NGMsGhost wrote on Jan 20^th, 2009 at 1:24pm:


I was more referring to the mess referred to in the article whereby Spain considered Gibralter as part of their numbering plan, restricted them to using 5 figure numbers, and barred access to +350, wheras everybody else recognised +350 as a valid country code and allowed access to longer numbers, and consequently companies trying to route +350 calls via Spanish telecom operators had the calls dropped.

NGMsGhost wrote on Jan 20^th, 2009 at 1:22pm:

What are you on about?  

The prices they charge are set by market forces and doesn't necessarily reflect the actual cost (plus "reasonable" profit"). That is the point of having competing companies. I thought you knew more about economics than me!

I vote that we should drive on the right as driving on the left leaves us in a minority. Currently, cars must be modified to suit our strange ways. Visit saynotodrivingontheleft.com for more information.

Quite clearly such a change would nigh-on impossible.

NGMsGhost wrote on Jan 20^th, 2009 at 1:22pm:

Whilst I don't disagree with you in principal, a more pragmatic solution is to leave them as they are.

NGMsGhost wrote on Jan 20^th, 2009 at 1:22pm:

The use of the word "deliberately" implies that you think someone concocted it for devious intent!! lol

NGMsGhost wrote on Jan 20^th, 2009 at 1:22pm:

Source: Three Price Guide

Outside of inclusive allowances:

077442-9, 077552-5, 079118, 078931, 079112, 078745, 079784, 078744, 078939, 078223, 078220, 078920, 078727, 078922, 078930, 078921, 077001, 079780, 075201, 078730, 079788, 078221, 078644, 078224, 078226, 079785, 078225, 078933, 079789

---

Source: Vodafone Premium Call Charges

Up to 50 pence per minute:

07700, 077442, 077443, 077444, 077445, 077446, 077447, 077448, 077449, 077552, 077553, 077554, 077555, 079112, 07624, 07781, 077977, 077978, 077979, 079117, 079112

Up to 34 pence per minute:

078744, 078930

All of the response to the Ofcom 070 consultation have now been published at:-

www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/070options/responses/

There are around 140 such responses in total but many of them are Name Withheld and are from the various individuals and businesses who insist on ripping off their callers by using an 070 number when they should be paying the forwarding cost themselves.

I do not recognise any other member of this group who I know the surname of (admittedly there are only about 10 or 15 such people who I do know by name) who have responded to this consultation.  Unfortunately the forum management massively fell down on this one by not putting a link to this consultation on its home page since 070 numbers have long been adversely commented on by this forum, both in the context of Patientline and mobile phone calling scams.

BT's response is interesting as they claim it would be disproportionate to bring 06 in to operation for this PNS use but then propose that 070 call recipients should be paying most or all of the higher call charges for the benefits they are receiving from the call redirection (instead of the caller).  But in which case surely 03 can already provide such a facility for anyone who wants a totally redirectable number but will pay for the redirection cost themselves?  If BT's suggestion was implemented then this would really be the final death knell for Patientline type hospital 070 services as I can't see the hospital patient being willing to pay 30p per minute incoming (the patient themselves obviously not being afflicted by quite the same guilt trip about needing to make contact as friends and loved ones, except I suppose where the prospects of surviving the op are not that good at all).  Of course I expect Ofcom will just roll on with their original proposal to leave the whole shoddy scam 070 number system in place since they seem much more concerned about not having to take on any businesses who challenge them at the Competition Appeals Tribunal.

However at least they published my response in full this time despite it being highly critical of Ofcom (but not libelous of any person or individual).  I think my threat to take any further redaction of my comments to the Parliamentary Ombudsman must have scared them off their scandalous redacting of various elements of my last Ofcom consultation response (which they just did but didn't even consult me about or offer any explanation for).

Dave wrote on Jan 21^st, 2009 at 2:45pm:


No you are incorrect in your supposition here.

I believe PNS numbers should preferably be moved to 09 or failing that to 06 if their present level of high charging is retained.  Whereas BT are utterly opposed to the opening up of the 06 number range for this use and also are not in favour of altering the number range from 070, despite the clear cut potential for confusion with a mobile number.

BT's solution is to leave 070 numbers where they are but to get the call recipient to pay either all the additional cost (above geographic rates) or alternatively that the caller should only pay some of the additional cost and that the recipient should pay the rest of the additional cost (i.e its no longer a free lunch for the call recipient).

Personally I think BT are rather confused as if the recipient pays all the extra routing cost then the use is just the same as an 03 number but if the caller pays some of the cost and the recipient pays some of the cost then this is different from 03.  My view would remain that these numbers should then move to 06 or 09 in a shared cost scenario.

So whilst I am pleased that BT have made it clear that they in principle oppose the caller paying for benefits that mainly accrue to the called party I do not support the rest of their proposals.

I am shocked that no other longstanding members of this campaign has apparently responded to this consulation in view of the longstanding opposition of members of the campaign to both the 070 Patientline style abuses and the 070 callback scams to mobile phone numbers.  However I think most of the blame for this can be laid at the door of the website's management team who did not publicise the consultation on the forum home page.  By contrast Flextel and co have been hard at work lobbying their 070 users to make anonymous responses supporting Ofcom's 070 proposals to retains 070 numbers almost wholly unaltered.

My first encounter with 070's was when they were still new: a customer used an 0700 number - I initially thought they were freehone like 0500 and 0800 !

Whilst I brought the review to the attention of this forum with my posting of Flextel's email, I'm afraid to say I didn't put in a response myself to this one.  A combination of lack of available time to construct a coherant response and a tight deadline was the main reason, plus knowing that they are a rip off and never calling such numbers, I perhaps didn't give it as high a priority as it may have deserved.

Stoday wrote on Jan 21^st, 2009 at 10:20pm:


Its good to hear that I was not completely alone amongst the members of this forum in responding.

As to which Name Withheld I'm sure you would recognise your submission if you clicked Name Withheld enough times.  Also I would hope it is one of only four or five Name Withhelds opposing the Ofcom proposals rather than one of the many Name Withheld responses solicited by Flextel from their 070 customers saying things such as you have an 070 numbers engraved on the collars of your five pet dogs and will be gravely inconvenienced if you have to make up new labels for them (you think I'm kidding but this guy was for real, although he is in fact a named respondent).

Is there any particular reason you don't post on the forum here more often?

This is an interesting one:

http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/070options/responses/VirginMediaLtd.pdf

Header: Confidential

Cover page:

CONFIDENTIALITY
What do you want Ofcom to keep confidential?

Nothing Name/contact details/job title
Whole response X
Organisation
Part of the response
If there is no separate annex, which parts?

And then, it appears that the document is published in its entirety!

Good old Ofcom - a wonderful waste of one hundred and thirty three million pounds.

I expect this response will disappear tomorrow, so if you want to read it, you need to be quick.