SAYNOTO0870.COM - Ofcom consultation - Review of non-geo calls 2010

loddon

Supreme Member

Offline

Posts: 599
Reading UK
Gender: male

Re: Ofcom consultation - Review of non-geo calls
Reply #15 - May 22^nd, 2010 at 4:59pm

sherbert wrote on May 22^nd, 2010 at 2:06pm:

The reason why, has been said many times over the last few weeks is because when ever anyone has anything to say, you always argue the opposite to anyone else's suggestions that they may put and not only that as mentioned before, you usually respond in such a patronising and belittling way, most members have given up contributing. As always you seem to think to treat this is as your own forum and unless anyone agrees with you, you are not happy.

So, I guess that is why I and most others do not add to the discussion in this thread on what action Ofcom should now be taking.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Sherbert, it is a great pity that you don't feel like posting and particularly on this thread because this is a most important subject and it is probably a once in a decade or more opportunity for us to tell Ofcom what we think they should be doing about the whole numbering architecture and non-geographic services. Cool

I appeal to you not to be put off by the postings of one individual. Where's the good old British fighting spirit?

If you disagree then say so, this is an open public Forum and anyone can say whatever they like within the normal bounds of decency and civility. And I must say this Forum is usually a very civil place and people can have reasonable discussions and can reason in depth if they fell inclined.

As for SCV I don't think he is half as bad as you make out. He puts forward his views forcefully and appears to have certain deeply held principles, like the NHS being "free at the point of need", but I must say he has never attacked any poster at a personal level. I think he only attacks the argument or will question or try to correct alleged facts, but he doesn't get personal, as far as I have noticed. Yes, he may be difficult to argue against sometimes, and I have found him locquacious, long-winded, overly persistent and sometimes damned irritating occasionally (fair comment SCV? Wink

) and at others quite difficult to spar with but I believe he is fair and will acknowledge valid points and arguments when he can. SCV is also an indefatigable campaigner and a great asset to our cause.

So can I urge you and others to please give your views on what Ofcom should be doing about non-geo numbers and services. I have set out my own view in earlier posts and would welcome support and comment from you or anyone else. My contention is that the concept of revenue sharing is conceptually wrong, unethical and a rip-off of all telephone callers. It should not be allowed except, perhaps, with the exception of 09 numbers where appropriate controls and rules are applied by Ofcom/PPP. I think all 084/7 numbers should be treated in exactly the same way as 03 numbers as that would eliminate most of the scams that the public are currently subject to.

So come on lads and lasses, as Mrs Merton would say, lets have a heated debate.

~ Edited by Dave: Quote box finished off

Back to top

« Last Edit: May 22^nd, 2010 at 5:31pm by Dave »

IP Logged

SilentCallsVictim

Supreme Member

Offline

aka NHS.Patient, DH_fairtelecoms

Posts: 2,494

Re: Ofcom consultation - Review of non-geo calls
Reply #16 - May 22^nd, 2010 at 5:20pm

loddon wrote on May 22^nd, 2010 at 4:59pm:

... fair comment SCV?

I hope that I am no more and no less prone to error, arrogance, over-loquation and many other faults than any other contributor. I admit to being keen on raising the level of understanding and debate in this forum and to focus on effective campaigning activity, rather than expressing bland agreement with comments that demoan the awful state of the world. I hope that I earn the right to comment on other contributions by offering my own thoughts for examination and argument.

Back to top

@fairtelecoms (tweets)

IP Logged

sherbert

Supreme Member

Offline

Posts: 2,011
Gender: male

Re: Ofcom consultation - Review of non-geo calls
Reply #17 - May 22^nd, 2010 at 8:35pm

loddon wrote on May 22^nd, 2010 at 4:59pm:

sherbert wrote on May 22^nd, 2010 at 2:06pm:

The reason why, has been said many times over the last few weeks is because when ever anyone has anything to say, you always argue the opposite to anyone else's suggestions that they may put and not only that as mentioned before, you usually respond in such a patronising and belittling way, most members have given up contributing. As always you seem to think to treat this is as your own forum and unless anyone agrees with you, you are not happy.

So, I guess that is why I and most others do not add to the discussion in this thread on what action Ofcom should now be taking.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Sherbert, it is a great pity that you don't feel like posting and particularly on this thread because this is a most important subject and it is probably a once in a decade or more opportunity for us to tell Ofcom what we think they should be doing about the whole numbering architecture and non-geographic services. Cool

I appeal to you not to be put off by the postings of one individual. Where's the good old British fighting spirit?

If you disagree then say so, this is an open public Forum and anyone can say whatever they like within the normal bounds of decency and civility. And I must say this Forum is usually a very civil place and people can have reasonable discussions and can reason in depth if they fell inclined.

As for SCV I don't think he is half as bad as you make out. He puts forward his views forcefully and appears to have certain deeply held principles, like the NHS being "free at the point of need", but I must say he has never attacked any poster at a personal level. I think he only attacks the argument or will question or try to correct alleged facts, but he doesn't get personal, as far as I have noticed. Yes, he may be difficult to argue against sometimes, and I have found him locquacious, long-winded, overly persistent and sometimes damned irritating occasionally (fair comment SCV? Wink

) and at others quite difficult to spar with but I believe he is fair and will acknowledge valid points and arguments when he can. SCV is also an indefatigable campaigner and a great asset to our cause.

So can I urge you and others to please give your views on what Ofcom should be doing about non-geo numbers and services. I have set out my own view in earlier posts and would welcome support and comment from you or anyone else. My contention is that the concept of revenue sharing is conceptually wrong, unethical and a rip-off of all telephone callers. It should not be allowed except, perhaps, with the exception of 09 numbers where appropriate controls and rules are applied by Ofcom/PPP. I think all 084/7 numbers should be treated in exactly the same way as 03 numbers as that would eliminate most of the scams that the public are currently subject to.

So come on lads and lasses, as Mrs Merton would say, lets have a heated debate.

~ Edited by Dave: Quote box finished off

Thanks for your witty response lodden and I will put my views here, although I know 'His Holiness' will disagree with me as usual and will have to put up with his usual nonsensical and patronising reply.

I have said elsewhere in this forum that SCV's statement about 'the NHS being "free at the point of need"', is of course complete and utter nonsense. We all (or most of us) pay our contributions to the government to pay for the NHS. We also pay for prescriptions, dental care, phone calls to the doctor, car parking to visit a hospital for an appointment and at the end of our lives we have to sell our homes to pay for care before we go to the great unknown, just to name a few. Nothing in this life (and that includes the NHS) is free. If SCV thinks it is free, I wonder how he thinks it is funded?

As to the more relevent point about telephone calls, this is what I think should be happening.... With the exception of calls to 'chose a Dorothy' and programmes like that, competition games on the television, radio and the press, calls to technical help lines, and other such calls where it is obvious this is the only way the company is going to receive any revenue, (and to save any confusion they should all be 09 numbers) should all be included in the various calling plans that are about thus being charges the same rate as 01, 02 & 03 calls. After all BT and some others have now included 0870 & 0845 calls into their inclusive packages, so let us see the rest of the 08 numbers included.

This would make everything simple and everybody will then know exactly what the call charge is.

Calls to to technical help lines should either be answered or the engaged signal should cut in if the line is busy. It is completely unacceptable to be kept on hold listening to music, advertisements and announcements and having to pay ridiculous sums of money for the priviledge. I never know why people object to paying for technical help on the telephone, they would not expect someone to turn up at their house to fix something for free.

All freephone numbers such as 0800, 0808, 0500 etc.etc. should be 'free' on all mobiles as well as land lines.

So, there is my contribution to this debate and hope it will prove useful.

Back to top

IP Logged

SilentCallsVictim

Supreme Member

Offline

aka NHS.Patient, DH_fairtelecoms

Posts: 2,494

Re: Ofcom consultation - Review of non-geo calls
Reply #18 - May 22^nd, 2010 at 10:16pm

My beloved Sherbert

I am happy to confer my blessings on you and your posting.

Many thanks for expressing an honest opinion in a very straightforward manner.

I will continue the expected patronising response below - I will however be happy to remove it if you wish. Just PM me and I will delete both this and all the subsequent paragraphs.

The important bit of "free at the point of need" is the "at the point of need" bit. We pay for NHS services through taxation as we earn and spend, not when we fall ill. Those of us who are not exempt, through need or lack of supposed ability to pay, do pay charges on using some services, but these are paid to the NHS, not to the actual provider of the service. Where a charge for parking on NHS land is greater than a reasonable fee for public car parking in the area (not easily determined) then this may be considered as a charge for accessing NHS services and is improper. Any net income from car parking on NHS land should belong to the NHS, i.e. offset against funding given to the NHS body in question. There are also issues around the income from, and the prices charged in, retail concessions in hospitals and other NHS premises. The situation with revenue sharing telephone numbers is, I hope, absolutely clear.

By referring to end of life care, you tempt me to comment on the previous government's proposals for a National Care Service, as a sort of extension to the NHS. I saw this as a far greater threat to the principles of the NHS than the present and continuing efforts to inject consumerism. The NHS funding model is under quite enough challenge as it is, although it still largely survives (with modest breaches). To combine it with a service that could not be sustained on the same model from day one would be to risk fatally undermining its core values. I do not share the view that the state should provide us with a home, meet our daily care needs and also give us a stake in the property market.

I hope that you do not feel patronised if I point out that my outline proposal, published above, covers clear cost information for those calling to "chose a Dorothy" etc. whether or not they are calling from BT. I agree that those who use revenue sharing / premium rate numbers to simply obtain subsidy, rather than relying on them for income, should be treated differently. For this reason, I do not, on balance, approve of 0871/2/3 having been classified as PRS, under the present regulatory regime. I do not believe that 0844/3 should, or could, join them, however they must be classified in some way as being "like Premium Rate Services".

I do strongly disagree with your suggestion that the cost of inclusive packages should be forced up to include the cost of these calls, as happens with BT and 0845 at present. It happened with 0870 for a period of just over 6 months, before revenue sharing ceased.

I believe that the fact, and the general level, of revenue share involved in a call should be clear to the caller, whatever type of telephone service they have, so that those who benefit from revenue sharing can be clearly answerable to their callers. It is for those callers to make an informed determination about whether the level of surcharge is appropriate - I believe that the same applies to queuing. Whilst it may be fair for Phonepay Plus to take a view, and set rules, about acceptable practice for the top end of the PRS industry, I do not believe that Ofcom should be asked to determine what is acceptable and unacceptable as a service for which revenue sharing is appropriate. I believe that this has to be left in the hands of the properly informed caller.

As stated above, I also do not agree that users of 080 numbers should be prohibited from using these for calls that are only "free" from landlines under the present mobile charging regime. I see an opportunity to address this issue in the medium term, but would see an early attempt to enforce such a requirement as leading to a near total withdrawal of the 080 service.

Back to top

@fairtelecoms (tweets)

IP Logged

idb

Supreme Member

Offline

Posts: 1,499
Miami, Florida, United States
Gender: male

Re: Ofcom consultation - Review of non-geo calls
Reply #19 - May 23^rd, 2010 at 12:48am

Without going down the whole pointless philosophical "what is free" debate again, my recollection of UK cellular consumer plans is that Orange and One2One provided free calls to 0800 numbers, and Cellnet and Vodafone charged 0800 at the given rate for geographic calls, and were included in any such bundled allowance. Greed took over, and not only did the PCN providers drop the free 0800 calls, the other two decided to remove all 08 calls from bundled allowance. Somewhere, I have a 'spin' letter from a Vodafone airtime provider (probably Cellular Operations) informing me that to 'simplify' my tariff, and to make it 'better value for me', calls to 08X would be excluded from my allowance.

I would not necessarily advocate that 0800 calls should be charged at a zero rate from a cellular line, rather that they were treated, for billing purposes, in exactly the same way as geographic calls, that is the situation that generally prevailed before the greed took over.

Back to top

As from November 21, 2013, I no longer participate in the forum and am unable to receive private messages.

IP Logged

idb

Supreme Member

Offline

Posts: 1,499
Miami, Florida, United States
Gender: male

Re: Ofcom consultation - Review of non-geo calls
Reply #20 - May 23^rd, 2010 at 1:17am

sherbert wrote on May 22^nd, 2010 at 8:35pm:

I have said elsewhere in this forum that SCV's statement about 'the NHS being "free at the point of need"', is of course complete and utter nonsense. We all (or most of us) pay our contributions to the government to pay for the NHS. We also pay for prescriptions, dental care, phone calls to the doctor, car parking to visit a hospital for an appointment and at the end of our lives we have to sell our homes to pay for care before we go to the great unknown, just to name a few. Nothing in this life (and that includes the NHS) is free. If SCV thinks it is free, I wonder how he thinks it is funded?

I don't see why this should be such a contentious point. I am sure SCV is fully aware, perhaps more than most, of how the NHS is funded. To describe it as 'free at the point of use' seems to me to be a perfectly satisfactory and accurate description. Of course it has to be funded, but there again, so does the army, the police, the nuclear deterrent, and all other governent expenditure that does not result in billing for service rendered. Would I consider the army, the police and the nuclear deterrent free? Of course, as I would so consider with the National Health Service.

Back to top

As from November 21, 2013, I no longer participate in the forum and am unable to receive private messages.

IP Logged

SilentCallsVictim

Supreme Member

Offline

aka NHS.Patient, DH_fairtelecoms

Posts: 2,494

Re: Ofcom consultation - Review of non-geo calls
Reply #21 - May 23^rd, 2010 at 2:22am

In looking at the issue of 080 calls from mobiles, we are mixing up too separate issues.

The key issue is about whether the recipient should pay the full cost of the call so that it is truly "free to caller".

I take the fact that lots of companies have not apparently been breaking down Ofcom's doors asking to be allowed to pay to receive calls from mobiles, as an indication that there is a reluctance to meet the full cost of doing so, including the hated inflated "termination rate", which would presently apply. Ofcom has laid out a plan for gradually reducing this rate over the coming years. This will (I believe) inevitably lead to some adjustments in the way that mobile service is paid for, e.g. the introduction of a "line rental". Once the inflated termination rate is considerably reduced, it is likely that 080 users will be more ready to pick up the cost of calls from mobiles.

I suspect that if every 080 user were to be required to pay the high termination rate at present, as is commonly proposed, this would simply lead to many ceasing to use their 080 numbers. The growth in use of inclusive packages on landlines tends towards making them redundant anyway. I would not wish to see those with landlines, but without inclusive packages, lose this benefit.

The secondary issue is about what the mobile company charges the caller in the absence of any such arrangement.

The mobile companies waive any charge on calls to registered helplines on 080 numbers. A cynic (like me) would say that they have to make this up somewhere else.

As imposing any charge for what is described as a "freephone" number is somewhat odd, it is difficult to address the issue of what it should be. On reflection, I can see no justification for charging any more than the cost of normal geographic call and will apply such a provision to my proposal, summarised above. This places 080 in the same class as 0870 and the (future) 0845.

The issue of what is included in packages is a separate point, as this affects the price of the package - the more calls that may be made under the terms of the package, the more expensive the package must be. I see this as an issue between each telco and its customers. Just because BT customers are apparently happy to pay more for packages because 0845 and 0870 calls are included (currently including a revenue share in the former case), I would not wish to have the same additional cost imposed on all package users by regulation.

This has already been done with 03, perhaps for somewhat political reasons. 03 could be considered to be a special case, as it is primarily (although not exclusively) intended for use by public and third sector bodies. These bodies need to be able to assure callers that the cost of a call to their 03 number cannot be any greater than that of a 01/02 call under any circumstances.

(Perhaps I should admit my own political motive. I do not wish to present a proposal that would provide a justification for the price of inclusive packages to be increased.)

On the issue of "free at the point of use", we may do well not to get into discussing whether someone involved in police action, in receipt of an illegal invasion or deterred from attempting to acquire nuclear weapons by the fact that the UK has done so, should be required to pay for the service. Although Ofcom is calling for input on a wide range of topics, I think that these would fall outside the scope of the consultation.

I hope I have addressed the point of contention by highlighting the "at the point of need" bit.

Back to top

@fairtelecoms (tweets)

IP Logged

sherbert

Supreme Member

Offline

Posts: 2,011
Gender: male

Re: Ofcom consultation - Review of non-geo calls
Reply #22 - May 23^rd, 2010 at 11:15am

So there you have it loddon, unless you completly agree with SCV's thoughts and ideas, you get the, as you so aptly put it, usual long winded reply arguing against yours and anybody's else's ideas.

From his latest ramblings you can see why out of a membership of 18,000 plus on this forum, so few bother to respond.

However I do appreciate the blessings 'His Holiness' has conferred on me Wink

I still think that all calls that not included in the various calling plans should be 09 numbers then everyone will know exactly what are premium rate numbers. At the moment there is huge confusion with the various 08 numbers. I will continue to campaign for that.

Back to top

IP Logged

SilentCallsVictim

Supreme Member

Offline

aka NHS.Patient, DH_fairtelecoms

Posts: 2,494

Re: Ofcom consultation - Review of non-geo calls
Reply #23 - May 23^rd, 2010 at 1:33pm

sherbert wrote on May 23^rd, 2010 at 11:15am:

... arguing ...

As I understand it, this is the purpose of a discussion forum.

sherbert wrote on May 23^rd, 2010 at 11:15am:

I still think that all calls that not included in the various calling plans should be 09 numbers then everyone will know exactly what are premium rate numbers. At the moment there is huge confusion with the various 08 numbers. I will continue to campaign for that.

Well said; a clear and coherent position.

I believe that the vital issue is for callers to know what are premium rate numbers, and to be aware of both the cost of calling and the amount of premium from which the recipient benefits. I will continue to campaign for that.

I hope that this is also a clear and coherent position. I am sorry if my attempts to explain my reasons for adopting it and my proposals for how it could be brought about are difficult to follow. I cannot apologise for the fact that some contributors to the forum disagree with me.

I suspect we agree that the present mess is highly undesirable. I do not however propose that Ofcom should compel the cost and confusion of a massive series of number changes (e.g. 0844/3 to 09, 0845 to 03). I do however propose many being shifted off 0845, probably onto 0844/3, as revenue sharing is removed.

Where there is no longer any justification for a premium (i.e. on 0870, and in future on 0845), I propose that the new powers available to Ofcom be used to prohibit the imposition of a premium on chargeable calls.

I understand that many would disagree with my proposal that Ofcom should not compel telephone service consumers to pay for all non-premium numbers being included in all packages. I believe that the terms and content of packages (properly defined and described) should be left to the market. If, for example, Talk Talk wishes to offer only local calls as inclusive at all times for all of its customers, then it should be free to do so. Likewise, any telco should be free to allow inclusive calls only within its own network on some packages.

My most radical disagreement with many forum members is my failure to propose that Ofcom should withdraw the ability of telephone consumers (other than PRS providers) to obtain subsidy for the costs of their telephone service from callers. I only propose that this must be transparent, and that this transparency must be sufficient to compel those unable to justify the practice to cease it. Ofcom's duty is to promote the (I would add proper and valid) interests of telephone consumers. This applies to both those who make and receive calls, however I do not believe that this should extend to readily enabling them to perpetrate scams, as is the case at present.

I hope that this summary of points on which we perhaps agree and disagree is helpful in explaining my position. Perhaps we can now return to discussing the issues themselves, rather than the matter of who holds particular ideas and how they express them.

When comments are made about my own contributions, I hope I am right to feel that I am being invited to respond. I have taken the points made, and now try to avoid launching into vigorous debate with every forum contributor.

Back to top

@fairtelecoms (tweets)

IP Logged

Dave

Global Moderator

Offline

Posts: 9,902
Yorkshire
Gender: male

Re: Ofcom consultation - Review of non-geo calls
Reply #24 - May 23^rd, 2010 at 7:41pm

loddon wrote on May 20^th, 2010 at 7:06am:

… It is the "user" who is buying the service, choosing who his supplier will be, deciding whether or not he is satisfied with the service and deciding when to enter and terminate contracts for the supply of the 084/7 number -- and not the callers (consumers) who have no decision options or choice about who provides the number and its associated facilities.

The "user" is also a consumer; that is a "consumer" of telecommunications services.

loddon wrote on May 20^th, 2010 at 7:06am:

I see three parties involved here -- the telephone service supplier who provides the 084/7 number and the network facilities, the "user" who is the customer of the telephone service supplier, and the consumer or member of the public who wishes to call the "user" company. …

There are in fact four parties. They are the recipient ("user"), the recipient's telephone provider, the caller and the caller's telephone provider.

I haven't decided where I stand on call charges for freephone numbers from mobile phones. I would like to learn more about what could be implemented and what isn't feasable. I wonder whether making freephone numbers free to call from mobiles is perhaps, in practice, not as simple as we would like it.

It's important to appreciate that charges to make freephone numbers free from mobiles is likely to be quite a bit more than those for landlines. The suggestion above that charges for mobiles "should not be excessive" is based on the retail call prices from one provider. The cost of mobile calls has been pushed down to attract custom.

To help with understanding, here is a brief explanation of what happens when a call is made. It is important to appreciate that in today's multi-operator telecommunications market, the entire connection or 'line' from the caller to the receiver is not necessarily under the control of the same telephone provider. The parties and how they relate are as follows:

[Caller]--------------------[+]--------------------[Receiver]
           Line provided by        Line provided by
            Caller's telco         Receiver's telco

The

[+]

in the middle represents the connection between the two providers, for which one pays the other.

A caller's telco pays about 4.7 pence per minute during the daytime to connect calls to a mobile network (the receiver's telco), whereas geographic and 03 calls cost them 0.5 pence per minute. That's over nine times!

With freephone numbers, the money flows in the opposite direction; the receiver's telco pays that of the caller. When someone calls from a BT line to another operator's 0800 number (e.g. to one provided by Virgin Media), it charges around 0.6 pence per minute. These figures come from the BT Wholesale Carrier Price List which shows the inter-operator costs.

If these proportions are anything to go by, then the mobile companies are likely to demand at least 6 pence per minute!

I would be interested to know industry insider's opinion on this and the other points made on this thread.

Back to top

« Last Edit: May 23^rd, 2010 at 8:11pm by Dave »

IP Logged

SilentCallsVictim

Supreme Member

Offline

aka NHS.Patient, DH_fairtelecoms

Posts: 2,494

Re: Ofcom consultation - Review of non-geo calls
Reply #25 - May 23^rd, 2010 at 9:28pm

Dave wrote on May 23^rd, 2010 at 7:41pm:

To help with understanding, here is a brief explanation of what happens when a call is made ...

Thanks Dave, this is helpful.

For further clarification, my comments about the potential for the situation with 080 to change when the premium on mobile calls is reduced is with reference to the Ofcom announcement published at - http://www.ofcom.org.uk/media/news/2010/04/nr_20100401a.

I know that this is of no immediate comfort and there is no indication about the stage in the process of premium reduction at which 080 users will be expected to be happy to start picking up the tab for calls from mobiles. I will however urge Ofcom to start addressing the point now.

Dave is also right to remind us that users of 08 numbers are consumers of telephone services, whose interests Ofcom exists to further.

Back to top

@fairtelecoms (tweets)

IP Logged

NGMsGhost

Supreme Member

Offline

The Forum Ghost of NonGeographicalMan<b
r />

Posts: 2,720
Surrey, United Kingdom
Gender: male

Re: Ofcom consultation - Review of non-geo calls
Reply #26 - May 25^th, 2010 at 9:24pm

sherbert wrote on May 22^nd, 2010 at 2:06pm:

The reason why, has been said many times over the last few weeks is because when ever anyone has anything to say, you always argue the opposite to anyone else's suggestions that they may put and not only that as mentioned before, you usually respond in such a patronising and belittling way, most members have given up contributing. As always you seem to think to treat this is as your own forum and unless anyone agrees with you, you are not happy

Hear, hear sherbert. I think that is precisely how many other forum members feel.

Plus additionally I responded to 10 or so other Ofcom 084/7 or NTS numbering related consultations and one by PhonePayPlus and all of my views were completely and utterly ignored by Ofcom (I am sure their complacent civil servants never even read what I said other than perhaps in the consultation where they redacted large chunks of my comments) in favour of sticking to their own previously agreed secret agenda with the telcos that NTS numbers are a great money making wheeze and that the more of them they can have and the more deviously they can hide their charges then the better than they and their former and very likely future employers at the telcos like it. Angry

I personally now rarely visit or post in this forum since many of the other original contributors now also rarely participate knowing that almost every other post will be from SilentCallsVictim and that he will usually object to any of their views as being too simplistic and beyond what we believes we have a right to expect from the overpaid civil servants running OfCON

Back to top

« Last Edit: May 25^th, 2010 at 9:35pm by NGMsGhost »

<div style=

IP Logged

idb

Supreme Member

Offline

Posts: 1,499
Miami, Florida, United States
Gender: male

Re: Ofcom consultation - Review of non-geo calls
Reply #27 - May 25^th, 2010 at 11:27pm

NGMsGhost wrote on May 25^th, 2010 at 9:24pm:

Plus additionally I responded to 10 or so other Ofcom 084/7 or NTS numbering related consultations and one by PhonePayPlus and all of my views were completely and utterly ignored by Ofcom (I am sure their complacent civil servants never even read what I said other than perhaps in the consultation where they redacted large chunks of my comments) in favour of sticking to their own previously agreed secret agenda with the telcos that NTS numbers are a great money making wheeze and that the more of them they can have and the more deviously they can hide their charges then the better than they and their former and very likely future employers at the telcos like it. Angry

This is, more or less, how I feel on this matter, having determined, through previous consultations, that engagement with Ofcom is utterly pointless. There are so many scams, inconsistencies and inequalities with the Ofcom-administered numbering plan that short of a wholesale change to the plan to embrace fairness and consumer protection, little, if anything is likely to be achieved by general user participation in Ofcom's whitewashes. At the height of interest in this matter, an Ofcom consultation yielded some one thousand public responses - unprecedented for a telecommunication consultation. Dithering, delay and inaction followed, as will happen again.

Let me take one simple example. We have a commercial group, NEG, misrepresenting call costs in its marketing to NHS institutions. Not just once, but continually. This organization lies. On the reasonable assumption that Ofcom is familiar with such misrepresentation being perpetrated by this odious body, just what is Ofcom doing? Precisely nothing. It would be reasonable to further assume that if Ofcom had any modicum of consumer interest, one of its senior staff would pick up the phone and speak to a relevant individual within the NHS and explain just what is going on wrt NEG and Surgery Line and the deceit therein. Some may argue that this is not in Ofcom's explicit remit, however we all know the principal duty of Ofcom and it is about time that it acted upon that duty.

Anothe simple example. Reverse-billed, or mobile-terminated, SMS scams could be eliminated for many victims if an opt-in system was mandated. Why doesn't it take action? Because it is in the interest of the PRS industry not to have such mechanisms in place.

Ofcom,or at least this incarnation of Ofcom, is a pointless quango. Perhaps the blues and yellows will do something about it, but until they do, scams, rip-offs and expensive phone calls are here to stay.

The sad aspect of the 08 NGN nonsense is that there are some innovative and potentially useful services that operate within revenue-sharing numbering. Unfortunately, these are lumped in with calling one's bank or doctor. A ridiculous situation, and one wholly of Ofcom's making.

Ofcom has ignored previous user submissions to its various NGN consultations, and I suspect the resoponse rate to this consultation will be minimal.

Back to top

« Last Edit: May 26^th, 2010 at 2:18am by idb »

As from November 21, 2013, I no longer participate in the forum and am unable to receive private messages.

IP Logged

idb

Supreme Member

Offline

Posts: 1,499
Miami, Florida, United States
Gender: male

Re: Ofcom consultation - Review of non-geo calls
Reply #28 - May 26^th, 2010 at 2:14am

Back to top

As from November 21, 2013, I no longer participate in the forum and am unable to receive private messages.

IP Logged

idb

Supreme Member

Offline

Posts: 1,499
Miami, Florida, United States
Gender: male

Re: Ofcom consultation - Review of non-geo calls
Reply #29 - May 26^th, 2010 at 2:15am

Back to top

« Last Edit: May 26^th, 2010 at 2:35am by idb »

As from November 21, 2013, I no longer participate in the forum and am unable to receive private messages.

IP Logged