Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
SAYNOTO0870.COM

<---- Back to main website

 
Home Help Search Login Register

Pages: 1 2 3 ... 9
Send Topic Print
Ofcom consultation: Simplifying NGNs — April 2013 (Read 156,891 times)
Dave
Global Moderator
*****
Offline



Posts: 9,902
Yorkshire
Gender: male
Ofcom consultation: Simplifying NGNs — April 2013
Apr 15th, 2013 at 2:38pm
 
Ofcom has, today, set out how telephone charges will be made clearer, as well as starting a consultation on the finer points.

This represents a major landmark in the campaign. The fairtelecoms news release is here (PDF).

The consultation is called Simplifying non-geographic numbers - Policy position on the introduction of the unbundled tariff and changes to 080 and 116 ranges and runs until 28th May.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Apr 22nd, 2013 at 3:30pm by Dave »  
 
IP Logged
 
loddon
Supreme Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 599
Reading  UK
Gender: male
Re: Ofcom consultation: Simplifying NGNs — April 2013
Reply #1 - Apr 22nd, 2013 at 4:58pm
 
The consultation is titled Simplifying non-geographic numbers - Policy position on the introduction of the unbundled tariff and changes to 080 and 116 ranges  It  deals with the Ofcom proposals for all the non-geo number ranges --  03, 05, 070/076, 080, 0845, 0870, 0843/4, 0871/2/3, 09, 118 numbers and now the 116 numbers.

Ofcom have set a deadline of 28th May for responses to this final phase of their consultations and so we have a limited time to examine and discuss the Ofcom proposals as they have now refined them.

The proposals are quite significant in that the main idea is to introduce an Access charge and Service charge to be applied to some ranges of non-geo numbers.  This is important because this scheme will no doubt exist for many years whether it be good or bad.

A summary of the Ofcom proposals can be found here  ;---

http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/consultations/simplifying-non-geo-no/summary

The whole consultation consists of several sections with advice on "How to Respond" and at least 8 supporting pdf documents and can be found here :---

http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/consultations/simplifying-non-geo-no/.

It would be an onerous task to read the whole consultation, however, in my view a reading of the Summary and the pdf “Part B -- The Unbundled Tarriff” as a minimum would enable a reasonable understanding which would allow a reasoned response to be made.

I would urge readers of this Forum to look at this consultation and to post their comments on this thread with a view to formulating responses to the consultation.   I am considering and formulating my views and questions on the proposals and may post them on this thread soon.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Apr 22nd, 2013 at 4:59pm by loddon »  
Campaignagainstripofftelecoms  
IP Logged
 
SilentCallsVictim
Supreme Member
*****
Offline


aka NHS.Patient, DH_fairtelecoms

Posts: 2,494
Re: Ofcom consultation: Simplifying NGNs — April 2013
Reply #2 - Apr 30th, 2013 at 10:21am
 
loddon wrote on Apr 30th, 2013 at 8:57am:
SilentCallsVictim wrote on Apr 29th, 2013 at 8:45am:
loddon wrote on Apr 29th, 2013 at 6:38am:
If "the fundamental problem" is the fact that the telephone bill can be used as a way of collecting money to be passed on to a third party (the person called), ....


I agree that revenue sharing is a problem and should never have been allowed on 084 and 087 numbers however the fundamental problem is the premium that is charged to callers of these numbers as I have said repeatedly in postings here and responses to earlier Ofcom consultations.   The telecoms industry, and Ofcom, argue that 084/7 numbers offer all sorts of claimed facilities and benefits to the users of these numbers.   I say fine, then those users should be the ones to pay for them not the callers.   The premium is usually very much larger than the revenue share and is in my view the main problem.

We seem to be straying very far off topic with this discussion so I suggest that we discontinue this line here and move over to the "Ofcom Consultation" thread.http://www.saynoto0870.com/cgi-bin/forum/YaBB.cgi?num=1366033132/2#2

Here we are.

We are therefore addressing a problem that is far less "fundamental" than that which I suggested. Loddon is suggesting that using the telephone bill as a way of collecting money to be passed on to a third party is unacceptable in certain circumstances. The principle which applies in the case of 084 / 087 numbers is exactly the same as in other cases, and at last Ofcom recognises this and will be treating all cases in the same way.

It is true that the limited level of the Service Charge on 084 / 087 numbers is almost always used to offset costs that would otherwise be incurred by users rather than to deliver revenue. Except in the case of 0845 numbers however, this generally extends well beyond that of the technical benefits derived from use of non-geographic numbers.

Many, notably BT, expected that Ofcom would be proceeding to prohibit revenue sharing on 0845 numbers, as it had on 0870, although more effectively. Ofcom has however acknowledged what it believes to be a demand to impose a Service Charge as low as 2p per minute, which does little more than offset the cost of the features of a non-geographic number. I believe that this demand will be seen to be considerably reduced when the imposition of this charge has to be declared.

The argument that the recovery of system costs (as in the case of 0844/3 numbers) and some call centre operational costs (as in the case of 0871/2/3 numbers) should be prohibited is not considered by Ofcom. Ofcom takes the view that Service Charges as low as 2p per minute should be allowed, so long as they are declared, and it takes little interest in how this benefit is applied - i.e. with reference to which particular costs it is used to offset.

From the perspective of the caller it matters little as to how the Service Charge is used. The person called is free to attempt to justify its imposition in whatever way they wish (within the bounds of honesty). I believe that this is where the argument has to rest, not with Ofcom attempting to determine what level of Service Charge may be appropriate in any particular case.

Likewise with the Access Charge. This is where the present "bundled" nature of the charging is most wickedly exploited. Simplicity and clarity must be applied to ensure that the present rip-offs are brought to an end. Furthermore, I do not believe that the same simplicity should be imposed on charges for calls to geographic numbers, where customers benefit from a more complex approach.

I fear that by addressing only certain ranges, we may be moving away from what is truly "fundamental". The distinction between cost offsetting and revenue is also hard to address when covering the whole extent of the ways in which 084 and 087 numbers are used. It would be very difficult to apply regulation in a way which respects this fundamental principle. This is especially difficult where the latter seems to be regarded as acceptable, but the former is not, as regulation would normally be applied the other way around. It would however be interesting to hear suggestions of how this could be achieved.

Back to top
 
WWW  
IP Logged
 
loddon
Supreme Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 599
Reading  UK
Gender: male
Re: Ofcom consultation: Simplifying NGNs — April 2013
Reply #3 - Apr 30th, 2013 at 12:42pm
 
The main difficulty with the Ofcom proposals is the intention to maintain the premium charge for calling 084 and 087 numbers by calling it the “access charge” and to continue the scam of revenue sharing by calling it the “service charge”.

I have said many times before in postings on this Forum and in responses to earlier Ofcom consultations that it is fundamentally wrong to make callers pay for services and facilities provided to a third party, i.e. the users of these numbers.    The general public are very unhappy with these extra charges for 084/7 numbers as exemplified by comments made on newspaper and discussion sites such as this comment which appeared in the Mail On-line website ;---

"0845 and 0844 should be outlawed across every business. Why do you have to pay to ring your insurance company, your broadband/network provider, your electricity/gas/water provider when you are already paying for a service? ..... Its disgusting how we are treated by services we already pay for!
- whyohwhy, Horley, United Kingdom, 28/4/2013 13:20
"
This is just an example because there are hundreds if not thousands of similar comments which clearly illustrate the public perception of these numbers.   They have also been referred to many times in Parliament as “rip-off” numbers by MPs and Ministers.
Ofcom has stated that it is expecting that their proposals will bring some “transparency” to these charges, will result in the public accepting them and getting to appreciate them and ultimately desiring to call these numbers as a preferred choice leading to increased use of these numbers and increased revenue for the telecoms industry.   Ofcom state in their consultation Summary :---
1.23 The unbundled tariff will, we consider, provide significant benefits to consumers: clearer prices, better competition between phone companies and, perhaps, service providers, and reinvigorated consumer confidence in using these numbers.
1.24 As well as benefits for individual consumers, UK businesses stand to gain. Greater consumer confidence will in turn give UK businesses more confidence in using these services to be contacted by consumers and to provide new and innovative services to consumers.


Reinvigorated consumer confidence in using these numbers” says Ofcom which shows exactly what they are trying to achieve – public acceptance of paying higher costs to make phone calls.   Ofcom are not prepared to rule on this matter but are going to leave it to the public to complain, apply pressure, campaign and agitate to persuade phone companies and “service companies” like the DWP, Banks, Insurance companies and retailers to stop charging for calls which are often about poor service and mistakes made by the providers .   This is the most inefficient way of achieving regulation.   It will inevitably lead to enormous waste of time and effort to get rid of rip-off charges and excess costs.   The phone companies and “service companies” will no doubt expend a great deal of their resources and efforts to retain these charges by all sorts of clever schemes and marketing.   

Ofcom seem to be taking the attitude that they insist on “transparency” and then it is up to the consumers to fight to put things right.
 
I have nothing against transparency and indeed welcome it, but it is a poor substitute for proper regulation.   Having said all that and made clear that I am against the Ofcom proposals in principle I will say that I understand that Ofcom feel they cannot “regulate” to put this long-running rip-off right because it has been around for too long, it has grown up without apparent deliberate design or regulatory announcements and the phone industry now rely on it for a significant part of its revenue.   So from hereon I will confine my comments to matters of how the access and service charges are implemented and regulated.
Back to top
 
Campaignagainstripofftelecoms  
IP Logged
 
Barbara
Supreme Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 598
Re: Ofcom consultation: Simplifying NGNs — April 2013
Reply #4 - Apr 30th, 2013 at 2:29pm
 
loddon, I agree 100% with every word you say.   I don't care how transparently I am being "ripped off", the point is I object to being ripped off at all by organisations using these numbers or any number not included in my call plan. As for the idea that it pays for the telephone system, well, when I enter a shop or any other business premises to buy items or obtain a service, I don't expect to have to contribute towards their business rates or building maintenance costs!   Any customer contribution to those is, rightly, included in the costs of the items/direct services provided and this should be the case with phone contact.   The whole idea of having to pay more to call one sort of number than another is morally wrong, particularly as one often has no choice of an alternative.

One further point, much has been made of the Consumer Rights Directive but how will this impact upon public sector organisations and their outsource companies/contractors?   They are terrible abusers of NGNs yet do not "sell" goods etc as such and if they are not covered by this it will be useless as one cannot choose, for example, to use a neighbouring council which has a geo number if your local council has only NGNs.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
SilentCallsVictim
Supreme Member
*****
Offline


aka NHS.Patient, DH_fairtelecoms

Posts: 2,494
Re: Ofcom consultation: Simplifying NGNs — April 2013
Reply #5 - Apr 30th, 2013 at 3:51pm
 
loddon wrote on Apr 30th, 2013 at 12:42pm:
… from hereon I will confine my comments to matters of how the access and service charges are implemented and regulated.

If it is accepted that …

Quote:
the telephone bill can be used as a way of collecting money to be passed on to a third party (the person called)

then one needs to address the fundamentals in detailing when this should not be allowed.


I had understood that the point being made was about prohibiting the transfer of costs ("callers pay for services and facilities provided to a third party, i.e. the users of these numbers"), but as all retail prices reflect many costs, both direct and indirect, as well as a margin it is not easy to see how one may isolate specific direct costs in order to prohibit their consideration in the setting of a charge.


I am disappointed to hear that we will not be treated to an explanation of how this could work, although a position in favour of it has been reserved.


The present "rip-off" exists across the board because of the lack of transparency and the common misrepresentation. It exists in particular cases because Service Charges are imposed in situations where they are wholly improper.

I do not believe that it should fall to Ofcom to make a determination about the propriety of a charge made by a Service Provider, outside the market for communications services- which includes providers of designated "Premium Rate Services". The transparency offered by the unbundled tariff should however make this task easier for those who are responsible for regulating Service Providers.

Many rip-offs will be addressed by the provisions of the Consumer Rights Directive, some will be addressed by the appropriate regulators, others will need to be addressed by normal market mechanisms. We cannot expect Ofcom to be able to second guess what is proper, given that the practice of collecting money for third parties through the telephone bill is not to be prohibited.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Apr 30th, 2013 at 4:50pm by SilentCallsVictim »  
WWW  
IP Logged
 
SilentCallsVictim
Supreme Member
*****
Offline


aka NHS.Patient, DH_fairtelecoms

Posts: 2,494
Re: Ofcom consultation: Simplifying NGNs — April 2013
Reply #6 - Apr 30th, 2013 at 4:45pm
 
Barbara wrote on Apr 30th, 2013 at 2:29pm:
loddon, I agree 100% with every word you say.  The whole idea of having to pay more to call one sort of number than another is morally wrong, particularly as one often has no choice of an alternative.

The argument that no number should include a premium charge must be based on the principle that the telephone bill canNOT be used as a way of collecting money to be passed on to a third party (the person called). It is possible that the cost of all calls be increased to allow for the fact that some include an amount to be passed on (as BT does with its inclusive packages in respect of 0845 calls) - however I do not believe that this is what was being suggested.

I had understood that this was not the position being taken by Loddon, who had only opposed the inclusion of transferred costs on calls to 084 / 087 numbers. The suggestion of 100% agreement leaves one confused.

As for alternatives, I see very few cases where it is appropriate to offer a multi-tiered cost approach to telephone access. One would normally expect the same quality of access to be provided to all callers. Offering a premium option for improved access, in return for a Service Charge, is surely not something that should be welcomed by the majority. If a wholly different service is being offered, then we are talking about alternative services, rather than alternative numbers. I would be interested to hear an argument in favour of alternative numbers being offered.


Barbara wrote on Apr 30th, 2013 at 2:29pm:
One further point, much has been made of the Consumer Rights Directive but how will this impact upon public sector organisations and their outsource companies/contractors?   They are terrible abusers of NGNs yet do not "sell" goods etc as such and if they are not covered by this it will be useless as one cannot choose, for example, to use a neighbouring council which has a geo number if your local council has only NGNs. 

It is also recognised that if you have a complaint against one company you cannot direct it to another because the second does not impose a Service Charge on complaint calls! If the need to declare the Service Charge is not sufficient to demonstrate its impropriety in cases not covered by the provisions of the CRD, then the fact that businesses are prohibited from imposing a charge for customer telephone access to certain services may bear on public service providers who are not seen to require regulation by other public bodies.

One hopes that the underlying principle behind the CRD regulations will be recognised and mirrored both in practice and, where necessary, by parallel regulation to cover all cases where the principle may be seen to apply.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Apr 30th, 2013 at 5:04pm by SilentCallsVictim »  
WWW  
IP Logged
 
idb
Supreme Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 1,499
Miami, Florida, United States
Gender: male
Re: Ofcom consultation: Simplifying NGNs — April 2013
Reply #7 - Apr 30th, 2013 at 11:06pm
 
loddon wrote on Apr 30th, 2013 at 12:42pm:
I have said many times before in postings on this Forum and in responses to earlier Ofcom consultations that it is fundamentally wrong to make callers pay for services and facilities provided to a third party, i.e. the users of these numbers.    The general public are very unhappy with these extra charges for 084/7 numbers as exemplified by comments made on newspaper and discussion sites such as this comment which appeared in the Mail On-line website ;---
In the past, the focus of discussions here, almost unequivocally, was to condemn the imposition of these fees and charges to simply call another party. The concept of being charged not only for the conveyance of a call, but to also provide some monetary compensation to the called party is utterly bizarre, and the public, through responses to consultation after consultation has made its views absolutely clear. There was little, if any, public response suggesting that the way forward was to separate out the charging mechanism into constituent parts - one revenue stream for the telco, and one for the recipient; rather the expression that the underlying issue of providing revenue to the recipient is fundamentally and ethically wrong. I continue to maintain that viewpoint. The focus on these forums is now to congratulate the dithering regulator in its proposal to increase transparency. The issue of transparency is irrelevant to me, as a foreign resident, as it's difficult to contact these wretched organizations in the first place. Irrespective of the foreign termination of calls issue, the whole premise that 'regular calls' should be subject to an additional payment to the recipient is simply unacceptable to me, and I suspect to many others. This whole mess has been created by the regulator and its predecessor, and despite repeated representations by the public, it has failed to act on our behalf, creating consultation fatigue and apathy.

The cost of a call should be exactly that - we should pay the telecommunication provider for the cost of conveying that call from one party to another. Whether that cost is one pence per minute or one pound per minute is largely irrelevant - we can make a valued judgement as to whether the cost is acceptable. We have the ridiculous situation whereby organizations from the largest multinational to the small 'mom and pop' business have non geographic numbers simply because everyone else is doing the same.

Will Ofcom's proposals help - perhaps, perhaps not, yet the underlying problem will still exist. As I have said many times, we never used to have to pay a 'service fee' to call our bank, our airline and our plumber so why should we now? Over here, a bastion of capitalism and corporate profits, it is simply inconceivable that any business would charge its customers to call, and commerce and industry seems to do quite well, thank you very much, in providing call centers and apportioning the costs into its general overheads for running a business.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Apr 30th, 2013 at 11:09pm by idb »  

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: Simplifying NGNs — April 2013
Reply #8 - May 1st, 2013 at 1:10am
 
It is encouraging that replies #4 and #7, if taken in isolation from other comments, represent a fairly clear position -

Quote:
The telephone bill SHOULD NOT be used as a way of collecting money to be passed on to a third party (the person called).

It may be that some would wish to permit the provision of Directory Enquiries services, and perhaps some others, under this otherwise prohibited arrangement. I fear that the possibility of contention would swiftly arise if one did not limit a list of exceptions to some very clearly defined types of service. Purists would allow no exceptions.

It must also be remembered that this principle, as stated, also covers premium text messages. Again it may be thought appropriate to allow an exception so as to permit this means of charitable giving.

There is no question that if the various measures being brought forward, and those additional measures which should flow from them, do not remove the "rip-offs" on 084 numbers in particular, then they, and we, should be seen to have failed. If a "robbery" can be seen to be carried out in the clear light of day, then something is very wrong with society.

Ofcom believes that Service Providers may be to justify the imposition of a Service Charge as low as less than 7p per minute, or as high as more than £1.50 per minute. If this happens, then it is for those who press the position quoted above to convince them and their willing customers that their right to conduct this transaction should be withdrawn.


I am inclined to disagree with Ofcom, as I believe that there will be seen to be very few who are able to justify use of 084 numbers (with a Service Charge of up to 7p per minute). I cannot however claim to have conducted exhaustive research into this point and look to "The Big Question" to help provide some answers.

The fair telecoms campaign finds it hard to argue that if someone wishes to impose a charge for a legitimate service, advises the charge fully and honestly and that someone is properly aware of the charge and happy to pay it, then this must be prohibited because previously the charge was not clear. We accept the principle that, in our present liberal society, the telephone bill may be used as a way of collecting money to be passed on to a third party (the person called). It is however good to engage in open discussion with those who disagree.

It may be helpful to understand that is perhaps because we do not oppose the imposition of a Service Charge in principle that we fight so passionately against cases where it is applied improperly.
Back to top
 
WWW  
IP Logged
 
idb
Supreme Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 1,499
Miami, Florida, United States
Gender: male
Re: Ofcom consultation: Simplifying NGNs — April 2013
Reply #9 - May 1st, 2013 at 2:03am
 
SilentCallsVictim wrote on May 1st, 2013 at 1:10am:
It may be that some would wish to permit the provision of Directory Enquiries services, and perhaps some others, under this otherwise prohibited arrangement. I fear that the possibility of contention would swiftly arise if one did not limit a list of exceptions to some very clearly defined types of service. Purists would allow no exceptions.
I do not have any particular issue with genuine premium services being offered in, and only in, the 09 premium range as long as one has to opt-in to remove a premium block. Such services are, I believe, relatively easy to define - where a clear product or need is being sold 'over the phone'. DQ, legal advice consultations, vehicle checks and of course dial-a-wnak services are valid examples where a fee is expected by the person making the call. Such services do not include access to public service providers and what we can reasonably define as regular calls that we used to make before the proliferation of these rip-off numbers.

The segregation of service and access charges makes not the slightest difference to me as I cannot call the numbers, at a reasonable cost, in the first place. This will also apply to those traveling and working overseas - a significant number of citizen-consumers or whatever the current warm and fuzzy term is.

If Ofcom had consumers' interests high on its priority list, it would prohibit all revenue sharing on any 08 number from say Jan 1, 2015. Service providers will then be forced to either accept no revenue and factor their telephone handling costs into their general overheads for air-con, heating, rent, lunchtime sandwiches and mail costs, or sell their wares through a highly-regulated PRS regime. This is similar to what, I suggest, the overwhelming number of telephone users would want to see happen. It will not, of course take place, as there are too many vested interests, and the regulator is a complete waste of inefficient space (compare the costs of Ofcom against the FCC).

084 and 087 have provided absolutely no benefit to the telephone end-user and they need to be put to rest. We didn't want them in the 1980s and we don't want them now, however their costs happen to be represented.
Back to top
« Last Edit: May 1st, 2013 at 2:05am by idb »  

As from November 21, 2013, I no longer participate in the forum and am unable to receive private messages.
 
IP Logged
 
allegro
Senior Member
****
Offline



Posts: 335
Re: Ofcom consultation: Simplifying NGNs — April 2013
Reply #10 - May 1st, 2013 at 7:25am
 
idb wrote on May 1st, 2013 at 2:03am:
If Ofcom had consumers' interests high on its priority list, it would prohibit all revenue sharing on any 08 number from say Jan 1, 2015. Service providers will then be forced to either accept no revenue and factor their telephone handling costs into their general overheads for air-con, heating, rent, lunchtime sandwiches and mail costs, or sell their wares through a highly-regulated PRS regime. This is similar to what, I suggest, the overwhelming number of telephone users would want to see happen. It will not, of course take place, as there are too many vested interests, and the regulator is a complete waste of inefficient space (compare the costs of Ofcom against the FCC).

084 and 087 have provided absolutely no benefit to the telephone end-user and they need to be put to rest. We didn't want them in the 1980s and we don't want them now, however their costs happen to be represented.


Absolutlely agree with all of this with only one minor exception. In the 1980s and early 1990s an 0845 (was 0345 at the time) number was a benefit to customers since they would only pay for a local rate call to ring a company that might otherwise have to contacted using a national rate call at several times the cost. The predecessor to 0870 was 0990 which was rarely seen and offered no benefit to customers. Now that the usual marginal cost of a national call is zero all of this history is irrelevant.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
loddon
Supreme Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 599
Reading  UK
Gender: male
Re: Ofcom consultation: Simplifying NGNs — April 2013
Reply #11 - May 1st, 2013 at 4:21pm
 
Barbara wrote on Apr 30th, 2013 at 2:29pm:
loddon, I agree 100% with every word you say.   I don't care how transparently I am being "ripped off", the point is I object to being ripped off at all by organisations using these numbers or any number not included in my call plan.



One further point, much has been made of the Consumer Rights Directive but how will this impact upon public sector organisations and their outsource companies/contractors?   They are terrible abusers of NGNs yet do not "sell" goods etc as such and if they are not covered by this it will be useless as one cannot choose, for example, to use a neighbouring council which has a geo number if your local council has only NGNs. 

Thank you Barbara for your encouragement, we are on the same wavelength as I suspect are many others who have not yet posted.

Regarding your question about the Consumer rights directive (CRD) I have discovered that Ofcom refer to this in their Part B Annexes A19 para 116 :---
"With respect to the impact of the Consumer Rights Directive, we note this is not directly relevant to our assessment under this criterion given that its requirements will be implemented in the UK regardless of whether or not we implement the unbundled tariff. Nevertheless, we acknowledge that there may be a particular impact on SPs as a result of the requirements in the Directive, with some SPs potentially needing to migrate, or use alternative number ranges for particular aspects of their service. In particular this Directive contains a requirement that where a customer telephone helpline is offered to deal with contracts that have been concluded (with some exceptions for specific services) the call must be charged at no more than a basic rate.86 The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (‘BIS’) issued a consultation on the implementation of this Directive in the UK in August this year.87 Its position in that consultation was that the definition of ‘basic rate’ would exclude any revenue sharing arrangements, even on the lower rated ranges where that revenue sharing was used to cover costs rather than passed through directly to the SP. The Directive is required to be transposed into UK law by 13 December 2013 and it will apply to all contracts concluded after June 2014.88 However, as indicated, this requirement only applies to communication after contracts have been concluded. Therefore this may not necessarily mean that SPs which have numbers that do not meet the ‘basic rate’ requirement have to migrate away from that number range, but instead they will need to ensure that they have at least one number range which meets that requirement for after-sales queries."

So Ofcom seem to be saying that the DWP, for example, will not necessarily have to migrate away from 0845 but they will have to ensure that they have at least one number that meets the CRD legislation.   Does that mean it must be a geographic or 03 number?   I'm not sure.
Back to top
« Last Edit: May 1st, 2013 at 4:28pm by loddon »  
Campaignagainstripofftelecoms  
IP Logged
 
loddon
Supreme Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 599
Reading  UK
Gender: male
Re: Ofcom consultation: Simplifying NGNs — April 2013
Reply #12 - May 1st, 2013 at 4:48pm
 
idb wrote on May 1st, 2013 at 2:03am:


If Ofcom had consumers' interests high on its priority list, it would prohibit all revenue sharing on any 08 number ........

084 and 087 have provided absolutely no benefit to the telephone end-user and they need to be put to rest. We didn't want them in the 1980s and we don't want them now, however their costs happen to be represented.


Agreed, that is precisely my view and of course it is the view of all the users of this site which is set up to provide ways of avoiding 08 numbers, but it does not seek to avoid 09 or 118 numbers.

Unfortunately, Ofcom are swimming in their own little pond of murky water with the phone companies.   In its current consultation which seems to contain over a million pages (I have been trying to read some of it) it goes on and on and on and on about consumer demand for 084 and 087 numbers.  It doesn't seem to realise, or perhaps admit, that there is no consumer demand for 084/7.   Consumers only call 084/7 numbers at all because there is no visible alternative.   They do not want to call such numbers.   The demand only comes from the phone companies themselves and the rip-off merchants who want to exploit the citizen-consumer;  Ofcom. the epitome of self-delusion.

Over the years of my campaigning on this matter I have never once come across a single person who said or wrote "I wish my doctor would get an 0844 number" or "I wish more government departments would follow the lead of the DVLA when they used 0870 numbers."   I have seen plenty of people complaining about 084/7 numbers and seeking to avoid them by using this site, and even Which? and others publishing advice on how to avoid such numbers.   Ofcom just don't get it !!! Sad Shocked Angry
Back to top
« Last Edit: May 1st, 2013 at 5:37pm by loddon »  
Campaignagainstripofftelecoms  
IP Logged
 
SilentCallsVictim
Supreme Member
*****
Offline


aka NHS.Patient, DH_fairtelecoms

Posts: 2,494
Re: Ofcom consultation: Simplifying NGNs — April 2013
Reply #13 - May 1st, 2013 at 6:10pm
 
loddon wrote on May 1st, 2013 at 4:21pm:
So Ofcom seem to be saying that the DWP, for example, will not necessarily have to migrate away from 0845 but they will have to ensure that they have at least one number that meets the CRD legislation.   Does that mean it must be a geographic or 03 number?   I'm not sure.

No ! You have missed the point of a very wordy paragraph. The DWP is totally outside the scope of the CRD provisions.

The government will be prohibiting businesses from charging customers for "after sales" enquiries, whilst - if the DWP policy remains unchanged - itself levying a charge on enquiries from pensioners, the disabled and jobseekers.

As I said previously, it would be a very sick society that tolerated such behaviour.
Back to top
 
WWW  
IP Logged
 
loddon
Supreme Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 599
Reading  UK
Gender: male
Re: Ofcom consultation: Simplifying NGNs — April 2013
Reply #14 - May 1st, 2013 at 6:30pm
 
Isn't the DWP levying a charge now with its use of 0845 numbers?
Back to top
 
Campaignagainstripofftelecoms  
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 2 3 ... 9
Send Topic Print
(Moderators: Dave, Forum Admin, bbb_uk, CJT-80, DaveM)

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