And this was my immediate and fairly robust response:-
-----Original Message-----
Sent: 04 April 2006 20:00
To: Clive Hillier
Cc: nic.green@ofcom.org.uk; ruth.gibson@ofcom.org.uk; clive.hillier@ofcom.org.uk; sean.williams@ofcom.org.uk; gareth.davies@ocom.org.uk; geoff.brighton@ofcom.org.uk; claudio.pollack@ofcom.org.uk; matt.peacock@ofcom.org.uk; kip.meek@ofcom.org.uk; stephen.carter@ofcom.org.uk; ed.richards@ofcom.org.uk; david.currie@ofcom.org.uk; philip.graf@ofcom.org.uk; stephanie.liston@ofcom.org.uk; sara.nathan@ofcom.org.uk; ian.hargreaves@ofcom.org.uk; millie.banerjee@ofcom.org.uk; consumerpanel@ofcom.org.uk; colette.bowe@ofcomconsumerpanel.org.uk; bob.twitchin@ofcomconsumerpanel.org.uk; georgia.klein@ofcom.org.uk; david.edwards@ofcom.org.uk; steve.unger@ofcom.org.uk; andrew.heaney@ofcom.org.uk; dougal.scott@ofcom.org.uk
Subject: Yet More Delay in Publication of Statement on NTS & Failure to Co-ordinate with Ofcom's Consultation on A New National Telephone Number Plan
Dear Clive,
Unfortunately It does not surprise me one little bit to learn that publication of the Ofcom NTS statement has been delayed until "after Easter" rather than "by the end of March" since I think Ofcom would in fact be utterly insane to try to publish its NTS statement ahead of or separately from its statement on a new National Telephone Number Plan as I highlighted to Sean Williams at the recent NTNP Focus Group session at Ofcom's Headquarters, run by Sean Williams and Steve Unger. At this session I was possibly the only non telecoms industry mole at what was originally billed as being a "stakeholder workshop" although I seemed to account for a lot of the questions as none of the industry telecoms representatives seemed to care in the least whether the plan was intellectually coherent and instead were concerned only about how much money the proposed changes were going to cost them. What a pity then that Ofcom does not apparently consider consumers to be stakeholders in spite of the provisions of Section 3 (i) of the Communications Act 2003.
Also to be blunt what Ofcom deadline on NTS has Ofcom not so far not badly slipped up and failed on? That is why I thought Ofcom's quite deliberately misleading press release announcing its NTS Way Forward Consultation last Autumn and suggesting that 0870 numbers would start costing the same as 01/02 calls in only 12 months time from that date was so utterly cynical and deliberately misleading to a not very inquisitive bright or well informed press that covers most telecoms issues in the UK.
But coming back to the connectivity between a new National Telephone Number Plan and the ongoing future of 084/7 NTS the two things are inextricably linked, especially the launch of 03 Countrywide numbers charged at geographic rates to overcome the 0845 numbers remaining at NTS rates issue. It is also ludicrous for Ofcom to allow 0844, 0845 and 0871 to carry on using 08 on the same prefix as Freephone numbers and now geographically priced 0870 numbers (when the new NTNP is supposed to be simplifying numbering and pricing issues) just so that you don't too badly damage the highly exploitative call centre businesses of Mr Stephen Carter's many important New Labour friends and acquaintances running some of the uk's largest commercial companies! You do however seem quite content to force government departments, uk police forces and local councils using 0845 numbers (originally for all the right reasons when they did cost the same as a local rate call) to all obtain new 03 numbers if they are in future to avoid costing citizen consumers more than the price of a standard rate national geographic phone call.
So once again Ofcom is putting the entrenched business needs of ruthless telecoms missellers ahead of the needs of UK citizen consumers? Also how will anyone understand the 08 prefix code containing Freephone, Chargeable Services and National Geographic Calling Rates? As there are so many more 0870 numbers than 0871s anyone calling 0871 will inevitably still think it is a national geographic rate call. In other words a scammer's charter pure and simple. Once again Ofcom proves that it has been hijacked by the business needs of the telecom missellers who base their whole business around the cosy protection they enjoy from Ofcom, who perversely repeatedly claims that it is too expensive or too technically complex for people to have an announcement telling them what the price of any phone call is before it is connected. Strange then that the Office of Fair Trading has never agreed to the same argument that it is too costly and cumbersome for a supermarket to have to display the price of a can of baked beans or a packet of cornflakes on its shelves. It also seems strange that the North American Numbering Plan (see
www.nanpa.com) has always resolutely managed to keep services paid for by the cost of the telephone call on North American Area Codes beginning with 9. Unfortunately although in the UK we originally started off following the same 8 prefix notation for free calls and 9 prefix for chargeable services first OFTEL and then Ofcom allowed the telecoms industry to completely subvert and manipulate the uk NTNP in to the worst sort of Frankenstein like manner that appeared quite blatantly designed to both confuse and mislead telecoms consumers about the costs of the calls they were making.
Continued Below/...............