Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
SAYNOTO0870.COM

<---- Back to main website

 
Home Help Search Login Register

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6
Send Topic Print
Ofcom consultation - 070 acceptable use (Read 80,916 times)
dorf
Supreme Member
*****
Offline


I hate Qs on Premium NGNs

Posts: 575
UK
Gender: male
Re: URGENT RESPONSE REQD Ofcom and 070/Patientline
Reply #30 - Nov 3rd, 2005 at 7:50pm
 
Dave,

The person "in charge" may or may not be the end user or terminating subscriber. My point was that NGM had posted "Personally I can't see why the 070 number end user shouldn't revenue share?  For instance if Patientline customers got 15p a minute back then at least they could afford to buy their relations who have had to call them a drink when they get out of hospital. "

This to me was suggesting that the terminating subscriber could legally have a revenue share (i.e. the patient). According to the current prohibition this would be illegal. However as we know what the sly boys do is to nominate a dummy entity as the terminating subscriber so that they can as NGM says use 070 PNS as Premium numbers at a much higher rate than 0870 or 0871 at present.

So it would be possible for the patient to be given a share (illegally) by Patientline, but this would defeat their objective of maximising revenue yield from the scam.
Back to top
 

Ofcom are completely ineffectual
 
IP Logged
 
Dave
Global Moderator
*****
Offline



Posts: 9,902
Yorkshire
Gender: male
Re: URGENT RESPONSE REQD Ofcom and 070/Patientline
Reply #31 - Nov 3rd, 2005 at 8:09pm
 
Quote:
The person "in charge" may or may not be the end user or terminating subscriber.

I don't think that's the case. See Ofcom's guidance on the use of personal numbers here.
Quote:
(B) The end user must be in charge of the destination number

12. Although Personal Numbers were originally designed for people who habitually move location this is not an essential characteristic (see para 7 above).

13. However, what all Personal Numbering Services have in common is that it must be the called party who decides which destination the 070 number is routed to. Additionally, if the service that is being offered is the facility to be reached at any chosen destination then the End-User must be in charge of changing as well as allocating the destination number. This follows on from Criteria A, above.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
NonGeographicalMan
Ex Member


Re: URGENT RESPONSE REQD Ofcom and 070/Patientline
Reply #32 - Nov 3rd, 2005 at 8:11pm
 
The key thing about Personal Numbers though is that the actual tariffs seem to be truly exorbitant in relation to the facilities that are provided - even if one accepts the validity of the PNS concept.

The only use they seem to be justifiably deployed to is a facility that will even let calls be redirected to overseas mobile numbers on the PNS k rate.  As international mobile calls were, until about 6 months ago, very expensive this didn't look such bad value.  The d rate PNS numbers do seem pointless since the same facilities of redirection to international fixed lines seem to be offered on 0871 at only 10p per minute.

Of course most of the money goes to revenue share to the PNS company and not to the underlying onward routing telecoms supplier, which is clearly why the rates aren't falling fast, even though telecoms costs are.

The things is that the same scams seem to be operated quite profitably in universities using only 0870 numbers so I really don't see how the extra 070 rakeoff can be justified?  And the tv part of the bedside apparatus is being paid back through the extremely lucrative rental charges.  So how the idiots at the NHS ever agreed to the use of 07 numbers is beyond me.  I suspect Mr Derek Lewis has connections in the NHS though. Wink

I feel sure that the current Ofcom investigation will merely rubber stamp the current scam though (with direct 07 dial to the bedside) and say that these hospital patients really are now getting genuine PNS numbers that are their own.  But I bet in the small print it says that if calls aren't received to the number at least once a month that they can be reallocated by Patientline..............................  That's the case with a PNS number I used to have for redirection to an international mobile number.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Nov 3rd, 2005 at 8:12pm by N/A »  
 
IP Logged
 
dorf
Supreme Member
*****
Offline


I hate Qs on Premium NGNs

Posts: 575
UK
Gender: male
Re: URGENT RESPONSE REQD Ofcom and 070/Patientline
Reply #33 - Nov 3rd, 2005 at 9:25pm
 
Dave, sometimes I wonder whether we are describing the same occurrence? You quote from Ofcom's statements: "However, what all Personal Numbering Services have in common is that it must be the called party who decides which destination the 070 number is routed to. Additionally, if the service that is being offered is the facility to be reached at any chosen destination then the End-User must be in charge of changing as well as allocating the destination number. This follows on from Criteria A, above."

Where does it mention any "person in charge"? This seems to be a term you have coined? The reality at present, which is what the scam with 070 PNS is all about, is that legally it is now only intermediaries in the NTS routeing who may receive revenue share, since Oftel banned revenue sharing for the terminating subscriber.

However what is actually occurring is that illegal revenue sharing is being enacted to the real terminating subscriber, who is arranging with the intermediaries to nominate a dummy (friend, associate or colleague) as the recorded terminating subscriber, so that they as an intermediary can take revenue share. In the case of companies like Patientline they are in realitiy intermediaries so they take the lot. It is big money because 070 PNS rates are extremely high.

This is the attraction of 070 PNS abuses. The rates are so high and queuing is allowed. Even some of the international telcos themselves have been ripped off with these - big time! See http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/FCC-04-32A1.html.

So I really do not understand your point?

NGM, you mention:

"The things is that the same scams seem to be operated quite profitably in universities using only 0870 numbers so I really don't see how the extra 070 rake-off can be justified?" The reason is as you observe that the call rates are so high. It is just sheer greed and avarice which is at the root of it. And if course Ofcom play into their hands and   condone it all!
Back to top
 

Ofcom are completely ineffectual
 
IP Logged
 
drrdf3
Ex Member


Re: URGENT RESPONSE REQD Ofcom and 070/Patientline
Reply #34 - Nov 3rd, 2005 at 9:32pm
 
I sent an e-mail to vicki nash of Ofcom requesting that the 070 PNS consultation deadline be extended (with copies to all on NGM's list). I received the same response as the rest of you from David Stewart. But I then replied to his replies and eventualy got not just the brush-off, but the "silence". I.E. too embarrassed to make any further reply.

My e-mail:

Dear Ms. Nash,

As a Citizen Consumer I must protest most strongly about the unacceptable way that Ofcom has attempted to undertake a supposed "consultation", deliberately allowing a ridiculously short period of 2 weeks only from its release to its closure, with a clear hidden objective of rushing through surreptitiously the legalisation of a scam service to exploit citizen consumers who have the misfortune to be ill in hospital. I refer to the current consultation  070 acceptable use. With other citizen consumers who are equally incensed at this I must request in the strongest possible terms that this consultation period is extended to the normal 10 weeks, since it is such an important issue and has the potential, if Ofcom persist in their current desire to conceal this and rush it through, of becoming the biggest NGN scam which Ofcom have allowed and actively supported so far.

What makes it all the very much worse is that this issue is really about an effective monopoly which Ofcom will be handing out to one specific company to profit from this absurdity - namely Patientline. The consultation document is clearly arranged, as is Ofcom's strategy now, so that a smoke screen of verbosity hides the real issue, which is hidden amongst the words on Page 14 of the consultation document. The clear real object is to allow the legalisation of Patientline's previously illegal use of 50p/min 070 scam numbers for patients in hospitals, so long as Patientline implement direct dial numbers to the bedside. This is clearly outrageous.

Ofcom in reality well know and even state on their own web site "It shall be the principal duty of Ofcom to further the interests of citizens in relation to communication matters and to further the interests of consumers in relevant markets". How could this action possibly further the interests of citizen consumers, particularly those who have the misfortune to be sick and in hospital? Of course there is no way in which it could; rather the reverse is true: this action is most clearly to further the interests of a telecommunications provider, namely Patientline. In addition this action by Ofcom will further reduce competition, by handing a virtual monopoly, at least initially, to one particular company - namely Patientline. This is completely outrageous, and a deliberate and distinct failure to meet your obligations under the Telecommunications Acts, and gives the remarkable impression of favouring one particular commercial company for some salient and particular reason? In addition this action would contravene the regulator's own original NTNP.

Due to the short time-scale allowed initially I have already replied to this particular Ofcom consultation, but when I read the document quickly at that time, due to the pressure of response time I had not noticed this outrageous feature of this consultation then on Page 14 and so was not able to include this issue in my response. I believe for this reason that those who have already been pressurised into responding under the duress of this artificially imposed short consultation period should be able to respond again in a longer period of 8 weeks which ought to be now allowed by Ofcom.

The principal duty of Ofcom is supposed to be to further the interests of the Citizen Consumer and to ensure fair and free competition. This Ofcom are most clearly, deliberately and continuously failing to do, but instead you are furthering the interests of telecommunications providers and their big businesses instead, and in some cases even condoning and fostering monopolies! Soon the question will have to be asked - "Why is this happening?" There will have to be a parliamentary committee examining and determining the exact reasons for Ofcom's continued failures to undertake its primary duties in telecommunications, which is its remit.

Regards,

drrdf3


Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
drrdf3
Ex Member


Re: URGENT RESPONSE REQD Ofcom and 070/Patientline
Reply #35 - Nov 3rd, 2005 at 9:35pm
 
I received the reply from David Stewart:

Dear drrdf3,



I refer to your earlier note to Vicki Nash, who suggested I reply directly.



In summary, I am afraid there may be a misunderstanding here - the consultation you refer to doesn't have any connection to any investigation, open or closed, involving Patientline or any other provider of calls to hospital patients. My apologies for the length of this note but I thought you might find it helpful to have the situation set out clearly.



In fact, the commentary in our guidance on 070 services for calls to hospital patients remains unchanged in the revised guidance.



For example, you can see the old (Jan 04) text here:



http://www.ofcom.org.uk/telecoms/ioi/numbers/num_070_guide#content



If you compare the text of the bullet point in relation to calls to hospital patients in the old and new versions, you can see that it has not changed. This reflects Ofcom's view about the appropriate use of 070 numbers for calls to hospital patients; this is separate (in Ofcom's view) from the question of the prices charged for those services.



The reason for the new 070 consultation is (as we said at the time) to adjust our guidance to give clarity on an issue about the role of service providers and their responsibilities to take reasonable steps to ensure that their customers are using numbers in ways that are consistent with the Numbering Plan. That objective, and the context to it, are set out on our website here:



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



To put this in context, this constitutes a minor adjustment, adding text on an issue about which the guidance has previously simply been silent. This guidance explains Ofcom's approach, but doesn't directly affect the legal rights or obligations of any person; those remain as set out in the Numbering Plan and number allocations. There is no statutory requirement for consultation under those circumstances. As you know, Ofcom is committed to transparency and to consulting above and beyond our formal requirements, and therefore, Ofcom elected to conduct a short consultation in any event. (Any contribution you wish to make to that consultation would be welcome). 



Finally, I note that there are two different investigations involving Patientline and it isn’t clear which one you intended to refer to:



The first investigation concerns Patientline's conduct in relation to Competition Act issues (which is considering, amongst other things, the question of whether the 50p constitutes excessive pricing under competition law). This investigation is on-going. As with any open investigation, we have no public comment other than via our Competition Bulletin, available here:



http://www.ofcom.org.uk/bulletins/comp_bull_index/comp_bull_ocases/open_all/cw_8...



The second investigation concerned the use by Patientline of 070 services via a switchboard. That investigation has now closed. It resulted in our determining that the use of such services via a switchboard was inappropriate (a conclusion which is obviously consistent with both the old and new 070 guidance). This was not related in any way to the question of the pricing for incoming (or outgoing) calls - it related simply and exclusively to the use of PINs or switchboards, which we viewed as inconsistent with the requirement for callers to be able to dial directly the person using the 070 number.



The outcome of that investigation was that Ofcom issued a s.94 notice to Patientline requiring them to use 070 numbers in line with our guidance. The recent decision to grant Patientline an extension to the time to comply with this requirement (in a small proportion of the sites) was not related to, and does not affect, the first investigation or Patientline's pricing for any services. Details concerning this investigation, together with the s.94 notice, can be found here:



http://www.ofcom.org.uk/bulletins/comp_bull_index/comp_bull_ccases/closed_all/cw...      



I trust that this provides you with a clear picture of these various activities and the reasons for them. Thanks for the opportunity to clarify the situation.



Regards,



David Stewart

Director of Investigations



david.stewart@ofcom.org.uk








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


From: Vicki Nash
Sent: 02 November 2005 10:55 AM
To: David Stewart
Subject: FW: Only 2 weeks allowed for Ofcom Consultation to legalise Patientline 50p/min scam



and another

Vicki

You can see at the end that vicki nash has received quite a number of these and is just delegating the task of sending the usual Ofcom boilerplate.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
drrdf3
Ex Member


Re: URGENT RESPONSE REQD Ofcom and 070/Patientline
Reply #36 - Nov 3rd, 2005 at 9:38pm
 
I then sent the following reply:

Dear Mr. Stewart,

Thank you for your reply to my e-mail sent to Vicki Nash concerning the unacceptable shortness of the period allowed for your consultation about permissible usage of 070. I assure you that there is no misunderstanding here, as you claim. I and other Citizen Consumers are by now well aware of the spin methods which Ofcom use to bulldoze their already decided extensions to the current abuses with NGNs through into implementation, quite regardless of the expressed views and interests of Citizen Consumers, and it is clear that this short consultation period is to attempt to ensure that there will fewer embarrassing submissions from Citizen Consumers, which will inevitably disagree with what you are proposing, since these proposals are not in the interest of Citizen Consumers, as Ofcom are in fact well aware.

Clearly you do not and would not mention Patientline by name in your consultation document. Nevertheless it is quite clear to Citizen Consumers who are aware of what is going on that the references to  "070 numbers allocated to hospital patients so that they can have their own number for the duration of their stay (but not where a generic 070 number is used that requires further PINs ....)" in your consultation document can apply only to companies like Patientline and probably were inserted in particular direct favour of Patientline! I did not in fact refer to any of the investigations involving Patientline, as you claim. My point was that the very issue of dial-through use of 070 without a PIN number which you are proposing to allow is clearly referring to the operation of a company like Patientline, to give them licence after any investigations which there may be (which inevitably will find them to be blameless) to continue to operate their existing series with a slight change. Your proposal is therefore not in the interest of Citizen Consumers, as Ofcom are in fact well aware. To me as a Citizen Consumer it seems that one of the key things which Ofcom are attempting to achieve in this proposal is to now allow 070 P.N.S with its much higher charge rates to be freely used for rip-off hospital use exploiting Citizen Consumers who are sick or injured, with this sly change hidden on Page 14.   

Despite the length of your note you have evaded my principal point, which is that with such important elements of this particular issue it is unacceptable for you to rush through this consultation in 2 weeks instead of allowing the normal 10 week period. If your proposals stated in this document are implemented it will generate very significant and expensive problems for Citizen Consumers. To effectively guillotine this consultation in this way is thus decidedly against the interests of Citizen Consumers, and this specific proposal to allow 070 numbers to be allocated to hospital patients so that they can be ripped-off during their unfortunate stay in hospital as captive victims with an 070 PNS number being used as a disguised Premium number, so long as there is no further PIN required, no doubt with yet a further distorting amendment to the NTNP to permit it, is even more against the interests of  Citizen Consumers.

I must remind you once again, since for some strange reason Ofcom always seem to loose site of it, the principal responsibility of Ofcom under the Telecommunications acts is to protect the interests of the Citizen Consumer, and also to ensure free and open competition. To rush this consultation through in 2 weeks only and to intend to implement a licence for yet a further extension of the blatant abuses of non-09 NGNs as Premium numbers, most of all with 070 PNS and their higher rates, is an abuse of your powers and will be to the severe detriment of the interests of the Citizen Consumer. I must therefore ask you again, please therefore extend the closing of this consultation for a further 8 weeks.

Regards,

ddrf3
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
drrdf3
Ex Member


Re: URGENT RESPONSE REQD Ofcom and 070/Patientline
Reply #37 - Nov 3rd, 2005 at 9:39pm
 
I then received the following reply from David Stewart:

Dear ddrf3,

As you correctly point out, Ofcom’s statutory mission is to act in ways that further the interests of citizens and consumers. I am sorry you feel so strongly that Ofcom isn’t doing so in this instance. We may have to agree to disagree on this point on this occasion.

On the issue at hand, I can only reiterate two points I made in my earlier email, that:

-          the section dealing with use of 070 services for services to hospital patients predate this consultation – a situation you can check for yourself by following the links in my note; and
-          the question of pricing for calls to hospital patients is and remains under active investigation. No decision has been taken by Ofcom in this matter.

I hope this is helpful to you.

Regards,

David Stewart
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Dave
Global Moderator
*****
Offline



Posts: 9,902
Yorkshire
Gender: male
Re: URGENT RESPONSE REQD Ofcom and 070/Patientline
Reply #38 - Nov 3rd, 2005 at 9:41pm
 
Quote:
Dave, sometimes I wonder whether we are describing the same occurrence? [...]

Where does it mention any "person in charge"? This seems to be a term you have coined?

The subtitle:
(B) The end user must be in charge of the destination number

My point being that this does not include Patientline's use as the called party does not determine the destination number. That means that whilst Patientline's system is listed as an accepted example use of these numbers, its use is contradicted by the part I quoted in my above post.

I would agree that the current rules permit Patientline to take all the revenue.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
drrdf3
Ex Member


Re: URGENT RESPONSE REQD Ofcom and 070/Patientline
Reply #39 - Nov 3rd, 2005 at 9:46pm
 
I then sent the following reply to David Stewart:

Dear Mr. Stewart,

Thank you for your reply to my e-mail of 2nd November 2005. However as before you have again somewhat skilfully avoided answering my original question and the additional question which I raised.

1) Is this proposed change to allow the use of 07 PNS with 070 numbers allocated to hospital patients so that they can have their own number for the duration of their stay (but not where a generic 070 number is used that requires further PINs ....) as stated in this consultation, although 070 PNS was never intended for such a use and is not allowed in the National Telephone Numbering Plan for such a use, in the interest of the Citizen Consumer? The answer is clearly NO (it is not in the interest of the Citizen Consumer). Therefore your claim that " the section dealing with use of 070 services for services to hospital patients predate this consultation" is irrelevant, since it is Ofcom's statutory responsibility to protect the interests of the Citizen Consumer, and Ofcom therefore have a statutory duty in this consultation to over-rule this predated illegal decision. Therefore the proper normal time of 10 weeks should be allowed for this consultation.

2)  Will you please therefore extend this consultation period to allow time for more Citizen Consumers to inform you of their real position, since it is your primary statutory duty to take account of what they state, so that you can be sure what is actually in the interest of the Citizen Consumer?

It seems therefore that by default your answer to Question 1 is "Yes we know that but we are going to do the opposite anyway."

It seems that by default your answer to Question 2 is "Although we know that it is our principal duty to protect the interests of the Citizen Consumer we will not agree to any requests to extend this consultation to the normal period of 10 weeks, because we know that if we do we will receive too many responses from Citizen Consumers stating the opposite of what we want to hear, and that is why we want to guillotine this consultation."

Unless I hear from you that these default answers are incorrect I shall publish this correspondence.

Regards,

drrdf3


As would be expected, he did not reply again, so the default answers are correct, and Ofcom do not intend to take any account of the interests of Citizen Consumers on this issue of 070 PNS abuses and they will not consider extending this consultation period, because they wish to guillotine it through to ensure that their pre-consultation decision already made in advance is implemented.

What I ask you is the point of having a "regulator"?

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
dorf
Supreme Member
*****
Offline


I hate Qs on Premium NGNs

Posts: 575
UK
Gender: male
Re: URGENT RESPONSE REQD Ofcom and 070/Patientline
Reply #40 - Nov 3rd, 2005 at 9:58pm
 
Hi Dave,

Yes but my point is that because the poor victim in hospital has no option, under duress they are accepting Patientline's terms. This means that the patient is by default agreeing to accept Patientline's termination of the 070 PNS call because they have no option other than getting up out of bed and going far enough away from their bed outside in the hospital grounds, which is what many do, to use their own mobile phone.

So the called user (terminating subscriber) is in effect setting the destination number, by having to agree to Patientline's dictat under duress. I don't see any difference. That is how it is a scam. And surely this is the very issue which Ofcom is intending to warp still further to allow these abuses to continue?
Back to top
 

Ofcom are completely ineffectual
 
IP Logged
 
Dave
Global Moderator
*****
Offline



Posts: 9,902
Yorkshire
Gender: male
Re: URGENT RESPONSE REQD Ofcom and 070/Patientline
Reply #41 - Nov 3rd, 2005 at 10:04pm
 
Hi drrdf

You refer to page 14 of the consultation. This is part of the 'proposed' revised guidelines which is identical, word for word, to the existing guidelines. So which part are you referring to?

Also, the acceptable use of 070 numbers lists these hospital systems in the January 2004 edition, so it appears that this one was 'legalised' a while ago.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
NonGeographicalMan
Ex Member


Re: URGENT RESPONSE REQD Ofcom and 070/Patientline
Reply #42 - Nov 3rd, 2005 at 10:27pm
 
Quote:
Therefore your claim that " the section dealing with use of 070 services for services to hospital patients predate this consultation" is irrelevant, since it is Ofcom's statutory responsibility to protect the interests of the Citizen Consumer, and Ofcom therefore have a statutory duty in this consultation to over-rule this predated illegal decision. Therefore the proper normal time of 10 weeks should be allowed for this consultation.

Will you please therefore extend this consultation period to allow time for more Citizen Consumers to inform you of their real position, since it is your primary statutory duty to take account of what they state, so that you can be sure what is actually in the interest of the Citizen Consumer?

As would be expected, he did not reply again.

What I ask you is the point of having a "regulator"?


Drrdf,

You have only just appeared on this forum with us but you seem to have an acutely keen and incisive mind that fully understands the abusive manner in which Ofcom operates.  It is not without reason that this body is given a mention at http://www.newlabourscandals.co.uk/bodies.htm where attention is drawn to the 70 Ofcom staff on packages of over £100,000 a year. Shocked

As you rightly state this consultation contains the whole revised guidance, including the changes first made in 2004, and to which we so strongly object, allowing Patientline style operations to abuse 070 so long as they offer direct dial numbers to the phone at the patient bedside.

Ofcom cannot have it both ways by putting the whole guidance including these clauses in their document for consultation and then say we cannot make our objection to those clauses known because they had in fact changed them earlier.  This consultation appears to in fact be an opportunity to comment on the whole Ofcom Guidance on the acceptable use of 070 numbers.  And that includes the unacceptable parts of that guidance viz hospital numbers.  The reality of the matter is that Ofcom have the power from legislation to change the whole guidance again if they want to as a result of the consultation, especially if there is enough strength of opinion on that matter in the responses to the consultation.  But of course the 13 days consultation is to try to make sure there aren't any such responses. But hopefully we will be able to well and truly cook their goose on this one.

Therefore it is quite legitimate for us to say that we do not believe any 070 use by Patientline hospital numbers is acceptable, especially when the facilities and the technology involved are actually no different from the phone lines provided for students in student acommodation and to which we have actually even been objecting to the ripoff involved in 0870 being used compared to 01 or 02.

However as the student halls telcos actually manage to make a decent living to pay for the equipment from 0870 numbers then there can be no case at all for 070 to be used by Patientline, especially when we know that Ofcom's policy is to keep on changing the regulations and keep granting Patientline extended deadlines to remedy their queuing abuses, just so they can retrospectively legalise a still totally unacceptable operation.

We also all know that the Ofcom's investigation into prices will not end the use of the 070 prefix by Patientline, although perhaps as a sop Ofcom may demand that the call rate on this general class of 070 numbers is cut to say 30p per minute peak, rather than its present 49p per minute.  Its clear however that Patientline won't be asked to renumber again away from 070 when Ofcom have already just asked them to go through one such exercise to provide direct dial to the bedside.

But it does seem to me that Ofcom could say this 070 call rate per minute is anti-competitive and force it to be reduced to 30p or 25p per minute peak.  But £15 an hour would still be an awful lot to pay to call your mum in hospital. Shocked
Back to top
« Last Edit: Nov 3rd, 2005 at 10:35pm by N/A »  
 
IP Logged
 
Dave
Global Moderator
*****
Offline



Posts: 9,902
Yorkshire
Gender: male
Re: URGENT RESPONSE REQD Ofcom and 070/Patientline
Reply #43 - Nov 3rd, 2005 at 11:01pm
 
Quote:
As you rightly state this consultation contains the whole revised guidance, including the changes first made in 2004, and to which we so strongly object, allowing Patientline style operations to abuse 070 so long as they offer direct dial numbers to the phone at the patient bedside.

Ofcom cannot have it both ways by putting the whole gudiance including these clauses in their document for consultation and then say we cannot make our objection to those clauses because they had changed them earlier.  But this consultation appears to be an opportunity to comment on the whole Ofcom Guidance on the acceptable use of 070 numbers.

This is becoming clearer to me now.

So what you're saying is that Ofcom made the changes in January 2004 without consulting. It has decided to make some other changes, namely the insertion of paragraph 6. The changes proposed are to emphasise CP's and re-sellers responsibilities to see that the numbers are used in accordance with the rules, as Mr Stewart points out.

However, this consultation is suposedly for the afforementioned changes, but in revising 'the guidelines' as a whole, that is, by definition, consulting on the entire guidelines document.

I still stand by what I said in reply #24 and consider that this will open the floodgates for these university systems to adopt 070 numbers aswell, and that this contradicts the statement "The end user must be in charge of the destination number".
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
NonGeographicalMan
Ex Member


Re: URGENT RESPONSE REQD Ofcom and 070/Patientline
Reply #44 - Nov 4th, 2005 at 1:02am
 
Dave,

I hope you will be responding to Ofcom making these very points.

If PNS numbers hooked up to DDI lines on a PBX are good enough for Patientline then it would surely be good enough for the DognBones of this world.  So why should DognBone etc not be allowed to use 070 for their student switchboards while Patientline can or vica versa.

If anything the student room phones are more suitable for PNS because the students are mobile all the time and have mobile phones whereas the hospital patient is fixed to his bed and the one extension.  Of course the actual concept of PNS is a fairly good one (hunting round various real numbers through a list set by the user to find one that answers) its just the skyhigh pricing that is outrageous.

But having had an account for a k class PNS that could redirect to my Liechtenstein mobile (www.riiing.com) I recall that you could put in loads of different numbers in the PNS software control panel for the Personal Number to hunt through in order till one answered.  But are hospital patients to be given any access to this functionality or controlling it in their hospital beds??  Wheras by contrast clearly DognBone could provide students with their laptops and room internet access with precisely these facilities.

I am tempted to suggest that we try to upset the whole applecart by tipping off the management of DognBone about about this consultation and asking them to complain to Ofcom that it is anticompetitive that Patientline are allowed to use PNS for fixed line only DDI telephony while they are not.  As the government surely couldn't possibly let students relatives be charged 50p perminute for calling them for 3 years it would have to be Patientline on 070 that was outlawed if Ofcom have to choose between the two.

It is so crooked of Ofcom to allow Patientline to go on using PNS, so long as they bring in DDI dialling, when its obvious that Patientline flouts every concept of PNS.

What can be done about Ofcom. Grrrrhhhhhh Angry  They codify every scam going as legal while getting paid 6 figure sums for doing so.  Why do I suffer from wanting to fight on the side of what is right instead of being happy sitting on the side of where the money is as the Ofcom careerists do.

The whole deal with Patientline is linked to the New Labour stealth tax ideology.  Can you imagine the fuss if the Tories were still in power and had allowed 50p per minute phone systems to patients bedsides in hospital?  If that had happened Labour would be on and on about it day and night in the press.

Why does New Labour constantly allow far bigger business scams to happen than would ever have been possible under a Conservative government. Shocked  Answer it seems because the Tory party is too polite to make a big fuss about it.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6
Send Topic Print
(Moderators: Dave, bbb_uk, Forum Admin, DaveM, CJT-80)

Website and Content © 1999-2024 SAYNOTO0870.COM. All Rights Reserved.
Written permission is required to duplicate any of the content within this site.

WARNING: This is an open forum, posts are NOT endorsed by SAYNOTO0870.COM,
please exercise due caution when acting on any info from here.


SAYNOTO0870.COM » Powered by YaBB 2.5.2!
YaBB Forum Software © 2000-2024. All Rights Reserved.


Valid RSS Valid XHTML Valid CSS Powered by Perl Source Forge