The official news release from Ofcom is here:

http://www.ofcom.org.uk/media/news/2008/08/nr_20080828

The consultation document and summary are here:

http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/msa08/

---

See HERE.

But the most interesting part is the unbelievably hypocritical  comment from Ofcom's Mr Richards, who said:

Quote:

Ofcom would endeavour to protect users under any new regime. "The interests of the consumer will be at the heart of any decision we make. It's absolutely our responsibility," he said.

Incredible.

Sounds like OfcoN are talking total BS to me.  They have yet to show interest in consumers!

Anyhow that to one side, I have no intention of paying to receive calls.  I don't believe it will save money for us consumers and comparing how much it costs us for calls compared to States is unrealistic because most things in the states is cheaper anyhow.

Unless I was given simultaneously an option to "whitelist" a selection of people I would only accept calls from, I would not accept such a charge.  PAY to receive calls?   It's a licence for the companies to print money!  It's bad enough getting the odd sales call as it is, without being made to pay for it!!

OK, Ofcom's actual news release is here.  The only mention of termination charges is
Quote:

in 2007, Ofcom set mobile termination rates, the charges that operators make to connect calls to each others’ networks, to come down year on year. Ofcom’s consultation asks whether this approach to regulation is appropriate for the future or whether there are more attractive alternatives;

.  
Links to the consultation document are there, for formal responses, but they've also got a blog and informal "interactive" page for comments too.  

Oh Dear: it seems Ofcom are now considering US-style charges for mobiles, so that subscribers will pay for incoming calls! This will open the door for a further conman's Eutopia. We already have the scam of NGNs other then 09 being used as Premium numbers, 0800, 0500 etc. supposed Freephone numbers which are not free and are charged for twice over, Unsolicited Premium text messages, 09 numbers with queuing allowed (for short periods!), Trojan diallers and other scam potential allowed and condoned by the useless Ofcom. Now we have the prospect of unsolicited mobile calls costing us money!

It seems the only answer will be to keep your mobile switched off unless you decide to make a call? Where will Rip-off Britain end?
See http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/bbphone/article.html?in_article_id=451215&in_page_id=182

I actually don't think this would be such a bad idea - if it's implemented properly. You would need to be able to cancel/reject a call without inuring cost, or even block numbers from calling you.

At the moment there's no call cost clarity over what it costs to call non fixed lines (ie mobiles, non-geo, etc) - with this plan, then calling anyone on a fixed line or mobile would cost the same (be it per call/per minute/fixed plan, etc).

This would further highlight the stupid exemptions from current calling plans: 084/087/etc, which we all loathe so much - and would/should hopefully highlight to the general public that numbers beginning 08 cost (more) to call.

Martin.

ms01 wrote on Aug 29^th, 2008 at 1:26pm:

I actually don't think this would be such a bad idea - if it's implemented properly. You would need to be able to cancel/reject a call without inuring cost, or even block numbers from calling you. At the moment there's no call cost clarity over what it costs to call non fixed lines (ie mobiles, non-geo, etc) - with this plan, then calling anyone on a fixed line or mobile would cost the same (be it per call/per minute/fixed plan, etc).

Why would it improve call cost clarity?  Network operators (mobiles and landline) are obligated to be more transparent with regards to cost of calls to non-geo but most dont really bother simply because it's not in their favour to highlight how expensive it costs to call these type of numbers.

It may mean slightly cheaper outgoing call costs to landline and mobiles but that would be at the expense of the called party paying for the call which some may (me included) either refuse to answer to talk for long periods.

Are receiving calls included in monthly inclusive tariffs in the states?  If no, then as well as paying monthly fee you also pay to receive calls.  If yes, then is it unlimited incoming calls or limited and possibly shared with outgoing calls made!!!

Quote:

Are receiving calls included in monthly inclusive tariffs in the states?  If no, then as well as paying monthly fee you also pay to receive calls.  If yes, then is it unlimited incoming calls or limited and possibly shared with outgoing calls made!!!

In the US, you purchase a bundle of "minutes", whether pre- or post-paid. The more you pay up front, the more minutes you get and the lower the effective price per call ie it's not a linear relationship. What this really implies is a set amount of "airtime". In other words, your included minutes includes all the time you are transmitting and / or receiving on your phone - whether that call was made by you, or received by you. Although it would appear to be a more expensive system, it does seem to work reasonably well (can ANY mobile call cost be called reasonable...... ;) ). Remember, calls to mobile numbers in the US cost exactly the same as a call to a landline. One huge advantage with that is that your landline phone bill is the same whether you call, say, 100 landline numbers or 100 mobile numbers. Certainly removes the often quoted moan from doctors that they '....have to pay so much to call patients on their mobiles'. Now if that were also introduced in the UK, it would be a revolution! And, after all, it really is for the convenience of the called party in having the mobile, and not the caller - so why should he or she pay?

In theory, of course, you could have a situation where you used all your airtime receiving calls. Unlikely, though.

I don't think it is only the US that uses this system. Canada, obviously and also Hong Kong and possibly China?

Members may be interested in this response by the National Consumer Council to a consultation by Oftel in 2003 on mobile termination charges:

http://www.ncc.org.uk/nccpdf/poldocs/NCC037cr_mobile_termination.pdf

The NCC makes a good argument to show that there is no competitive market governing termination rates at present. If the cost fell on the renter of the mobile then this would emerge. It also rightly points out that there is little relationship between costs and charges.

It does however not require too much imagination to conclude that the change being discussed would alter the profile of mobile use in the UK significantly. This has developed to where it is now with no relationship between costs and charges. Free handsets cause the poorest to use the more expensive means of communication. Texting has become a major phenomenon amongst the youth of the country because it is subsidised unwittingly by calls from anxious parents.

Whatever the merits of any change towards a more direct relationship between costs and charges, the market is so far away from this that Ofcom is unlikely to be ready suffer the criticism it would face in compelling such a dramatic change. By its very constitution, Ofcom is compelled to believe that competitive markets exist and that consumer choice is both the right primary means of control and one that it has effectively enabled.

If someone would like to propose a date on which a fundamental change to the whole basis of every mobile contract (including PAYG) could occur, so that every user (over 100% of the population according to statistics) could return their phone and start again, then this radical proposal could perhaps be taken seriously. My own prediction would be that this date would have to follow that on which telecomms in the UK is re-nationalised, so that its governing body (the replacement for Ofcom) was in a position to take the firm radical action often called for in this forum.

I have created a quick poll on whether or not U.S. style pay to receive calls is preferred over our current method of caller pays?

Please feel free to vote - I have set the time limit to 1 day for those that may want to change their mind

Can we confirm that the very straightforward question in the poll invites us to simply express a preference as if in a hypothetical ideal world.

Nobody has yet offered any serious proposal for how such a dramatic change to the current UK market could be brought about and how the issue of unsolicited calls could be dealt with. If any such proposal were offered up to the vote, the results would be likely to be very different. Unless something very clever, that addressed all of the relevant issues, were dreamed up, my "yes" would undoubtedly become a "no".

We are at a very early stage, however the present voting suggests that, on balance, members prefer callers to pay. I find this surprising, given that the general theme of this website is that those who utilise additional technology on the telephone network should bear the cost of doing so themselves, rather than imposing it on others.

Given the current way our mobile phone system is set up, it would seem grossly unfair for a mobile phone "holder" to pay for both the incoming and outgoing calls. I think that it is generally accepted that you are going to pay a slight premium to call a mobile phone.

I've voted "no", given all the scamming and high call prices that currently dog mobile phone users. However, if such problems could be rectified (somehow!), then I might be persuaded to vote "yes". I'm not holding my breath thought...  :-/

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Sep 6^th, 2008 at 11:23pm:

Can we confirm that the very straightforward question in the poll invites us to simply express a preference as if in a hypothetical ideal world.

Yes.  I didn't want to over complicate anything.


jgxenite wrote on Sep 7^th, 2008 at 8:30am:

Given the current way our mobile phone system is set up, it would seem grossly unfair for a mobile phone "holder" to pay for both the incoming and outgoing calls. I think that it is generally accepted that you are going to pay a slight premium to call a mobile phone. I've voted "no", given all the scamming and high call prices that currently dog mobile phone users. However, if such problems could be rectified (somehow!), then I might be persuaded to vote "yes". I'm not holding my breath thought...  :-/

Same here.  Yes, it may work in the US but they generally have lower prices for most things and don't have hidden premium rate numbers like we do.

Even if it was adopted I don't believe it would work same as it does in the US with their type of call rates, all that would happen is that calling a mobile may get slightly reduced.

After all we live in Ripp Of Britain (ROB)!

Indeed.  If calling a mobile costs the same as a geographic call, then it might be acceptable for the called party to pay a slight premium to cover the difference.  ( I can quite see the situation arising where they reduce the caller's costs only slightly, and charge the callee, with the total being more than the present call costs!

I'm sure that Orange used to offer geographic numbers for their mobiles, with incoming calls being charged per minute.  Can't find a referance at the moment though.

Why do we have to put up with higher outgoing call charges? And if call charges to mobiles are reduced, then it's likely we will have to pay (high) incoming charges.

The more minutes of calls we make, the more "high" or "extra" call charges we make. There is no sliding scale where higher volume of calls means we still pay the "premium".

I feel that the mobile operators should adopt the same system we have with landlines. That is a line rental at £10-15 or whatever per month with lower call charges.

That way, higher call charges will be offset by the line rental.

Or, to look at it another way (and this is how I see it), for every minute of calls made (and received - if the "US-style" plan goes ahead), calls we pay a fraction of the line rental. The more calls made/received the more we pay. The line rental should be fixed.


What the mobile providers term "line rental" at the moment isn't really so. "Contract" packages pay for handsets and inclusive minutes and any other extras. Call rates outside of inclusive minutes are roughly the same as with pay as you go.

irrelevant wrote on Sep 7^th, 2008 at 3:02pm:

I can quite see the situation arising where they reduce the caller's costs only slightly, and charge the callee, with the total being more than the present call costs!

Exactly!  Mobile providers will probably use it to make more money and mentioning slightly lower calls but "forgetting" to mention the callee gets charged MORE than the reduction in caller's costs.

Also, depending on tariff, mobile companies are offering unlimited (subject to fair use as always) mins and/or texts albeit mostly to their own network.  Would there be such a thing as unlimited tariffs under US style charging?

bbb_uk wrote on Sep 7^th, 2008 at 11:24am:

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Sep 6th, 2008 at 11:23pm: Can we confirm that the very straightforward question in the poll invites us to simply express a preference as if in a hypothetical ideal world. Yes.  I didn't want to over complicate anything.

It seems from the discussion that many of us (including myself) are very concerned about how such an arrangement would work in practice. I wonder if this is reflected in the voting.

I hope that this is the case, as much of our focus in this forum is on attacking inappropriate use of "revenue sharing" numbers. These apply the principle that the caller, rather than the receiver, pays for the features available on non-geographic numbers, and perhaps more besides.

If we find that the forum is populated by a majority in favour of the caller paying, then should we be saying "yes" to 0845, 0844, 0870 etc., and "no" to 03 where the receiver pays for these special features through fees on calls received?

Perhaps, like all referenda, votes have little to do with objective judgement of the specific question being addressed and much to do with subjective assessments of the individuals and organisations involved.

I think the main issue is that of price transparency.

Most people are pretty well educated that calling mobiles from a landline is going to cost them more than calling other landlines, and the costs of calling landlines and other mobiles from a mobile are generally pretty well explained when choosing a mobile contract, where both types of call are generally now treated equally.

However 08* call costs are not at all clear - it's a rare mobile company that quotes its call costs to these in marketing litrature, and the continued use of "local rate" and "national rate" tags just misleads the consumer of the true costs of these calls from any network.  Whilst this situation continues, I see the role of this site, for instance, as very important.

As for as the question of who should pay for the call ..  whilst it does seem that there is an argument for "called party pays" on mobiles by virtue of people who carry a mobile wish to be contactable, you have to bear in mind the difference between an individual who will primarilly be receiving personal calls, and a business where the calls will mainly be of a commercial nature, and whom will be expecting to make a profit at the end of the year.

Now 084/087 calls are generally to businesses, whom are already trying to make money from us on the products they sell us.  For them to get an income (in whatever form) from our calls is icing on the cake to them.    It also shows just how greedy they are that you can often find an 080 freephone number for sales calls, but 087 or even premium rate calls for after-sales support!

Mobile numbers are generally used by individuals whom make no money from receiving the calls.  The high price for calling one from a landline is shared among the telcos, and is down to the high charges the mobile operators make to the landline operators for taking the calls.  

Historically this was because there was a massive investment needed to set up the networks, but surely this is almost complete now, and their ongoing expenses should only be maintenance and upgrades, so there should be scope for dramatic reductions in the interconnect charges.

irrelevant wrote on Sep 8^th, 2008 at 8:33am:

I think the main issue is that of price transparency.

Price transparency is indeed a major point. As is stated however, the point is that prices are obscured to conceal the unacceptable fact that the caller is paying for the additional features deployed, rather than the receiver.

With truly competitive businesses it may be acceptable for any charge to be made, so long as it is declared, as the market will ensure that all is fair. This does not however apply to service lines, the cost of which is not declared as part of the contract, nor to public services. Knowing that your NHS doctor's practice funds its services using payments from patients does not make it OK; it simply reveals that it is wrong.

The campaigning forum and the database of alternative numbers on this site do indeed have an important role to play. Knowledge of its existence and every visit that is made indicate that the essential battle about transparency is being won. Victory is however only achieved when names no longer need to appear in the database.

The point about mobile calls being mostly received from friends would seem to argue that it does not matter who pays. With most such mobile calls that I receive, I would be very pleased to be relieved of the obligation to call back. Equally, I would be very happy to subsidise family members using mobiles more directly.

Some would argue that it is the use of freephone numbers for sales calls that is the indicator of greed. Any indication of excessive funding of pre-sales operations shows that a very good margin is expected on the business that may be won. The sales costs would be recovered in general pricing, not through subsidy of service operations.

As with users of many 084x numbers, mobile users may not actually profit from calls received, however the cost of their incoming telephone service is being subsidised by callers.

It has clearly been an objective of government and of Ofcom for the use of mobiles to grow to its present level of over 100% saturation. This has demanded that they be adopted by the least wealthy (including kids) and therefore subsidised by others. We therefore have a situation where the costs are distributed quite irrationally. Contract users with perfectly good handsets (including myself) are paying for inferior annual replacements that they do not want. Technical developments are being focussed on ways of making more money out of an irrational system, rather than on meeting genuine need.

Whilst this should be addressed, and moving to a system of "receiver pays" on call charges would be only part of this, there is little chance that this could happen. One only needs to think of the many who currently have a PAYG mobile because they cannot afford to rent a landline to recognise that implementation of a more rational system covering payment for mobile calls could not be implemented without great difficulty.

If it were to happen, then things would probably settle down after transition, but plenty of confusion and upset would occur until then

And there could be advantages

For example, if mobile termination rates dropped, there would be a good chance that they would be included in landline inclusive packages. They'd certainly be cheaper to call.

On a mobile contract that has say 600 inclusive minutes at the moment, some will be to landlines and some to mobiles. If the mobile termination rates dropped, then there should be either a drop in the monthly rental, or more likely the rental would stay the same and calls (including received) would be increased to 1000 or 1200 minutes.

Someone who wanted to receive calls on a landline but sometimes forward it to their mobile would be a lot better off. I understand this is what US users like; if they have both landline and mobile contracts with inclusive minutes, then call diversion doesn't cost them anything at all.

For mobiles on payg, outgoing call rates should drop, but I suspect that this is where the most scope for disappointment would be. Perhaps there would be conditional top-up packages that included free incoming calls, but it would be pretty confusing.

The other aspect, which I suspect Ofcom hasn't thought through as much, is that the costs of roaming abroad would be affected. Unless something like this was done on a Europe-wide basis, the UK networks would argue that they couldn't support  cheap or free roaming, and they'd be right.

There are a number of global roaming  SIMs which have free incoming calls in plenty of countries, which we've discussed on occasions. The possibility of free roaming arises because of a margin built into the incoming termination fee, which would not be possible if that was only a penny or cent a minute. Thus when people ask if there are free roaming SIMs with Hong Kong numbers (because it's cheap to call there), I reply that I doubt it will ever be possible (in fact there is a HK-based SIM, but with other numbers forwarded to it).

My O2 contract includes the My Europe Extra add-on, which means free incoming calls in Europe, which means it's effectively the  same as those above. But if O2 only got a small amount for people calling me when I'm abroad, it would cost them too much to divert to the European network where I was, unless they are all concurrently dropping termination fees as well. Outside Europe, the cost of roaming would probably increase. And, as some of the global SIMs have Jersey and IoM mobile numbers, would their regulatory authorities decide to parallel Ofcom moves, or stay out of  it?

It does seem rather late for this to be considered, now that mobile calls are on the point of exceeding landline calls, and some contracts now average out to only 2 or 3 pence a minute anyway.

I'm reminded of the old joke or anecdote about someone asking for directions, where the reply is that it's a bit complicated to explain, if I were you I wouldn't start from here.

andy9 wrote on Sep 15^th, 2008 at 11:26am:

For mobiles on payg, outgoing call rates should drop, but I suspect that this is where the most scope for disappointment would be. Perhaps there would be conditional top-up packages that included free incoming calls, but it would be pretty confusing.

Don't the USA have their version of payg then?  If so, have you any idea how they work?!

bbb_uk wrote on Sep 15^th, 2008 at 8:06pm:

Don't the USA have their version of payg then?  If so, have you any idea how they work?!

Yes. I think most of them  have fairly simple top-ups compared to here, just credit which then pays for incoming and outgoing calls at about 10 to 20 cents a minute depending on the amount of credit added

Here, we see loads of different types of conditional monthly top-up bonuses, and my guess would be that this is where bundles of incoming calls might be promoted most if we were to see these changes

I believe that the following announcement from Ofcom today is of relevance to this thread.


Quote:

Ofcom has today published a joint response with the UK Department for Business, Enterprise & Regulatory Reform to the European Commission draft Recommendation on the Regulatory Treatment of Fixed and Mobile Termination Rates in the EU consultation. The response can be found at: http://www.ofcom.org.uk/telecoms/ioi/eutermination/response.pdf A technical document supporting the response can be found at: http://www.ofcom.org.uk/telecoms/ioi/eutermination/annex.pdf

Members who wish to receive thrilling notifications like this by email, can subscribe at:

http://www.ofcom.org.uk/static/subscribe/select_list.htm.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2008 at 10:28pm:

Members who wish to receive thrilling notifications like this ...

... can wait for SCV to receive them and let us know here :D.

jgxenite wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2008 at 10:38pm:

Members who wish to receive thrilling notifications like this ... ... can wait for SCV to receive them and let us know here :D.

Always happy to help when I can, but cannot be relied upon to provide a forwarding service.

Furthermore, I have not yet had time to read one word of the documents and so cannot offer any comment.

Just thought I'd bump this thread - I've just remembered the deadline for this consultation is in two days' time!

As mikeinnc said, US mobiles' (plus Canada and most of Caribbean) numbers are indistiguishable from geographical numbers and cost the same to call - a terrific advantage. Disadvantages are you pay to receive and US does'nt have the cost-equivalent of 1899, 18185 and 18866. On balance, I think the US system would work out better for us. The UK mobile phone companies have been milking us for too long! maybe it's our own fault for being sheep-like for too long in this and every other field of consumerism (e.g. see US petrol prices).

Yup. I had always liked the UK style of charging, being a modest user at the start. But the UK should change; and I am still a modest user. At the moment everyone likes the "free" handset, for which everyone pays forever.
Come on UK, time to change - and then perhaps consumer power might work. After all the operators might find that people suddenly become more aware of the costs.
Who will be first to change in the new economy?

Definitely NOT is my vote on being charged for incoming calls.  A friend of mine in the States restricted his daughters mobile, because of her huge bills, to incoming calls only ( except for outgoing calls to him and his wife for emergencies )  He was surprised, to say the least, to receive a phone bill for her for $700 because her friends had been calling her !!!
Mobile calls are a rip off at present.  I remember seeing something on the TV some time ago about one of the Scandinavian countries where all mobile calls are about 2p / min.  If they can do it, there seems no reason other than greed from the phone companies that we can't.

Surely this is no different to a Reverse Charge Call, "is it." Or do you mean the caller can make contact without notifying the recipient caller.

If that is the case it Sounds Dodgy to me.

(via) O2 have apparently announced that they will be offering landline numbers to (business) mobile users here.  £10 a month, £15 for an 0808, or free if you open a new account.  No indication on that news release of any incoming call charges, though.  They only say "your callers will be charged the standard landline rate for calling you – they won’t get charged any extra."

Didn't Orange used to offer landline numbers, albeit with incoming call charges?

This sounds quite a good idea as it gives the mobile user the choice about who pays the premium.

This does however depend on the charge incurred as working out to be nothing more that the difference. Diversion from a normal landline would mean that two calls were being paid for, as well as a fee for the diversion.