This seems to be about a fairly technical issue relating to the effectiveness of the emergency services.

Is there anything here to discuss?


Those who wish to follow Ofcom activity can sign up to email updates here, or visit this page to subscibe to rss feeds. As always, most of the stuff is of little interest, however it is good to have the first news of something exciting, and to be sure that you have not missed something of importance.

NGMsGhost wrote on Apr 21^st, 2011 at 11:23am:

As Ofcom issued an update on this yesterday, perhaps you could fill us in on what it was about. I understand that it is a complaint and not a consultation.

If you take a look at this latest report Ofcom have issued on complaints against telecoms operators and the consistently 300% to 400% higher complaint rate about TalkTalk group than their fixed or landline competitors on nearly all issues then you might get some idea as to why even Ofcom is finally beginning to wield the big stick against them rather than continuing with a softly/softly approach.

See http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/research/telecoms-research/complaints/... for the various interesting graphs about complaints.

It would appear that for mobiles O2 offers a vastly superior level of customer service to any of its main competitors.

Some more info on this issue.

"A phone company is facing action for failing to provide the correct location information to 999 operators after a baby became critically ill in Falkirk.

Kai Curran was 15 weeks old when he died from swine flu on 3 January.

When his grandmother called for an ambulance the 999 operator could only find an address in England.

Ofcom has told TalkTalk to fix its errors by 10 May or face further action. TalkTalk said it was confident it could meet the deadline.

Ofcom ruled that there were "reasonable grounds" to believe that TalkTalk had failed to provide the correct information for all 999 calls.

Kai was being looked after by his grandmother, Jennifer Whiteside, at her home in Carronside when he developed breathing difficulties.

However, the 999 operator could not find Ms Whiteside's address and the family had to wait 30 minutes before two ambulances turned up at the house in Skaithmuir Avenue. "

Continue reading the story here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-tayside-central-13156917

bigjohn wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2011 at 2:56am:

If my comments were found offensive then I must apologise.

Now I know that Talk Talk's failure had a part in delaying the ambulance response to a case that resulted in the death of a baby, this matter is clearly seen to be serious rather than "technical" as I hinted. If the full story had been given initially, then I would have recognised it as an issue of importance and some sensitivity. I am very sorry that my comments may have been seen to be belittling the importance of the death of a baby.

Awareness of the nature of the case also explains why Ofcom had to be seen to be doing something about it.


My statement - "It is for members to decide what ... they wish to discuss in this forum" was intended to contradict a suggestion that I was attacking use of the forum to raise this matter. I was intending to make the general point that nobody has the right to tell members what they can and cannot do or say. I am sorry if my choice of language created the impression that I was making the opposite point.


Unaware of the full story, I had only asked "Is there anything here to discuss?". I will admit to a sense of frustration at the fact that there is so little discussion of what I see as important topics of current concern relating to the scandalous misuse of non-geographic telephone numbers, which I understand to be the centre of focus for the forum. I see no problem in straying into discussion of closely, or even loosely, related issues, however one might expect to find most discussion around the central issues.

I am very ready to criticise members of the telecoms industry and Ofcom on things that they say and do. I believe that any such criticism is weakened in its effect if seen to come from sources that simply attack everything that they say and do. I also see it as rather pointless to waste energy in attacking someone one believes to be incapable of making the necessary correction to their behaviour.

I do however accept that many members totally disagree with me and I do not challenge their right to make whatever contribution they may wish to make to open discussion of issues in this forum.

Dave wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2011 at 11:31am:

I totally agree. I cannot see how I may have suggested an alternative position with which one could disagree!

The world is full of situations where minor "technical" breaches of regulations could potentially have disastrous consequences. If and when this occurs we look on them differently. This may seem wrong, but it is a fact of life. There is very little absolutism in reality.