Quote:


In addition to this reluctance by Ofcom, I read in the UK Telephone Numbering Plan consulation about the potential shortage of 084/7 numbers so I wondered, could Ofcom reasonably argue, that it simply wouldn't be possible to move 087/084 to the 09 range because it couldn't accomodate all the numbers needed in addition to the existing 09 numbers ?  Someone who knows the maths of these number range may be able to answer this ?

I've called for such a change in the past but am now not sure if its even possible.  Even though, I'm not happy about it, it might help explain Ofcom's restructing of the the 08 range ?

NGM's suggestion of creating an '06' range to accomodate revenue raising 087/084 numbers would overcome this problem but its hard to see Ofcom taking this route.

Given all of this, and at the risk of sounding extremely naive, perhaps the best hope for those of us who want to see an end to this unjustifiable misleading and overpriced 087/084 rip-off numbers, it that the '03' range numbers do take a foothold, prove to be popular, and by doing so, further highlight the excessively  expensive 087/084 numbers (or whatever the restructured equivalent will be), leading to even greater consumer disatisfaction and ultimately to the begrudging and belated movement by business to the '03' range ??? 

Dream on, I hear you say...

kk wrote on May 6^th, 2006 at 3:15pm:


0871 numbers then have 7 digits which contain 10 million number possibilities.  I believe that this is then spilt in to 5 number bands for 6p, 7p, 8p, 9p and 10p per minute 0871 numbers and that the telco industry argument is that there won't be enough 10p per minute 0871 numbers which are the only ones they will actually want to sell (apart from the dial through telecoms services who do use the lower rate 0871 numbers).

Now 1 million existing 10p per minute 0871 numbers still sounds a lot doesn't it (possibly more than all the NTS numbers currently actively in use) but you then have to allow for these 1 million numbers being subdivided in to blocks that belong to each different telco of 10,000 or whatever and due to the size of the blocks there aren't enough blocks to allocate to all the companies who want to sell 10p per minute 0871 numbers, even though in principle there are enough 0871 numbers in total.

What is so disgusting is that the only reason they want to use a 10p per minute 0871 number, rather than a 10p per minute 09 number is (a) that 0871 at the moment won't be regulated by ICSTIS for two more years and that (b) the majority of the public will still think "that's only national rate mate isn't it" based on all the historic lies associated with the selling of numbers in the 0845 and 0870 ranges and these numbers loooking more or less the same.

Basically what should have happened is that 08 was returned to Freephone only use, national 084/7 numbers all had to become 03 Countrwide or alternatively move to 09 Premium Rate ICSTIS regulation for continued revenue share.

But now instead Ofcom has decided that the business of the scammers must continue uninterrupted and that all those running 0845 numbers who want to do the right thing must instead get a new 03 number.

Is this regulation or is this just a charter for scammers?

As you may know, 70 to 80% (80% according to the German Government) of our laws now originate from the EU.  To hide the fact that legislation comes from the EU, the founders of the EU ( then the ECC) devised a cunning plan.  The EU bureaucracy  issues a Directive. The (EU parliament has little function in the process, and do not vote for laws as we in the UK know.) Directives then have to be “implemented” by member states by a given date.  The Directive is implemented by each member state, by it enacting  primary legislation (ie Telecommunications Act ) and/or secondary legislation (Statutory Instruments) and putting in place a regulatory framework as necessary (such as Ofcom).

Each member state has no choice and has to fully implemented a EU Directive unless it has been granted a derogation by the EU.  The Directive is then enforced in the normal way through the courts of member states.  The Directive has superiority over any member state law.  If a member state fails to fully implement a Directive, citizens of the member state can force, in effect, their own government (eg Department of Trade) or regulatory body (eg Ofcom) to properly implement a Directive by taking that government department or regulatory body to its own courts - in our case the normal UK civil courts - County Court (including Small Claims, for claims under £5,000) or High Court for claims over £50,000.

I am not in favour of the above undemocratic process, but that is the law, and citizens can use it, if they so wish.

I understand that the EU has issued a Directive, part of which mentions the requirement for “number transparency”.  Ofcom’s own published evidence shows that UK citizens are confused by 087x and 084x telephone numbers and the evidence clearly shows that the current numbering scheme is far from transparent.  Ofcom’s proposals, if implemented, are also far from transparent, and in some cases make the matter worse. 

If Ofcom put in place its proposals, I feel that they will  have failed to properly implement the EU Directive on the matter of number transparency and are susceptible to be taken to the UK civil courts by any person who feels aggrieved and can show that they have suffered a loss. The UK courts can not force Ofcom to properly implement an EU Directive, but can award damages against Ofcom.

If Ofcom do take the fully transparent route of eventually putting all revenue sharing numbers in the designated “09" category, then I would argue that they have then properly implemented the EU Directive.

nanstallon wrote on May 6^th, 2006 at 7:31pm:


Unfortunately I fear that getting anywhere via the suggested EU directive enforcement process given by kk may be considerably more difficult and troublesome than might at first glance seem to be the case.

The following are my general comments to the consultation.

This is yet another consultation relating to telephone numbering and although wider in scope than previous consultations, it again covers much the same ground.  The previous consultation on NTL numbering had an unprecedented response, but as that consultation produced the “wrong conclusions”, Ofcom have resorted to the device of producing an over complex consultation document, which will deter most from responding. Ofcom generally ignore consultation responses.

The primary aim of a number plan should be to produce telephone number ranges that are readily recognised both in function and cost by the vast majority of callers.  The proposals outlined by Ofcom fail in that aim.  The function of “01”,  “02” and the proposed “03”, appear clear. If  “03” emerges as described (treated in all respects like the current 01/02 numbers), that range should not present any problem to consumers.   Removing “070” (so called personal number) from the rest of the mobile numbers is also to be welcomed.

The remainder of the proposals keep and perpetuate the current problems and make matters worse. The proposals keep the mix of revenue sharing numbers (087x and 084x) together with free-phone numbers. The current “08” range is a fertile ground for scams, deceits and half truths, practiced by telecom companies and organisations.

The only honest and transparent reform is to confine all revenue sharing and “above normal” tariff numbers to one single designated range.  That range is the “09” range which can accommodate 1,000,000,000 number combinations. Prices in a reorganised and reformed “09” range could run from 1p to 150p/minute, so “low cost” revenue sharing numbers can be accommodated as well as more expensive numbers.

We should have a simple and transparent rule:  If the number to be dialed (apart from mobiles) is revenue sharing and/or not included in the normal schemes and tariffs then it must be places in an appropriate sub range of “09”.  The only reason for not adopting that simple coherent solution is to aid organisations and telecom providers that wish to make hidden charges to consumers.

Hi gdh82

In my response, I have proposed that 08 and 09 be used as shown below and as you can see the “09" has plenty of capacity, even taking into account the vagaries of block allocation.

“08"   free-phone only (084x and 087x migrate to "09" or "03", depending on price structure required)

“09"   any land-line number which cost more than the normal rate and/or is excluded from a consumers call options at 0p/min.
This 11 digit “09" class can be split into 090, 091, 092, 093, 094, 095, 096, 097, 098 and 099 sub-classes,  each sub-class having 99,999,900 different numbers (allowing for, say, 100 unusable combinations).  The total capacity of the full “09" range would be up to 1,000,000,000. number combinations.

For example:
090 all calls at less than the normal rate, but not included in “free” call packages - eg internet dial up and lower cost revenue sharing. (say from 1p to 2p/min)
091 charges above the normal call rate (say from 3p to 10p/min)
092 charges above the normal call rate (say 20p/min)
093 charges above the normal call rate (say 30p/min)
094 charges above the normal call rate (say 40p/min)
095 charges above the normal call rate (say 50p/min to 150p/min)
096 charges above the normal call rate (reserved)
097 for so called “personal numbers” (now on 070).
098 fixed charge per call.
099 for adult lines.

gdh82 wrote on May 10^th, 2006 at 11:23am:

I have tried to steer Martin away from using that misleading 'override providers' phrase. What he means is what I call 'Dial-Through numbers' - numbers through which you or I can dial to access a cheaper route to call (for example) an international number.

Click on the below link and search for Bahamas - you will see numerous 0844 numbers and one of two 0871 numbers are used.

The MSE International Callchecker

Thanks, Heinz, for explaining the meaning of 'override market for international calls' - that makes sense now.  Whilst I appreciate their validity, there doesn't seem any reason why like the rest of 087x/084 numbers they couldn't be moved to a similarly priced '09' band, or else (as mentioned above) let's call a spade a spade and label the '08' range as premium rate too!

NGM has certainly got a issue with Homephone and dial-through services but may I suggest that this post merits its own thread - it would get more attention there and won't detract here