers to act as phone bill content definitely falls under Ofcom's control or at least the area coverd by their backstop powers under the legislation.

I am sorry SCV but I have tried to work constructively with Ofcom personnel over this issue but their total deceipt and treachery towards the UK citizen consumer and their quite blatant connving with the UK telecoms industy (at the NTS Focus Group meetings) makes them deserving only of contempt.  It is clear their only loyalty is to their pension, their next pay rise and the possibility of an eventual peerage or knighthood from New Labour friends.  They are most definitely not fulfilling their principal duty under Section 3(i) of the Communications Act 2003. >:( >:( >:(

NGMsGhost wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2008 at 7:39pm:

[...] their total deceipt and treachery towards the UK citizen consumer and their quite blatant connving with the UK telecoms industy (at the NTS Focus Group meetings) makes them deserving only of contempt.  It is clear their only loyalty is to their pension, their next pay rise and the possibility of an eventual peerage or knighthood from New Labour friends.  They are most definitely not fulfilling their principal duty under Section 3(i) of the Communications Act 2003. >:( >:( >:(

Maybe this is because Ofcom is/seems to be made up of entirely people from the telecoms industry! The telecoms industry is basically in bed with Ofcom, and Ofcom will dance to their every whim to keep them happy.

NGMsGhost wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2008 at 7:39pm:

I am sorry SCV

NGMsG, no apology is necessary. The determination you have shown in continuing to campaign on issues, despite repeatedly declaring that our efforts are bound to fail, is commendable.

Although your latest comments would appear to suggest once again that there is no point in continuing, I look forward to your further contributions and to working with you to see what we can achieve.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2008 at 9:37pm:

NGMsG, no apology is necessary. The determination you have shown in continuing to campaign on issues, despite repeatedly declaring that our efforts are bound to fail, is commendable.

I did not start from the position that success was not achievable but after over 8 years of asking high level questions on the subject(starting with the OFTEL and BT CEO's of the time) it has become self evident to me that NTS misuse is not some unintentional accident that a conscientious regulator will naturally correct once the problem is pointed out to them but is instead a deliberate and wholly underhanded conspiracy between a corrupt regulator (yes I do say corrupt not because there any direct backhanders in note and coin but because Ofcom makes policy in the financial interests of the telcos and personnel interchange between Ofcom and those companies on a regular basis at salaries that are then inflated by the knowledge they have acquired of how to pull the wool over Ofcom's eyes) that does nothing to fulfil the duties to ensure competition beneficial to the consumer with which they are charged.  Many years ago a former director of OFTEL admitted to me during a phone call that his only concern on NTS was to ensure a market that meant competitive prices in terms of being able to shop round for the best revenue share for those who run NTS platforms and that they didn't think their role was to worry what the mere public paid for the calls.  It is self evident that this is still the covert Ofcom view today.  If you had been with us for the last several years (instead of worrying so much about the comparatively trivial problem of Silent Calls) and seen promises made by the former Communciations Director, Matt Peacock, on national radio wholly reneged on I am sure you would feel as disillusioned as I do.

You being a man who likes to see success and a final positive product in all your works have naturally confined your main energies to the narrow area of 084/7 misuse by the NHS.  You may achieve success in that area because it is outside Ofcom's final control but I very much doubt that you will be any more succesful than us in battling the rest of 084/7 abuses and indeed you have already admitted in the past that commercial misuse of 084/7 by companies outside the public sector is not something you seem to have a problem with?

Unless this is helpful and/or entertaining for other members we must try to avoid personally focussed exchanges in the forum.

There are far greater ills in the world than issues around telephone numbers. I justify my commitment to these issues by the questionable claim that I may be able to make a difference. Expressing perfectly justified anger and frustration about things that we cannot change may be good for the soul, however it cannot be said to be a worthwhile use of one's time and little is achieved by persuading others of the hopelessness of a situation.

I have no problem with commercial operators charging for services provided by telephone and collecting their fees via the telephone companies. I believe that the scale and type of regulation should be proportionate to the scale of charging. I believe that all commercial transactions must be conducted honestly and openly and regard the present situation with many revenue sharing 084x numbers as unacceptable in this respect. I cannot however see how an appropriate and proportionate regulatory environment could be created at this time.

The public sector is in a different position, as levying charges for services delivered by telephone is not seen as politically acceptable in the vast majority of situations. The NHS is one of the clearest examples, because of the "free at the point of need" mantra, and concerns about privatisation of NHS services.

I do not dismiss commercial use of 084x as a matter of concern, nor do I dismiss hunger, warfare and denial of human rights in the world. I simply aim for the easy targets. I hope that we are however part of the same team, each working in our chosen way towards common objectives. We are volunteers who owe little or nothing to one another, giving of our own time as we choose. As I have said before, we should celebrate what we share.

Quote:

We are volunteers who owe little or nothing to one another, giving of our own time as we choose. As I have said before, we should celebrate what we share.

Hear, hear!  :)

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Apr 4^th, 2008 at 1:34am:

Unless this is helpful and/or entertaining for other members we must try to avoid personally focussed exchanges in the forum.

But as long as it is helpful and entertaining  to do so then we may continue. Correct?

I do not mean to personalise issues SCV but you always have had, ever since you came to the forum, and probably always will have I believe a quite different agenda from most of us in the forum.  Most noticeably you quite clearly attempt to take over as the leading activist on many of the forum's existing main issues and yet your views are frequently not fully in tune with those of the majority of the forum's more longstanding members.  That is bound to promote some areas of different opinion.

Contrary to what you say I have not declared our cause as utterly hopeless I merely think the chances of getting Ofcom to bring about justice on the issue at anything other than the point of the Parliamentary Ombudsman's, EU Commissioner's or Competitition Commissioner's guns are almost non existent.  We must therefore pursue the other avenues such as the last three mentioned.

You say you do not want to personalise the issues but then you accuse me of basically being defeatist.  It seems to me that you cannot have it both ways?

I recall commending the efforts of one who fights on despite declaring much cause for despair. As for seeking to "take over" I do not recall ever challenging the right of others to express their contrary views in the forum. I have no "agenda". I explain my approach and perhaps commend it to others. As I said, it is for each to act and comment in whatever way we wish to. I have at times consulted moderators about the propriety of intended postings and am happy to submit to any determination that a posting is off-topic or otherwise invalid.

I believe that this forum had achieved a lot, long before I joined, and I hope to be part of further achievements. They may be modest in the context of the ultimate objectives that we share, but let us try to add to the small portion of the glass that is full, rather than contemplating the larger portion that is empty.

As almost always NGM'sG you and I seem to concur. I am glad also to see that you seem to have finally come around now to my previously stated view that the only way in which Ofcom will ever be forced to cease their corrupt support of the telecommunications industry (and particularly BT) at the expense of the consumer, is through EU intervention. They will never otherwise exercise what is supposed to be their primary duty under the Acts - to protect the interests of the citizen consumer - with the vigour which ought to be at the heart of all their activities. As I have previously pointed out, this is the stupidity which comes out of privatising monopolies. It is extremely difficult if not impossible to implement any truly independent regulation where large amounts of revenue are at stake, human nature being what it is!

It ought to be clear to all observers by now that the present volte face is not the temporary situation which was originally claimed to be. Ofcom do not want to end chargeable call queuing on NGNs other than 09. Indeed there is even some evidence now emerging that there is a marked desire to increase the maximum permissible period of chargeable call queuing on 09, which has to some extent already been slyly done.

I still believe that Ofcom's intention now, unless there is EU intervention to prevent their skulduggery, is to gradually move all NGNs other than "freephone" (which is not always free!) and 03 to the new category of Premium numbers with chargeable call queuing permitted, under the auspices of PhonePayplus.

If they are not to be dissipated and wasted, all further campaign efforts must be directed to MEPs and the EU commissioner only. It has been pointless for quite some while having any further discourse with Ofcom, or wasting time participating in any of their sham "consultations", or playing any of their further games, deliberately designed to deceive and parry. As you point out NGM'sG, only those who have seen Ofcom's true profile over the years of deception (moulded by and allied to Lucifer himself) understand the position, and many of those coming new to the campaign are still easily deceived.

dorf wrote on Apr 4^th, 2008 at 12:38pm:

I still believe that Ofcom's intention now, unless there is EU intervention to prevent their skulduggery, is to gradually move all NGNs other than "freephone" (which is not always free!) and 03 to the new category of Premium numbers with chargeable call queuing permitted, under the auspices of PhonePayplus.

I'm not so sure.  I think that Ofcom dont actually want to do anything at all including any number migration.  With them not doing anything then their pals can carry on ripping of the general public without their knowledge in most cases.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2008 at 5:47pm:

The Ofcom workplan for 2008/9, published today ...

An update to correct a typo has just been issued:


Quote:

Please note the Ofcom Annual Plan 2008/9 published on 3 April 2008 contained an error in the service delivery section regarding our Strategic Review of Numbering, paragraph 4.22 on page 44. The third bullet point should read: "the meaning that certain types of numbers have for consumers – such as 0800 and 0500 numbers being associated with free calls – should be maintained;" The statement has been updated to reflect this. The corrected version of the Annual Plan 2008/9 can be found at: http://www.ofcom.org.uk/about/accoun/reports_plans/annual_plan0809/statement/

The error was to say:

Quote:

the meaning that certain types of numbers have for consumers – such as 0800 and 0300 numbers being associated with free calls – should be maintained

Sadly, due to Ofcom's neglect and the failure of the Cabinet Office in particular, 0300, or indeed 03xx, has no meaning at all to the vast majority of consumers.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Apr 9^th, 2008 at 2:05pm:

Sadly, due to Ofcom's neglect and the failure of the Cabinet Office in particular, 0300, or indeed 03xx, has no meaning at all to the vast majority of consumers.

Careful SCV you are beginning to sound far too like myself and various other campaigners here who have been slowly worn down by Ofcom's and the government's cynical and incompetent approach on these matters over the last few years.

Surely you still have a Plan B that will ensure that you are successful in managing to slay the regulatory dragon. ;) ::)

NGMsGhost wrote on Apr 9^th, 2008 at 4:19pm:

Careful SCV ...

I feel no shame in sounding like those noble warriors who were sending emails trying to get Oftel and Ofcom to address the issue of NGNs properly for long before I got involved with these two organisations on this issue. I genuinely commend their continuing efforts, despite them having been worn down by achieving only limited success.

I too get worn down at times, but address this by lowering my expectations (although not my ambitions) and perhaps re-focusing my efforts.

I try to avoid discussing specific campaigning tactics in this public forum. In general terms, the fight goes on, even if success is achieved at a disappointingly slow rate and to an inadequate degree.

15 years and still battling - I started my battle with Oftel in 1993 after my mother had a huge phone bill for telephoning the local police on a then 0990 number. I received written assurances that Oftel were looking into the matter and that they would resolve it soon. I have written to them repeatedly over the last 15 years, some of the excuses they come up with are just fairytales and I always find them so rude and condescending.
So I think you can understand the 'wearing down' that occurs, after all 15 years to solve a problem of their own making, by not 'policing' the numbering system, is just a joke.
Now they are still delaying, again through their own incompetence, what should happen is the executives be fined for not doing their job and Ofcom made to pick up any costs incurred by providers, at the present the cost are still being borne by the general public, which after 15 years is obscene.

Flutty wrote on Apr 11^th, 2008 at 1:21pm:

15 years and still battling - I started my battle with Oftel in 1993

Flutty,

I believe the only thing that the highly cynical, manipulative, devious and overpaid senior executive of Ofcom will ever take seriously is some form of legal challenge in the courts alleging that they are not fulfilling the duties given to them under the Communications Act 2003 by Parliament to look after the interests of UK citizens and UK consumers.

However I don't know what form such a legal challenge would take or how it could be mounted.

Its perfectly clear that Ofcom regards almost any other form of accountability for their corrupt and industry biased management of the UK phone numbering system as a joke and that they effectively simply sneer at the actions of the public and campaigners who try to make them take the corrective actions required to protect the interests of UK citizens and UK consumers.

NGMsGhost wrote on Apr 11^th, 2008 at 1:55pm:

I don't know what form such a legal challenge would take or how it could be mounted.

All actions of public servants are open to judicial review. A fellow campaigner looked into this in the context of another Ofcom failure to fulfil its statutory duty. For obvious reasons, I cannot however discuss the detail of what was learned, and why this particular idea did not go ahead, in a public forum.

http://www.politics.co.uk/opinion-formers/press-releases/opinion-former-index/business-and-industry/bsia-lobbying-leads-ofcom-rethink-on-0870-regulation-$1218747$365890.htm

BSIA lobbying leads to Ofcom rethink on 0870 regulation
Monday, 14 Apr 2008 17:32

<<
Lobbying by the British Security Industry Association and partner organisations on the regulation of calls to 0870 numbers has led to Ofcom no longer requiring telecoms networks to introduce pre-call announcements on 0870 calls.

BSIA Technical Director, Alex Carmichael, comments: "The changes proposed by Ofcom would have had major consequences for the intruder alarm industry and its customers. The big issue for the industry was the introduction of pre-call announcements on an 0870 number before the caller is connected. If this proposal had been implemented, security communications devices which use the 0870 range of numbers could well have 'timed-out' if a pre-call announcement was added and a recognised phone signal not heard. This could have resulted in alarm signals not getting through to the emergency services, with potentially life-threatening consequences."

"The BSIA has worked closely with Flextel and other key partner organisations to lobby Ofcom to rethink their plans. The news that pre-call announcements will no longer be added to 0870 numbers is an achievement for the security industry and demonstrates the value that this kind of lobbying work can bring."

Ofcom will explain their revised proposals on this issue in a statutory consultation document which will be published in the next few weeks.

Press contacts: Naomi Ocansey, 0845 389 0741, n.ocansey@bsia.co.uk
Kiri Gray, 0845 389 0755, k.gray@bsia.co.uk

Editor’s Notes
The British Security Industry Association is the trade association covering all aspects of the professional security industry in the UK. Its 570 members provide over 70% of UK security products and services and adhere to strict quality standards. For more information see www.bsia.co.uk, email info@bsia.co.uk or telephone 0845 389 3889
>>

idb wrote on Apr 14^th, 2008 at 11:05pm:

"The BSIA has worked closely with Flextel and other key partner organisations to lobby Ofcom to rethink their plans. The news that pre-call announcements will no longer be added to 0870 numbers is an achievement for the security industry and demonstrates the value that this kind of lobbying work can bring.">>

:o >:( :'( [smiley=thumbdown.gif] [smiley=thumbdown.gif] [smiley=thumbdown.gif]

What they don't admit is that major security firm ripoff artists like ADT (who provide my mother's burglar alarm) actually use 0871 numbers for their burglar alarm activation calls. :o

Fortunately my mother's system only makes a call in the rare event of an alarm activation but there are plenty of other burglar alarm systems that make an 0871 call every time the burglar alarm is simply set and unset.  And the customer doesn't even know 0871 is being used  until they get their phone bill.

Funny isn't it how Ofcom always listens to lobbying by the telecoms industry and yet completely ignores the views of thousands of citizen consumers. ::)

Congratulations on Ofcom on allowing these scammers to continue their highway robbery completely unconstrained.  Surely you should have told these assholes that they can only use geographic phone numbers to make such calls. >:( >:( >:(

NGMsGhost wrote on Apr 14^th, 2008 at 11:40pm:

idb wrote on Apr 14th, 2008 at 11:05pm: "The BSIA has worked closely with Flextel and other key partner organisations to lobby Ofcom to rethink their plans. The news that pre-call announcements will no longer be added to 0870 numbers is an achievement for the security industry and demonstrates the value that this kind of lobbying work can bring.">> Funny isn't it how Ofcom always listens to lobbying by the telecoms industry and yet completely ignores the views of thousands of citizen consumers.

Indeed; in fact tens of thousands of 'citizen consumers' signed the original 0870 PM petition. Many have responded to Ofcom 'consultations' over many years. At the last possible moment, corrupt Ofcom abandons its 0870 regulation due to some perceived 'health and safety' issue regarding PCAs whilst it conveniently overlooks more substantial h&s matters relating to, for example, the inability to terminate calls to GPs using 0844 numbering from overseas. The 'regulator' is a joke. The public/citizen consumer has made it clear that it is fed up with being scammed by premium rate numbers for everyday calls. Ofcom isn't interested. It's clearly a crooked organization and no one seems to be able to curtail its continuing abuse of the UK public.

idb wrote on Apr 14^th, 2008 at 11:05pm:

<< Ofcom will explain their revised proposals on this issue in a statutory consultation document which will be published in the next few weeks. >>

Apart from the pre-announcement of the timing of the Ofcom consultation, this press release is little different to that posted here.

Let us hope that Ofcom has indeed abandoned the daft idea of allowing an opt-out from what it sees as necessary regulatory measures through use of pre-call announcements, even if it allows its partners to pre-announce its own actions. We await the consultation document with interest.

Charges made by the security industry, rip-off or otherwise, are a matter for trading standards. So long as all costs (e.g. those for sensing equipment, call outs, regular maintenance visits, telephone line rental and calls) are properly declared to the customer, I see no problem in alarm providers moving over to 0871 or even 09xx numbers if the revenue share is an important part of the commercial basis for their complete service offering.

Ofcom knew about the technical problems with pre-call announcements in 2005, let us hope that it has learned its lesson.

Perhaps we should say little more until the consultation is published if this is imminent, although a second hand reference to "the next few weeks" does not cause me to hold my breath.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Apr 15^th, 2008 at 12:24am:

Let us hope that Ofcom has indeed abandoned the daft idea of allowing an opt-out from what it sees as necessary regulatory measures through use of pre-call announcements, even if it allows its partners to pre-announce its own actions. We await the consultation document with interest. Charges made by the security industry, rip-off or otherwise, are a matter for trading standards. So long as all costs (e.g. those for sensing equipment, call outs, regular maintenance visits, telephone line rental and calls) are properly declared to the customer, I see no problem in alarm providers moving over to 0871 or even 09xx numbers if the revenue share is an important part of the commercial basis for their complete service offering. Ofcom knew about the technical problems with pre-call announcements in 2005, let us hope that it has learned its lesson. Perhaps we should say little more until the consultation is published if this is imminent, although a second hand reference to "the next few weeks" does not cause me to hold my breath.

Ofcom's primary duty is now clearly focused on preserving the revenue stream for NTS suppliers and end-users. It used the 'get out' clause regarding PCAs as a cynical move to allow the remaining major 0870 users to shift to 0844 as th Feb deadline wasn't sufficient for the likes of Sky and the banks. The alarm PCA so-called 'issue' was simply a smokescreen. NTS revenue will continue, albeit on an alternative number range. Ofcom is not interested in the public, and never has been with respect to NTS. It allows scams and abuses. It takes no account of public or even parliamentary pressure. It simply passes the problem to another entity which also has little if any interest in addressing the underlying problem.

It doesn't matter who one turns to - Ofcom, ASA, Trading Standards, parliament - NTS revenue is a key part of OCP, TCP and end-user business strategy. Ofcom's own research shows an increasing number of people, often within the lower income groups, reliant upon mobile telephones as their only means of using telephony. Ofcom continually states that customers have a choice. Well, if you happen to live in Norfolk, your only choice in the provision of local council services is through Norfolk Council - there is little point in contacting say, Kent County Council. I choose Norfolk as it is an example of a massive 0844 abuser. So, if you are reliant upon a mobile phone, and are of limited income, and happen to need to contact Norfolk CC, you will be ripped off at up to 40p/minute. For what reason? SImply to generate a merry-go-round of cash to be shared amongst telcos.

Wonderful stuff, and no-one can put a halt to it as no-one gives a toss.

idb wrote on Apr 15^th, 2008 at 12:51am:

... no-one can put a halt to it as no-one gives a toss.

So we keep on fighting :question

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Apr 15^th, 2008 at 12:24am:

Let us hope that Ofcom has indeed abandoned the daft idea of allowing an opt-out from what it sees as necessary regulatory measures through use of pre-call announcements, even if it allows its partners to pre-announce its own actions. We await the consultation document with interest.

I think what you will find Ofcom now actually intend to do is merely to remove the requirement for those OCPs who decide not to charge 0870 calls on the same basis as 01/02/03 calls to give any form of pre-announcement at all about that fact.  I do not think there is any hope at all that crooked, deceitful and telco loving Ofcom will now do the right thing for uk citizen consumers by saying that as of say 1st July 2008 all 0870 calls will now be charged at geographic call rates by all OCPs full stop.


Quote:

So long as all costs (e.g. those for sensing equipment, call outs, regular maintenance visits, telephone line rental and calls) are properly declared to the customer, I see no problem in alarm providers moving over to 0871 or even 09xx numbers if the revenue share is an important part of the commercial basis for their complete service offering

And this in a nutshell SCV is why you clearly have absolutely no business sending out press releases representing yourself as being part of the saynoto0870 movement.  You are clearly not of the same mindset as most members of this campaign and remain as you have always been a one man campaign focused mainly only on achieving small pyrric victories based on regular compromises of almost Neville Chamberlin scale proportions purely so that you can then stick a feather in your hat and say that you SCV are a success and have achieved something you can pin your own name to.

The problem is that in reality most people do not understand the structure of UK phone tariffs at all (thanks to Ofcom) and that these calls that are made by hidden diallers are part of burglar alarm maintenance contracts that are usually highly immobile and very difficult indeed to move elsewhere (ADT the largest company has also now swallowed up huge numbers of their independent rivals).  Also if the fact that 0871 may be used is referred to at all in the contract it is in some microscopic paragraph of close set type print that almost no customer reads.  These hidden charges are most definitely not forced to be put up front to consumers before they sign the contract with them being told that they are likely to make around another £50 a year of payments to the burglar service by way of extra call charges that will appear on their BT phone bill

All these 0870 and 0871 calls on security equipment services have only one objective in mind.  That objective is to hide the real total cost of the product at the point of sale.  The point of using this method of pricing is to contravene Part III of the Consumer Protection Act 1987 by quite deliberately giving misleading price indications to consumers about the actual running cost of the service.

Phone calls should only be about the actual cost of moving the call from A to B and maintaining and improving the network that does that.  They should not be about hidden payments for goods and services.  09 calls are also currently immoral because they are not properly secured so that only the line subscriber can allow them to be accessed and they are a charter for theft by other people with access to the phone line.

I believe and I think most anti 084/7 campaigners believe that all these hidden payment mechanisms by merely dialling a phone number should be abolished in favour of transparent pricing where burglar alarm companies for instance charge the real quarterly monitoring cost on their own bill to customers in a format the consumer understands.  Part of the real cost of that contract should not be hidden in premium call charges on the customer's BT Phone Bill. The result of this is that consumers do not what they are paying and that cartel pricing sets in and the competitive forces of the marketplace that should make the consumer king or queen break down.

SCV Your views about NTS calls have never been at all logical, consistent or coherent ever since you decided to try and consume this website as part of your own one man whirlwind campaign and to alter the views of this campaign to fit in with your own hard to fathom sense of what is right and wrong on the matter (seemingly confined only to it being wrong to pay extra for calls to the health service and even then you seem to regularly have doubts on that point.)

Either come on board and oppose all NTS misuse like the rest of us or set up your own website dedicated only to opposing the use of 0844 numbers by doctors surgeries.

One of the particular features of this website's forum I have always enjoyed is the extraordinary commonality of mind between most of those who post.  Almost without exception all of us are on a moral crusade against what we regard as a clear cut case of scamming the consumer by hiding the real cost of phone calls. About the only other forum member who hasn't consistently felt that way is a troll we sometimes have to suffer with the number 9 in their forum name.

So SCV make up your mind and either sign up the objectives of this campaign or clear off and set up a campaign site of your own on 0844 doctors NTS numbers where you can also periodically doubt if even they are wrong.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Apr 15^th, 2008 at 1:18am:

idb wrote on Apr 15th, 2008 at 12:51am: ... no-one can put a halt to it as no-one gives a toss. So we keep on fighting :question

Indeed, but the fight is against an intrinsically crooked, incompetent, lethargic, ignorant and wholly useless organ of Her Maj's government. This organ also has an annual budget of in excess of a quater of a billion USD. What chance does the 'citizen-consumer' have? Little, if any, I suggest. There are simply too many external pressures on Ofcom to keep the cash circulating, from citizen-consumer to telcos to NTS users. When one looks at NTS from afar, it really is a wonderful tax - easy to collect, very lucrative, and almost impossible to obtain redress in case of errors as no-one cares. Amazingly, a Labour government is responsible for this whole shambolic situation - a government that I more than once voted for!

idb wrote on Apr 15^th, 2008 at 1:38am:

Amazingly, a Labour government is responsible for this whole shambolic situation - a government that I more than once voted for!

Perhaps time to vote for another government?  ::)

jgxenite wrote on Apr 15^th, 2008 at 8:07am:

Perhaps time to vote for another government?  ::)

It seems they are thinking of changing PM to Millibore before we get to the election.  Not that will make much difference as its actually their policies and the economic situation that people are upset about.  Frosty Gordon is merely the final icing on the cake.

Well I have been waiting all day for the cavalry to ride over the top of the hill to SCV's defence but it seems that most people must agree with my position that SCV's radical view in respect of not opposing any NTS calls by commercial operators (as long as they tell you in tiny print in Clause 27 of the Terms & Conditions that you never had time to read that they want to rip you off when you call them) is not in tune with the sentiment of the forum membership as a whole.

No cavalry, no battle to fight, we are both on the same side.

idb wrote on Apr 15^th, 2008 at 12:51am:

… Well, if you happen to live in Norfolk, your only choice in the provision of local council services is through Norfolk Council - there is little point in contacting say, Kent County Council. I choose Norfolk as it is an example of a massive 0844 abuser. So, if you are reliant upon a mobile phone, and are of limited income, and happen to need to contact Norfolk CC, you will be ripped off at up to 40p/minute. For what reason? SImply to generate a merry-go-round of cash to be shared amongst telcos.

And if you need to call Norfolk Constabulary, it will charge you too through its 0845 "revenue sharing" number.


NGMsGhost wrote on Apr 15^th, 2008 at 1:31am:

I think what you will find Ofcom now actually intend to do is merely to remove the requirement for those OCPs who decide not to charge 0870 calls on the same basis as 01/02/03 calls to give any form of pre-announcement at all about that fact. …

Which will be another excuse for the Virgin Medias to increase the cost of these calls yet again. ::)

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Apr 15^th, 2008 at 8:29pm:

No cavalry, no battle to fight, we are both on the same side.

Is that what they call a tactical retreat then SCV. I admit I was pretty harsh in some of my comments (perhaps unduly so to some extent) so I would have thought you would have been quick to spring to the defensive.  I know that nominally you have achieved a lot on Silent Calls but I do believe that you were always pushing at an open door there since you merely forced these operators to become less incompetent and more targeted in their cold call sales activity.  Ultimately you are driving down their operating costs and forcing them to only target those customers who are relatively happy to be sold to on the phone (thus where each call will now achieve a greater percentage chance of a positive sales outcome).

I will concede that you are much more effective at Parliamentary lobbying than the rest of us and that is where this camapign has been dilatory.  Indeed I now believe we should have considered a fringe group meeting at each of the major party conferences.  Perhaps there is still time for that this year as parliamentary sentiment is now beginning to run very high on these issues and Gordon's flat rate stealth taxes on the poor (of which 084/7 calls are one of his leading instruments) are now increasingly unpopular amongst his own backbenchers.

SCV I do not deny your undoubted ability to be an effective lobbyist but I am concerned about your underlying agenda and I have never quite and still do not fully understand that.  Especially given that some of your own commercial activities would appear to make you inherently more likely to show sympathy to the commercial side of the 084/7 call centre industry than the rest of us. ;)

Let no-one retreat from the campaign that we are fighting. Let us stop needless worrying about one another and focus on how we can each use our talents and apply our motivations to contribute most effectively to advance our shared objectives. Sometimes that does require pushing at an open door, a task for those who are more concerned about achieving results than earning awards for valour. There is plenty of room for both across the broad front that we are fighting on. I hope that we can all respect those who approach things differently to ourselves.

Ofcom stated that they will update the 0870 situation in spring 2008.  No sign of it yet, what's the betting it will be yet another delay and more ineffective non-action.

http://www.politics.co.uk/opinion-formers/press-releases/opinion-former-index/business-and-industry/bsia-lobbying-leads-ofcom-rethink-on-0870-regulation-$1218747$365890.htm

<<
BSIA lobbying leads to Ofcom rethink on 0870 regulation
Monday, 14 Apr 2008 17:32

Lobbying by the British Security Industry Association and partner organisations on the regulation of calls to 0870 numbers has led to Ofcom no longer requiring telecoms networks to introduce pre-call announcements on 0870 calls.

BSIA Technical Director, Alex Carmichael, comments: "The changes proposed by Ofcom would have had major consequences for the intruder alarm industry and its customers. The big issue for the industry was the introduction of pre-call announcements on an 0870 number before the caller is connected. If this proposal had been implemented, security communications devices which use the 0870 range of numbers could well have 'timed-out' if a pre-call announcement was added and a recognised phone signal not heard. This could have resulted in alarm signals not getting through to the emergency services, with potentially life-threatening consequences."

"The BSIA has worked closely with Flextel and other key partner organisations to lobby Ofcom to rethink their plans. The news that pre-call announcements will no longer be added to 0870 numbers is an achievement for the security industry and demonstrates the value that this kind of lobbying work can bring."

Ofcom will explain their revised proposals on this issue in a statutory consultation document which will be published in the next few weeks.


Press contacts: Naomi Ocansey, 0845 389 0741, n.ocansey@bsia.co.uk
Kiri Gray, 0845 389 0755, k.gray@bsia.co.uk

Editor’s Notes
The British Security Industry Association is the trade association covering all aspects of the professional security industry in the UK. Its 570 members provide over 70% of UK security products and services and adhere to strict quality standards. For more information see www.bsia.co.uk, email info@bsia.co.uk or telephone 0845 389 3889.
>>

Unless I'm missing something, surely just adding an exception for 'automated alarm system' is all that is needed.  

How can realising that take so long?

Well another year over and still no response from OFCOM, what a joke.

jimjim wrote on Dec 31^st, 2008 at 5:30pm:

Well another year over and still no response from OFCOM, what a joke.

Whilst this posting was well-timed for the normal close of business on 31 December, there did remain another 6 hours 30 minutes and one second in which the promise to make a further announcement before the end of this year could be fulfilled.

This comment is intended as a joke, the original posting is far from it. Ofcom has simply lost it on this one, I believe that this is due to incompetence rather than sinister motives but it comes to the same in the end.

Let us all hope for, as I wish all readers, a happier 2009.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Dec 31^st, 2008 at 6:00pm:

Ofcom has simply lost it on this one, I believe that this is due to incompetence rather than sinister motives but it comes to the same in the end.

No they are not incompetent at all.  They are instead conscienceless and careerist civil servants doing the bidding of the powers that be and that powers that be do not want the 084/7 gravy train or any other NTS gravy trains to be derailed.  Ofcom may fool you that they are incompetent but they are not incompetent but doing precisely what their political master wish.  Why else do you think when numerous MPs ask questions in Parliament and put down EDMs on these issues every month that nothing ever changes.

Read my response on the 070 Ofcom consultation that closed last night (which following time honoured Ofcom tradition actually means up to about a week later in terms of when responses may still be accepted, especially if your name is Flextel) and their complete u-turn on all their earlier promises to end 070 abuses in the face of lobbying from their chums in the telecoms industry.

Now I don't suppose you bothered to submit a response to this consultation did you SCV? ;) ::)

See www.saynoto0870.com/cgi-bin/forum/YaBB.cgi?num=1230941929

I’ve ploughed through a massively complicated thread, but shouldn’t it all be quite simple? All that is required is for consumers to have a transparent charging system, so that they know what they are going to pay for calls and can then make an informed choice if, for instance, they see an ISP provides an 09 support line.

My irritation is in the fact that the numbering is so unclear – so I can call an 07 number and pay a mobile call rate EXCEPT if I’ve spotted it’s an 070, in which case it will cost me my firstborn son.

Here’s my top tip for 2007

01/02 National
03 VOIP
07 Mibile (as for 070 – find em and shoot em)
087/084 Local/Nation non Geographical
09 Premuim rate to be advertised

At least my mum would have a chance of understanding this…

strongp wrote on Jan 10^th, 2009 at 6:05pm:

Here’s my top tip for 2007

Come up to date strongp we are in 2009 now!!!! ;D

In any case 03 numbers are charged the same as 01 & 02

When BT announced its changes to include 0870 in packages on Thursday, we wondered if the log-jam had cleared. BT confirmed that it expected implementation of the changes to be imminent, however Ofcom made no comment.

Today we do have a development on a linked issue, but again Ofcom, whilst acknowledging the link, has no further comment to offer.

The 0870 changes depend on resolution of a dispute concerning the termination rates that BT pays other operators who terminate calls to 0870 numbers (the "0870" case). BT announced a reduction in these rates so as to comply with the proposed Ofcom requirement for 0870 calls to be charged as for geographic calls, which was disputed. The Ofcom resolution for this case used a method used in another case, which concerned termination rates on calls to mobiles.

As this "mobiles case" had been appealed, Ofcom could not proceed to implement the proposed resolution of the "0870 case". The "mobiles case" was heard by the CAT, which ruled the method used to be invalid. The CAT subsequently gave guidance on how the method should be altered.

Today, a new case has been announced - CW/01008/12/08. This is simply to cover implementation of the resolution of the "mobiles" case" (which had been formally closed), as directed by the CAT.

The assumption was that the method used here could be applied to provide a resolution for the "0870 case", so the log-jam could be cleared. I have been told that there is no indication of any movement in the "0870 case", and that this is only one of a number of issues that are preventing any further action being taken with the implementation of the new 0870 regulations.

It could be that the CAT has only directed how the specific elements of the "mobiles case" should be resolved, rather than offering an alternative methodology that may be applied more broadly. (This is my speculation, I could not obtain confirmation of this point.) If I am right, then Ofcom could be said to be well and truly scr**ed, unless it can extrapolate what the CAT would regard as an acceptable method for other cases from the resolutions directed in the "mobiles case".

If the other telcos are determined to obstruct progress with the 0870 changes, as must be clear, then any attempt to press a resolution of the 0870 termination rates case would take Ofcom straight back to the CAT.

A circulated update message on 6 October 2008 stated, "Ofcom aims to publish a further statement on implementing any changes to 0870 policy by the end of the year."

Ofcom's updated work plan has a statement scheduled for Q3 (i.e. by the end of January 2009).

I suspect OfcoN may not go ahead with planned 0870 changes stating things like now that BT include these calls for their customers on inclusive plans and fact that majority of companies using 0870 have reduced a lot, the "detriment" on us consumers isnt as much!

It's not the first time they have done a u-turn on one of their decisions and it wont be the last I suspect!

bbb_uk wrote on Jan 13^th, 2009 at 5:37pm:

I suspect OfcoN may not go ahead with planned 0870 changes

Unless I have misunderstood this situation, BT would be furious if this were to happen, as it has predicated its "giveaway" on these changes coming into effect swiftly.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Jan 13^th, 2009 at 11:25pm:

bbb_uk wrote on Jan 13th, 2009 at 5:37pm: I suspect OfcoN may not go ahead with planned 0870 changes Unless I have misunderstood this situation, BT would be furious if this were to happen, as it has predicated its "giveaway" on these changes coming into effect swiftly.

To be honest, who would care if "BT would be furious if this were to happen" ?

They don't care about their customers, why should anyone care about them?

derrick wrote on Jan 14^th, 2009 at 11:58am:

They don't care about their customers, why should anyone care about them?

I was not expressing concern for BT's feelings possibly being hurt.

BT clearly does care about the behaviour of its customers, as it seeks to influence it. We should care about BT on the same basis. In the same way, BT and Ofcom each "care" about one another.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Jan 14^th, 2009 at 4:50pm:

In the same way, BT and Ofcom each "care" about one another.

I think BT, VM, other CPs and Ofcon all "care" about one another a lot going by the fact that Ofcon doesnt want to (or unable to) to do anything that is in the public's interest - instead mostly staying on the side of CPs (including OCPs).  lol

This may have been mentioned before, nice work if you can get it. See....

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/mediatechnologyandtelecoms/4228750/MPs-hit-out-at-Ofcom-chairs-pay.html