It will be interesting to see what Ofcom actually does in response to its consultation regarding NTS. The Ofcom response pages below demonstrate two opposing positions - the replies from the 'general public', that is those that have to call rip-off numbers, generally want the numbers ditched or the prohibiting of revenue sharing. The responses from business however is, somewhat expectedly, very different with a general consensus of keeping NTS and modifying its format. How is Ofcom to 'arbitrate' between two vastly different positions? What is the speculated outcome? Will Ofcom, as usual, 'fudge' this one? Will it favor the consumer or the businesses?

http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/ntsoptions/Responses/?a=87101

http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/ntsctmr/resntcctr/?a=87101

Ofcom states:

"Ofcom exists to further the interests of citizen-consumers as the communications industries enter the digital age."

The reality is that it was the failure of Oftel and then of Ofcom to fulfil their responsiblities under the Act, which they are so fond of quoting, which resulted in the original contraventions of the New Telephone Numbering System/National Telephone Numbering Plan (NTNP), which contraventions this scam is rooted on. The NTNP was specifically designed to ensure that "revenue-sharing" of any sort (Premium Numbers) was limited to the 09 category only thereafter and that queueing was prohibited with revenue sharing numbers. In fact the term "revenue sharing" was subsequently invented to attempt to deny that NGNs other than 09 were being blatantly used as Premium Numbers!

Since Oftel supported BT initially in these blatant contraventions and Ofcom now supports them and other telcos in this laterly, you cannot expect them to act now. To do so would expose their failures in the past to fulfil their obligations, and would bring into direct question the reasons for their failing to do so. They have indicated quite clearly that they have again pre-agreed a "decision" for their last consultations with BT. This is their stated Option 2 and it is clear that this is what they will "decide" to implement when they announce their "decision". They pay no attention to the views or the interests of consumers.  

In any case Ofcom is under the control of the UK government, and the government is now also making so much from these abuses that they do not want the gravy train to end.

I believe that unless those responsible at Ofcom are exposed, with the real reasons for which they are allowing these contraventions and have been allowing them, they will never act in the interest of the consumer, despite their obligations under the Act, unless they are compelled to do so by the EU.  

It is now such an endemic abuse that it is only political action and ultimately action against them in the EU courts which could metre out the appropriate penalties and re-enforce proper unfettered competition in the UK domestic telecommunications market. However, a big part of the problem is that the majority of UK consumers cannot be bothered to complain and are nonchalant about all of these abuses. When there is a majority public apathy they will get the exploitation which they deserve. It is the same in Politics. (A good indication of this apathy is if you consider the total number of telephone subscriber consumers in the UK, and the number of those having access to the Internet, and you then consider the number of members of this site as a percentage of the latter! That equals apathy. No one can really help people like this very much!)

I think this summation is correct, dorf, we get what we deserve.
The only possible route, to my mind, is through the 'political' route.
Even if all members of this site were to send an email to their MP, MEP etc then it might have some effect (in an election year!).
Other than that we are at the mercy of Ofcom, who are well into the pocket of BT.

I think your suggestion of contacting MP's is brilliant!  Would you suggest contacting MP's directly, or bombarding their head offices?  ;D

wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2005 at 2:54pm:

I think your suggestion of contacting MP's is brilliant!  Would you suggest contacting MP's directly, or bombarding their head offices?  ;D

It's easiest to use writetothem.com

Well siad dorf.

Ofcom has already prejudged the issue and it is hardly surprising that all the telcos who responded chose option 2 whereas consumers chose > 2. Until NTS are in the 09xx range there will continue to be problems. One thing we will get if they are in the 09xx range is publiction by the SPs their call costs - everybody knows that 09 numbers are very expensive so they will have to publish costs to get anybody to use their services.

I was at first intrigued by BTs response. They suggested that their 2a was better. No profit sharing on 0845/0870 numbers which would be charged at geographic rates. I thought we had won!! But then they suggest that the NTS services for SPs who wanted them  would then be transferred to another number in the 08xx range. Talk about having there cake and eating it. You can hear them saying' We will take the heat out of the situation by making the numbers geographic and then contiue the scam with a new set of numbers - mild inconvenience only'

Can anyone help?

I am considering writing a history of this scam.

To do this I need to research the varoius documents that have been published particulary the original NTNP and the consultation and decision  documents that came from OFTEL at the time of the introduction of 0845/0870 numbers.

I cannot find this stuff on the OFCOM site. I have emailed them requesting this information but I do not think it is likely to produce the goods (or bads!)

wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2005 at 12:21am:

Can anyone help? I am considering writing a history of this scam. To do this I need to research the varoius documents that have been published particulary the original NTNP and the consultation and decision  documents that came from OFTEL at the time of the introduction of 0845/0870 numbers. I cannot find this stuff on the OFCOM site. I have emailed them requesting this information but I do not think it is likely to produce the goods (or bads!)

You may get some useful information from the web archive at http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.oftel.gov.uk - many of the links are broken but plenty of NTS info is available. Best year to start is probably 2003.

Ask Ofcom for the information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.  Quote your name and address.

wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2005 at 6:13pm:

Ask Ofcom for the information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.  Quote your name and address.

And hope they haven't shredded it!

perhap you should all try getting a life or something similer.

I do agree with some of what your all on about. but god, there are other internet sites.

what about mobile charges, everyone is worried about 7.9p a minute but everyone seems to be hunky dory about spending over half of there bill on mobile calls which are way more expencive?

also i don't mind paying a few pennys to some of the company who offer well programed IVR hence saving me time on the phone.

i feel there is a big difference between making someone hold on a 0870 customer service for 10 mins(which is of course a bad idea),  and giving someone the option of using a clever 08 service which can save them time and money.

thoughts?

wrote on Feb 4^th, 2005 at 2:56pm:

perhap you should all try getting a life or something similer. [...]

I have "a life" and a very content one at that. What I do not have is patience with cretins that use numbers that I cannot dial. Assuming that you are in the UK, I have just as much right as you do to access essential government services and other business services yet because I am resident overseas, the organizations that use 0870 and all the other rip-off numbers prevent me from getting in touch by phone. This is unacceptable and discriminatory. The 'final straw' for me was the rip-off number introduced by the Immigration and Nationality Directorate - clueless or what. Is there not anyone in this idiotic department that looked at this number and thought - yes why are we introducing a number for potential immigrants when they may not be able to use it?! If it wasn't so serious it would be laughable. Here in the US, "well programed IVR" as you put it is provided on either toll-free numbers or on standard NANP geographic numbers. This is also the case in much of the rest of the world. The UK telephone numbering system is such a mess that abuses can take place, hence the massive increase in rip-off numbers. The regulator does nothing. What a joke.

hmm, a point well made! honest.

but what about mobile. do you mind ringing them?

wrote on Feb 4^th, 2005 at 4:58pm:

hmm, a point well made! honest. but what about mobile. do you mind ringing them?

Cellular/mobile phones are very different. Whilst the charges are probably too high, there are important differences. It could be argued that there is some added benefit in being able to call someone on a cellular phone. The charges are generally not hidden, and any given operator will probably know the cost of calling an 07X cellular number. The calls are often bundled with airtime. The numbers are eligible for BT discounts. The numbers are generally routable from overseas, albeit at a higher cost. They (the numbers that is) are not "sold" and traded by sleazeball companies. They are generally not used for essential services. They are generally not used for business contact. They are not advertised at "national rate" or some other false description. Most important of all, they do not provide an income stream to the recipient. Whilst we would all like to see a reduction in cost for calling cellular phones, the numbers themselves are not used in an abusive manner unlike the clandestine rip-off 0870 numbers. Costs of calling cellular phones has generally fallen. People are aware of the cost. With rip-off 0870, everything is hidden as far as possible by companies such as NEG who *LIE* to you and me about the cost. I repeat, NEG and others tell LIES about these numbers. LIES.

While we are on the subject of mobile phones. Mobile phones in the US cost the same to dial as a normal landline.

wrote on Feb 4^th, 2005 at 9:42pm:

While we are on the subject of mobile phones. Mobile phones in the US cost the same to dial as a normal landline.

But the cellphone subscriber has to pay to receive the call.

Increasingly, that is no longer true - and when it is, it is often only for inter-network calls. Intra-network calls (ie from a subscriber on the same network) are generally 'incoming toll free'.

I pay $60.00 (approx 30 pounds) for unlimited calls (in or out), anywhere in the US, at any time and for any length of time. Call forwarding, call messaging, caller ID etc all included....... ;D

So if Ofcom implement their plan to introduce different charging bands within 0845/0870, what will that actually mean?

BT will be the only company which will have to upgrade billing equipment to cope with it all. For other providers, it will be up to their ‘commercial discretion’. So how much will it cost and will it be worth other telcos charging different rates, or will we end up with a state where BT is still the cheapest for these calls? Of course, BT terminate most of these calls anyway.

Maybe some telcos will charge just one rate; that being the highest. For those that do, will they keep the additional revenue? So, for example, for an 0844 charged at 1p/min for BT customers, the terminating provider might get 0.5p/min. For an originating provider charging 5p/min to this number, they presumably pay the terminating provider 0.5p/min. The 0.5 figure may be completely wrong, but obviously must be less than 1p, and serves to illustrate my point.

So they apparently make a whopping profit! Is this the way it will actually work? Does anyone in the industry have other suggestions?

wrote on Feb 24^th, 2005 at 1:05pm:

So they apparently make a whopping profit! Is this the way it will actually work? Does anyone in the industry have other suggestions?

Regarding your other comments in the thread which you then very annoyingly closed down and directed here (is that just to show that a moderator has special powers) I would reply as follows:-

What the industry has to gain out of no change in the current setup is lots of filthy lucre.  What they have to lose is lots of filthy lucre.  It isn't just the call centres on these 0845 and 0870 numbers who make lots of extra money from 084/7 NGNs  - so do BT, Cable & Wireless and all the other big telcos.  Because the termination rate is higher than for geographic calls, even after they have handed most of the dosh to the service provider running the call centre.  Do you think BT earn anything at all out of non geographic calls originating on their network but carried by another call carrier and then terminated by BT again?  Do you think Mr Darren Thomas of Blue Telecom could afford to carry the calls for us at only 1p a time if there was any decent money at all left for BT in terminating geographic calls carried by their rivals?

BT commercial doesn't want to give up 084/7 NGN revenue sharing any more than the rest of them but BT's big corporate social and responsible side can see the 0845/0870 scam has now gone too far now so has to be stopped.

Ofcom's position is dictated by all this "light touch" nonsense from the government that they claim to believe in for commercial regulation.  Its a shame the government don't seem to believe in this "light touch" when it comes to the incarceration of people in their own homes under house arrest on the merest suspicion of terrorist connections or for that matter even in terms of current increasingly draconian prison sentencing policy.  I think you can see the inconsistency in the New Labour logic here?

I still think there is hope that Ofcom will ban 084/087 revenue sharing and make all the parties concerned move over to 09 and ICSTIS if they really have the nerve to carry on with it.  But I think Ofcom will be under a lot of pressure from the big boys running the call centres (eg the BBC and Capita) not to come up with this conclusion.

I have no problem with all current 09 service apart from ISP technical help lines.  With this one exception virtually all other 09 services do seem to be added value products that would not exist without revenue sharing being in place.  And so long as there are clear announcements about the price and so long as the customers are not captive (as they are not for adult chat lines and legal advice lines) then where exactly is the problem.

084/087 on the other hand converts calls offering no added value into premium rate calls without most consumers either being aware or the cost or having an option to take their business elsewhere.

wrote on Feb 24^th, 2005 at 2:27pm:

Regarding your other comments in the thread which you then very annoyingly closed down and directed here (is that just to show that a moderator has special powers) ...

I didn't think that my point had anything to do with BBC Watchdog. I haven't closed the other thread down, and I've changed the wording at the end of my post.

wrote on Feb 24^th, 2005 at 2:49pm:

I didn't think that my point had anything to do with BBC Watchdog. I haven't closed the other thread down, and I've changed the wording at the end of my post.

I thought it was the 0870/0990 thread we were previously talking about all this in so my mistake.

I did try to reply to your last message in the Watchdog thread though but the system said I didn't have the rights to?  So it looked like you had somehow stopped me from replying there?  But perhaps I did something wrong.

I actually had the gall to query, and make suggestions in reply to a somewhat bland OFCOM response to me recently.

Shown below is their response to me .

It seems (and some of you are probably well aware of this) that the matter is over. They have made their judgement and this on the ntsoption/ website address shown below !

Are we "A consumer group " by any chance ?

STARTS :

" 0870 Number charges



Thank you for your recent correspondence to Ofcom about the above matter.  



I am able to confirm that you have received Ofcom’s position in full regarding 0870 number charges. As explained a consultation has recently taken place -  



http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/ntsoptions/  which is to obtain a clear picture from consumer groups and others concerning this matter.



When the results have been recorded they will be made available via the Ofcom website.  





Yours sincerely











::Leonard Martin

Telecoms Support
contact@ofcom.org.uk "

wrote on Feb 28^th, 2005 at 8:40pm:

It seems (and some of you are probably well aware of this) that the matter is over. They have made their judgement and this on the ntsoption/ website address shown below !

No the matter is not over and they have not made their final judgement.  That process is going on now. Why on earth do you think that Cornish MP has put his Early Day Motion in the House of Commons just at this moment?

Ofcom wanted to do nothing originally other than saying more different priced 0845 and 0870 call rates would be a solution that would produce more competition.  But unexpectedly from their point of view (Ofcom normally get about 5 respondents to their endless consultations) they have got negative feedback on their proposals from 85%+ of the large number of respondents.  This includes both a lot of angry private individuals and BT and the Ofcom Consumer Panel who both say that the Ofcom proposed Option 2 won't help anyone.

So its most likely that 0870 revenue sharing will be abolished but not so sure what will happen to 0844 & 0845 (also legitimately being used by PAYG ISPs) or the deadly slumbering trojan of 0871.  BT recommends abolishing 0870 revenue share but letting it remain on 0871 with no ICSTIS type controls on 0871.  I am sure that those of you with just a little imagination can guess what 0870 merchants would do if 0871 was allowed to remain.

But old proverb say man from BT he often speak with forked tongue and cannot be trusted.  For instance is it not that same BT who just declared 6am to 8am in the morning (when many people are still asleep) to now be part of the weekday daytime peak rate phone call period.  Presumably next month they will extend the evening peak from 6pm until 10pm?  And Ofcom will just roll over and say it is ok.

In short it is not too late to influence the outcome but please express your views to the man at the top of Ofcom (Stephen Carter) and not to those stuffed dummies in the Ofcom Contact Centre.

Hi NGM
Do you have a favourite email address for (Mr S Carter) Ofcom?

wrote on Mar 1^st, 2005 at 9:22am:

Hi NGM Do you have a favourite email address for (Mr S Carter) Ofcom?

stephen.carter@ofcom.org.uk

This gets acknowledgements from his secretary.  Or you could also include

kip.meek@ofcom.org.uk
matt.peacock@ofcom.org.uk

Then your views might be registering directly with the people controlling what is actually going to happen at Ofcom and not with the low paid customer service ciphers who just give out irrelevant and outdated stock responses.

Many thanks - MGM

According to a phone call today from Geoff Brighton, Ofcom "need to understand more of the potential consumer reaction to a range of proposals." They are (have already?) putting this out to "focus groups" which will be managed by some "professional" external body.

Don't expect to hear anything before June (2005).

wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2005 at 5:18pm:

According to a phone call today from Geoff Brighton, Ofcom "need to understand more of the potential consumer reaction to a range of proposals." They are (have already?) putting this out to "focus groups" which will be managed by some "professional" external body. Don't expect to hear anything before June (2005).

Isn't that how new Labour formulates all its policy and how come none of us are on those focus groups or even got the chance to apply for them?

I bet these groups will be spun to come up with the answers that Ofcom thinks will be acceptable for the business interests of its bros in the telecoms industry.

These people will be a typical dumb cross section of the general public who won't understand the issues so will say they think 0845 and 0870 are ok so long as they aren't called "local rate" and "national rate" any more and so long as there is a price announcement before each call.

Ofcom will not come out and recommend the banning of 0870 and 0845 revenue sharing, even though no less a party than BT has asked for this to happen.  This is because 0870 is New Labour stealth tax policy and Ofcom just does as it is jolly well told by the Labour Government.

The focus groups will just be used to prove that we who responded to the Ofcom consultation so vigorously are unrepresentative fanatics and that the majority of telecoms consumers are still not concerned about this issue.

I will ask Geoff Brighton (geoff.brighton@ofcom.org.uk) how they are selecting the focus groups and how I can apply to be on one.

By the way if Geoff Brighton has called you why hasn't he called me?  I have spoken to hime enough in the past.

Because he was out when I phoned him.

wrote on Mar 4^th, 2005 at 9:38am:

Because he was out when I phoned him.

Why did you phone him in the first place though?  Was it about another question?

How did you get to hear about the Focus Groups?  From Geoff or from somewhere else?

But as I said these Focus Groups sound anything but good news.  They don't need to have these.  They just need to read the responses to the consultation and then make rules requiring that revenue sharing can only in future happen on 09.  Also that BT customers should be able to have the right to bar all 09 calls and that there should be an announcement of the cost per minute for every 09 call you dial.

[quote author=NonGeographicalMan link=board=news;num=1107020501;start=15#28 date=03/03/05 at 23:09:15]
Isn't that how new Labour formulates all its policy and how come none of us are on those focus groups or even got the chance to apply for them?

I bet these groups will be spun to come up with the answers that Ofcom thinks will be acceptable for the business interests of its bros in the telecoms industry.

These people will be a typical dumb cross section of the general public who won't understand the issues so will say they think 0845 and 0870 are ok so long as they aren't called "local rate" and "national rate" any more and so long as there is a price announcement before each call.

Ofcom will not come out and recommend the banning of 0870 and 0845 revenue sharing, even though no less a party than BT has asked for this to happen.  This is because 0870 is New Labour stealth tax policy and Ofcom just does as it is jolly well told by the Labour Government.

The focus groups will just be used to prove that we who responded to the Ofcom consultation so vigorously are unrepresentative fanatics and that the majority of telecoms consumers are still not concerned about this issue.

Iquote]

I'm sorry but I find the response that you posted quite condersending. As a dumb member of the general public I think Ofcom will do better to have the views of people like me rather than people with agendas such as the telecoms company and people like yourself with a vested interest.

If a majority of people don't find this an issue then why as you stated should Ofcom change everything to satisfy a minority of fanatics?

As for been a New Labour stealth tax, come on be sensible these numbers were in use way Bliar and his mob came into power.

Come on then NGM, what's your vested interest?!!!! ::)

wrote on Mar 4^th, 2005 at 10:35am:

If a majority of people don't find this an issue then why as you stated should Ofcom change everything to satisfy a minority of fanatics? As for been a New Labour stealth tax, come on be sensible these numbers were in use way Bliar and his mob came into power.

The majority of people do not understand these issues because they have been subject to years of brainwashing that that 0870 is National Rate and 0845 is Local Rate.  Thus based on that disinformation they have come to the wrong conclusions.  Just look at the NHS - they apparently now believe that 0844 is "local rate" because NEG have told them it is and because the number is very close in digits to 0845

I think you will recall that in Germany between 1939 and 1945 when people were told that the Jews were an inferior race for long enough that many of them eventually believed it and did not rise up and question the policies of one A Hitler.

As for 0870 being heavily in use long before New Labour came to power this is just not so.  The truth is that OFTEL first allowed NTS in the mid 90s but for ages hardly any firms were on these numbers and it was very unusual to come across one.  It is only in the last 2 to 3 years that these numbers have mushroomed like some viral cancer across the uk business telephone number market.  I think you will find that in 1997, when Labour came to power, that no government department or agency used either an 0845 or an 0870 number.

I note this is your first post in this forum so I wonder if by any chance you may perhaps work at Ofcom?  If not it seems rather odd that you should have paid your first visit to this forum and to this thread just today.

wrote on Mar 4^th, 2005 at 10:51am:

Come on then NGM, what's your vested interest?!!!! ::)

My vested interest is that I hate being ripped off by having to pay hundreds of percent more to access just the same services that were once on geographic phone numbers.

As someone who works with numbers and financial data the unfairness and asymmetry of this data pattern offends me.

Also the fact that these numbers drive a coach and horses through Ofcom's alleged attempts to increase competition and reduce call costs in the uk fixed line telephone market.  With these NGN numbers there are no competitive forces at work on the customer side that can lower their prices.  Well possibly other than by more and more people eventually visiting this site and getting hold of the geographic phone numbers.  But the majority of the population are too ignorant and too lazy to bother doing that.

Also the reason that many people don't complain about having to call these numbers is because they ring them from work at their employers expense.  But they are therefore a hidden extra cost for business too in return for no extra service.

Isn't the point that originally 0870/0845 were introduced to equalise the cost of contact when rates for calls from different regions further apart were sometimes very varied & very high & therefore served a good purpose & it is only in recent times that since all daytime calls  now cost the same 3p per min wherever to wherever that these number became obsolete &   became an unnessecerily(?) expensive & profit making item

wrote on Mar 4^th, 2005 at 10:51am:

Dear Mr Labour Party supporter, I think you will recall that in Germany between 1939 and 1945 when people were told that the Jews were an inferior race for long enough that many of them eventually believed it and did not rise up and question the policies of one A Hitler. I note this is your first post in this forum so I wonder if by any chance you may perhaps work at Ofcom?  If not it seems rather odd that you should have paid your first visit to this forum and to this thread just today.

1. First of all I am not a Labour Party Supporter as you can see in my post I called him Bliar not Blair. I hope that the UK people will throw out this corrupt party in the next general election. To suggest that I am proves again that you are condescending to any who does not agree with your ideas.

2. The compare the extermination of the Jews in the 1940s to the abolition of 08 numbers I find highly objectional and in bad taste.

3. I do not work for Ofcom (again your condescending attitude shines through) but someone who is interested in the area.

4. I have visited this site a number of times but have not bothered to register or post any comments. However, after your comment concerning the general public I felt that I wanted to put my point to this forum. As the only way to do this was to register, that is why I have registered and posted on the same day.

For those who wish to read a balanced view of Ofcom and it's policies I would suggest visiting www.ofcomwatch.co.uk .

wrote on Mar 4^th, 2005 at 11:03am:

Isn't the point that originally 0870/0845 were introduced to equalise the cost of contact when rates for calls from different regions further apart were sometimes very varied & very high & therefore served a good purpose & it is only in recent times that since all daytime calls  now cost the same 3p per min wherever to wherever that these number became obsolete &   became an unnessecerily(?) expensive & profit making item

Oh dear,

You seem another person who too easily believes the cunning BT spin about the reasons that these numbers were introduced.

How can it be an advantage for any member of the public who was living in the local call area of a company to then find he had to call it at the national rate instead?  These numbers didn't improve the position for anyone who had to call the numbers at the BT National geographic rate anyway they just made the position worse for people who could previously call them at BT local rate.

0990/0870 never had a single customer benefit from the start and it was all downside from a customer point of view.  Especially as from back in 1997 or something I could call a uk geographic number for 2p per minute with AXS Telecom but as soon as it became 0990 it cost me 7.91p.  And since there was no saynoto0870.com then there was no way round it.

The only NTS numbers that had some vague claim to impoving life for everyone were 0845 which allowed numbers that most people previously had to call at the BT National rate to be able to be called at the BT Local Rate instead.  However the reality is that the BT 0845 local rate has for years been a lot more than it costs me to call any geographic number at the AXS/Tiscali etc indirect call routing national rate.  So for us price aware customers 0845 has never been better.  Also from the moment that BT Option 2 and 3 and equivalents were introduced 0845 was always excluded.

Unfortunately 0845 and 0870 have only ever had the genuine advantage of intelligent call routing for big organisations with several call centres.  But why the customer was made to pay extra for this instead of the organisations who were running these setups is not at all clear.  It is also not at all clear as to why Intelligent Call Routing could not have not have been offered from the outset on geographic phone numbers.

As I have said previously BT always knew exactly what it was doing with 0845 and 0870 numbers.  It was a cunning way for BT to keep up its call revenues while OFTEL decimated its profits with forced price changes to its geographic national call rates.  0845 and 0870 numbers were always in fact hugely more profitable for BT to originate and terminate calls on even though you like so many people unfortunately seem to believe the well told lie that once upon a time they were simply ordinary local and national rate calls.

wrote on Mar 4^th, 2005 at 11:07am:

For those who wish to read a balanced view of Ofcom and it's policies I would suggest visiting www.ofcomwatch.co.uk .

Having now visited this site I have to say that I had to overcome a very strong urge to fall asleep as I scrolled through its long, wordy and boring home page.

I also noticed that it contained praise of the great job that the boys at Ofcom were supposedly doing in relation to some particularly obscure consultation document or other that they had recently published.

wrote on Mar 4^th, 2005 at 11:31am:

Having now visited this site I have to say that I had to overcome a very strong urge to fall asleep as I scrolled through its long, wordy and boring home page. I also noticed that it contained praise of the great job that the boys at Ofcom were supposedly doing in relation to some particularly obscure consultation document or other that they had recently published.

Sorry but I don't think you actually read any of the posts. The site does not have a homepage as it is a blogg and is open to all to give their views.

Take this one for example

Regulators who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones

Playboy TV have been fined £25,000 by Ofcom for a breach to the ITC rules concerning a sexually explicit R18 broadcast, despite the likelihood that few if any people were harmed or offended, that the existing regulation in this area is obsolete, and that Ofcom are in the process of considering it’s removal. Whilst Ofcom considered Playboy’s transmission of 18-rated material before the watershed in encrypted form, and lesser unencrypted breaches on several occasions around that time to be serious aggravating circumstances, the R18 event was presented as the primary cause of the breach.

Perhaps it would have been better for Ofcom to await the out come of the new broadcasting code review of R18 content before jumping in with a financial penalty? If R18 is to be permitted it would seem harsh to impose such a penalty at this point. Of course Playboy should not have breached the existing rules, however the seriousness of this situation has been taken out of all proportion considering the context.

The real offender in this case is not Playboy but Ofcom and it's inability to create primary tier one broadcasting regulation in a reasonable time frame following legislative changes. As Ofcom clearly stated in the adjudication “Ofcom has a statutory duty pursuant to the Communications Act 2003, section 319 to set standards calculated to secure that persons under the age of 18 are protected, as well as having regard, where relevant, to likely audience expectations.”

I would therefore suggest that Ofcom now complies with it’s statutory duty and immediately sets those standards by finishing it’s work on the new broadcasting code, rather than delaying implementation for 4 months for political purposes. Relying on a code that was introduced by the ITC under an obsolete legal framework is unacceptable.

The delay in the production of the new code coupled with unnecessarily severe and disproportionate fine does nothing for the reputation of the regulator. Whilst the Ofcom sanctions committee “remains concerned that Playboy TV UK may still lack full and formal compliance training routines”, some members of the public have concerns that Ofcom still lacks a modern set of rules to be complied with.

It was also rather saddening to read that Ofcom chose to “remind the broadcasters of the boundaries in which they had to operate” without making a clear public statement at that time of where this boundary lies or even admitting that this activity had taken place, despite being specifically asked to do so.

Does this sound like a site devoted to praising Ofcom. As I stated in my post, this website provides a detailed and balanced view of what Ofcom is doing.

Ofcom have held a very expensive consultation exercise on 084x and 087x.  They may be thinking that the consultation has produced the “wrong answer”,  so they have setup focus groups to obtain “much better evidence.”
[It reminds me of the EU referendums – they keep holding them, until the voters “get it right” and vote in the way that the EU Commission wishes.]  
Ofcom are subject to investigation by the National Audit Office, in the way they conduct their business and value for money for the taxpayer.  It is important that Ofcom is kept to its statutory obligations:   “Ofcom exists to further the interests of citizen-consumers as the communications industries enter the digital age.”

If they do not; I for one, will be complaining to the National Audit Office.

I have made a complaint to the Audit Office [ John.Bourn@nao.gsi.gov.uk] about the NHS doctors surgeries scam, and the way the Department of Health has handled the issue,  by substituting one scam with another;  and the payments to doctors (and indirectly to NEG) of £500 for each practice who was involved in the scam.

A personal post script – It is my view that  personal comment and insult should be kept out or all posts,  including insulting comments about other organisations and personnel. In the end, a civilised debate is far more effective in producing results.  This should also extend to letters written to organisations; letters free of personal invective are far more likely to produce results.

TonyB,

If you look at my thread 'Ofcom and 0990/0870' you will see that I complained to Oftel in 1995 about the use of revenue sharing and increased costs of 0990 / 0870 numbers.
So it is hardly a new problem, it is in fact a problem that should never have been allowed, but when the Prefix codes were all changed the rules were not enforced about their use.
Remember that Ofcom SHOULD be there to protect the consumer, NOT the providers, but every decision it makes always has the proviso that it has to protect the industry.
I am still awaiting an answer to my letter to Ofcom as you will see from the thread,

cheers

Flutty

Not really 0870, but Ofcom has just ruled that GSM Gateways (explanation of what one is below) are illegal. Could the reason be that this would mean that the mobile networks would lose revenue?

GSM gateways are essentially masking devices that enable people or organizations to take advantage of lower rates for on-net calls.  

Grimp

After your posts I had a look at the Ofcomwatch site. I searched  the site for 0870.

I was rewarded by

a) a long list of summaries of  links to somewhat out of  to po0rly reported Ofcom 0870 statements.

b)Lists of the many sponsors of Ofcomwatch who sell 0870 numbers!

I may be wrong bot I have a feeling that Ofcomwatch has allowed  the diquiet over 0870 numbers to pass them by. Any comments  

If you feel that they are not covering the 0870 issue in enough detail and someone from this site wants to contribute then I'd advise that you contact them.

http://www.ofcomwatch.co.uk/mission.php

Want to blog? E-mail for access – blog@ofcomwatch.co.uk

Ofcomwatch is an informal group blog commenting on the processes and practices of the Office of Communications (Ofcom) and related media and communications regulation issues both in the United Kingdom and around the world.

Ofcomwatch is an equal opportunities blog with no overarching agenda. All political leanings and viewpoints are welcome. So our mission is also yours if you choose to accept it.

Accordingly Ofcomwatch is open to all. Want to blog? E-mail for access – blog@ofcomwatch.co.uk

Ofcomwatch aims to provide an independent, informal, non-partisan, well written, easily readable, occasionally humorous online resource.

Ofcomwatch also aims, over time, to form a discursive current of opinion that results in new perspectives and progressive thinking in regard to media and communications regulation in the United Kingdom.

Ofcomwatch encourages a wide range of representatives and stakeholders to join and participate in its discussion – journalists, community media groups, media and (tele)communications professionals, consumer groups, academics, lobbyists, charities, civil servants, politicians, lawyers, regulators and anyone else with an interest.

Ofcomwatch hopes to be seen by the Office of Communications (Ofcom) as a positive online resource – bolstering the regulators own (and the legislative) demands for external accountability whilst embracing the essence of democratic grassroots/community media activism.

wrote on Mar 4^th, 2005 at 2:29pm:

Ofcomwatch is an informal group blog commenting on the processes and practices of the Office of Communications (Ofcom) and related media and communications regulation issues both in the United Kingdom and around the world. Ofcomwatch is an equal opportunities blog with no overarching agenda. All political leanings and viewpoints are welcome. So our mission is also yours if you choose to accept it. Accordingly Ofcomwatch is open to all. Want to blog? E-mail for access – blog@ofcomwatch.co.uk

So the axe you were grinding was actually for the merits of Ofcomwatch rather than the merits of Ofcom.

Apologies for this.  Clearly my misunderstanding.

Apology accepted and just in case anyone was wondering I don't have any connection to this site.

I just think that it's unlikely that a select group of people are able to cover all aspects of Ofcoms work or influence their decisions. It is better for people to work together than on their own.  

Yes but to get back on topic - what will Ofcom actually do? Will it solve the current problems from the consumer point of view. Doubtful I still think because the government control Ofcom, Ofcom seem to have some unseverable (sorry about the spelling) alleigance (or obligation?) to BT, and the government do not want to lose the effective "additional stealth taxes" which they are making from revenue-sharing NGNs.

Ofcom must stop callers paying premiums to the telcos supplying these numbers. See Ofcom and banning revenue sharing. That way they can be aligned to normal geographical rates. Any compromise would result in the whole fiasco continuing. 084/087 providers would simply give companies other 'benefits' instead of handing over revenue, which the caller will be indirectly financing. This happens with the BBC at present where their 0870 numbers pay for their freephone numbers. This gives NGN providers even more room to make more dirty profits.

wrote on Mar 5^th, 2005 at 3:23pm:

Ofcom must stop callers paying premiums to the telcos supplying these numbers. See Ofcom and banning revenue sharing. That way they can be aligned to normal geographical rates. Any compromise would result in the whole fiasco continuing. 084/087 providers would simply give companies other 'benefits' instead of handing over revenue, which the caller will be indirectly financing. This happens with the BBC at present where their 0870 numbers pay for their freephone numbers. This gives NGN providers even more room to make more dirty profits.

Due to all the crap that Ofcom produces about being a light touch regulator I can't see them banning these numbers. I don't think that Ofcom would be prepared to face the wraith of all the companies that use 08 numbers having to change their stationary, signage, advertising etc... unless their was some sort of compensation from the Government but we all know that won't happen.

I think the best way forward is to raise the stigma attached to these numbers especially by public bodies. We have already seen the numbers banned from Dr's so just keep up the pressure on the other public sector organisations.

If all 087x/084x numbers ceased to be revenue sharing, and then had the characteristics of 01 or 02 numbers,  organisations that did not wish to share revenue, could continue to use them – with no need to change any letter headings.

If all revenue sharing numbers are confined to the 09 range, only organisations that required revenue sharing would need to change to an 09 number.

From information I have obtained using the FOI Act, some organisations only receive a small revenue from the use of 087x numbers.  It is clear that they are being ripped off by their own telecom provider, and would not need to move to an 09 number – or they may be reluctant to move to 09, as revenue sharing would be out in the open; shame may well stop them.

087x and 084x numbers are successful as they are clandestine revenue sharing numbers and offer organisations an opportunity to make a hidden profit from the unsuspecting (or captive) caller.

Indeed a number of operators are nervous about Ofcom's continuing researches and enquiries alerting their customers to the level of (lack of, in some cases) revenue share; they cite the high level of service offered, "ignoring" what might be available on 01/02 and VoIP.

OK, so when are we going to have Ofcom's decision on the NTS consultations?  ::)

Its been 11 months since the consultations were published and nearly 9 months since they closed. Is there no limit on how long it can take it to decide? IIRC, Matt Peacock said "early 2005" on Radio 4's You and Yours. Well it's now "late 2005" and still nothing.

Surely the point of the consultation was to 'improve' the current system. The longer it takes Ofcom to address these matters, the longer they are allowed to go on as is. Not only that, its decisions will be based on the responses written nearly a year ago!

OK, so there are many other things we can knock Ofcom for, but nearly a year to decide is ridiculous! I think that this point needs to be pushed with MPs and MEPs etc.

wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2005 at 4:47pm:

OK, so when are we going to have Ofcom's decision on the NTS consultations?  ::) Its been 11 months since the consultations were published and nearly 9 months since they closed. Is there no limit on how long it can take it to decide? IIRC, Matt Peacock said "early 2005" on Radio 4's You and Yours. Well it's now "late 2005" and still nothing.

In mid August Matt Peacock told BBC Radio 4's You & Yours program that their next NTS consultation (which will probably last another year)  would be published in early September.  Now it is late September...................and only a few weeks before that Mr Peacock was quoting an end August date.  Soon the Xmas season will be upon us rulling anything out before January....................

I would bet there is an almighty row going on between those at Ofcom who want to be seen to be tough by implementing the full BT recommendation (namely that all 0870 and 0845 numbers are charged at geographic rates and thus no longer revenue share) and those who say Ofcom must remain "light touch" and not upset any business contracts beween telecoms companies and call centres.  There may also be government ministers involved now as the government must be well aware just how politically sensitive an issue this has become.  They might have a business instinct to let the scamming continue but at a certain point they will have to yield if the public and media outcry becomes too much.

Ofcom know that if they are seen to be too weak they will be challenged on fulfilling their basic remit to protect citizens and consumers and there may be demands for the resignation of the CEO of Ofcom.  On the other hand they don't want to be too tough because then various people at Ofcom may not be thanked by their former business colleagues in the telecoms industry when they need to apply for another job there.  And don't forget how important it often is to be Thanked in many parts of life (as for instance if you are a poster over in the MonseySavingExpert forums ;)).

It is however an utter disgrace that Ofcom should still allow BT to get away with using the terms Lo-Call and Local Rate to describe 0845 and the terms National Call and/or National Rate to describe 0870 calls.  Unlike changing the actual revenue share arrangements banning the description of these numbers as Local and National rate this could easily have been done with immediate effect back on 1st July 2004 (when BT abolished Standard Line Rental and made BT Option 1 a compulsory minimum).

But then Ofcom have almost never in their entire history been reknowned for any form of bold or consumer friendly direct action.

wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2005 at 4:47pm:

OK, so when are we going to have Ofcom's decision on the NTS consultations?

I wrote to Ofcom just yesterday asking this very same question together with a date when the last NTS focus group notes will be made available. So far, no response. The usual pattern with my communication with Ofcom relating to NTS is that it ignores my request until I submit it a second time as a FOI request. If no reaponse to what is a very simple request is received by Tuesday, it will be submitted as a FOI. What a crazy situation.

wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2005 at 5:03pm:

Ofcom know that if they are seen to be too weak they will be challenged...

But nearly a year later; it's almost as though Ofcom's just putting it off hoping it will go away.

It has severely underestimated the time it needed to decide. Why?

wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2005 at 5:29pm:

But nearly a year later; it's almost as though Ofcom's just putting it off hoping it will go away. It has severely underestimated the time it needed to decide. Why?

Because unlike people in business Ofcom don't get fined or get fired if they continually fall down on meeting the deadlines that they claimed to be working too.  And they have to fit in all those lengthy holidays that their substantial salaries allow them to regularly take.

Personally I can't see why they needed more than 3 months max to do their consumer research and write another report. And of course the longer they delay means the longer the telecoms companies get to continue putting millions of pounds a day into their pockets.

Perhaps this little email I just received in response to somthing I just sent to Geoff Brighton suggests nothing further is likely to be forthcoming next week?  Alternatively Geoff has in fact finished his work so next week will indeed see Ofcom's announcement.

-----Original Message-----
From: Geoff Brighton [mailto:Geoff.Brighton@ofcom.org.uk]
Sent: 23 September 2005 18:43
Subject: Out of Office AutoReply: Deletion from Ofcom Website of Submission by Leicester City Council Trading Standards Dept

I am now out of the office until Monday 3 October

NGM, I notice that the subject line in your email to Geoff Brighton is to do with the removal of Leicester County Council's TS response to a consultation on 0845/0870 numbers.

The link to it doesn't work, but as seems to be the case with Ofcom, it moves things around on the website and can't come up with a way of leaving the URLs for documents alone. It's rather like coming up with a telephone numbering plan and then changing it because the plan doesn't suit.

The document you refer to can be found here.

wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2005 at 6:28pm:

The document you refer to can be found here.

Dave,

Many thanks as ever for your help.  It only goes to show there are few similarities indeed in personality type between two people who share the same first name ;)

Its strange the document is still in fact there when a use of Ofcom's Search function for "Leicester City Council" and "price indication" produced no result.  How exactly did you manage to find it?

Still it would be stupid of me to think that Ofcom ought to be good with the management of information!

My suggestion to Matt Peacock was in fact that Ofcom's CEO was possibly trying to revise history in a somewhat Stalinist manner (of course I suppose Ofcom may well choose to see this as being as politically incorrect as some of my previous German historical analogies!)

wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2005 at 6:37pm:

Its strange the document is still in fact there when a use of Ofcom's Search function for "Leicester City Council" and "price indication" produced no result.  How exactly did you manage to find it?

I looked for the consultation on the Ofcom site. I assumed that they'd just moved some stuff and that even Ofcom wouldn't just delete it to make room on their server or for some other reason.

You obviously gave up after searching and sent Ofcom another email. Maybe dealing with Ofcom brings out a pessimistic attitude in you. ::)

Anyway, you asked, so here it is:

In my email to Manchester TS, here, I mentioned the consultation title and date. Armed with that information, I went to the Ofcom site, selected Consultations -> Consultation Documents. Filter: Telecoms. They are in cronological order, so look at last page. Hey Presto! Just one consultation published on 26/09/03.

wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2005 at 7:18pm:

Anyway, you asked, so here it is: In my email to Manchester TS, here, I mentioned the consultation title and date. Armed with that information, I went to the Ofcom site, selected Consultations -> Consultation Documents. Filter: Telecoms. They are in cronological order, so look at last page. Hey Presto! Just one consultation published on 26/09/03.

I can see that armed with that information Dave that hunting for the needle amongst the haystack that is the Ofcom Consultations area would not be quite such a daunting task.

But why oh why doesn't their search function across the whole website properly.  You would think that specialists in broadcasting and telecommunications would be able to get such things right.  After all they don't even have the usual excuse of being only bumbling civil servants who are no good at the commercial management of information.

But then of course I have not allowed for their own cunning masterplan of always passing off their glaring favouritism towards the commercial interests of  the telecoms and broadcasting industries as being just a matter of simple ineptitude on their part  ::)

The latest information on the Ofcom site that I can find on the state of play with regards NTS is the minutes of the NTS Focus Group meeting on 11 July 2005 (see here). That even says another consultation would be ready by 3 August.

The lastest NTS Focus Group meeting was last Friday, 16 September.

The Ofcom Consumer Panel attacked Ofcom's Options for the Future document with regards lack of concern for the general consumer in its response:

Quote:

15. Our understanding is that there is no external pressure driving Ofcom to conclude its review of NTS by a particular date. There is therefore time for Ofcom to take careful stock of this consultation and to consider the issues noted above: the strength of the evidence base; the rigour with which the consumer interest has been analysed; the way in which the consumer interest has driven – or not – the regulatory balance that is being proposed. 16. The Panel’s advice to Ofcom is, for all of these reasons, to reconsider its proposed approach to the NTS regime.

That said, disappointingly, the Panel's meetings notes stop at May 2005.

I emailed Colette Bowe, Chairman of the Ofcom Consumer Panel, to express my concern about the way that Ofcom's thinking appeared to be developing at the NTS Focus Group meetings.  Specifically that they once again appeared to have forgotten about their mission to primarily consider  the interests of citizens and consumers.

This was some weeks ago but unfortunately she has not so far seen fit to reply.

The NTS Focus Group is for a specific part of the industry:

Quote:

1. The NTS Focus Group is an Ofcom sponsored industry group open to network operators who have an interconnect agreement with BT. The purpose of the group is to act as a forum for the discussion of a broad range of issues relating to the regulation, charging and operation of the UK Number Translation Services regime. 2. The aim of the group is to prioritise and address the NTS issues faced by network operator stakeholders. In particular, the group will focus on issues relating to the arrangements for NTS call origination, operator interaccounting / billing and the continued development of the UK's NTS market. See Terms of Reference.

Sorry everyone but this is somewhat off topic

Grimp

 
Because this topic has recently been reopened I looked back over past posts and found mine in March to which you replied and I must apologised that I missed your posts.

I did indeed follow your advice and applied by email for access to write a blog on Ofcomwatch. I was subjected to a phone interview by I suppose one of those who run the site. I was asked on what kind of subjects I would offer articles. There was a distinct lack of interest when I replied that I would like to blog about the 0870/0845 controversy which I felt was not well represented on the site. I was not accepted to blog.

So much for your 'it is open to all'. I would suggest it might be open to all 'if you do not upset our sponsers' A site called Ofcomwatch that does not address the 0845/0870 issue and which claimed it had some influence with Ofcom is not only not watching Ofcom but might reinforce Ofcom's stance that the general public is not interested.

wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2005 at 10:20pm:

I did indeed follow your advice and applied by email for access to write a blog on Ofcomwatch. I was subjected to a phone interview by I suppose one of those who run the site. I was asked on what kind of subjects I would offer articles. There was a distinct lack of interest when I replied that I would like to blog about the 0870/0845 controversy which I felt was not well represented on the site. I was not accepted to blog.

Matt Peacock at Ofcom suggested I should try to contribute to Ofcomwatch but when I looked at their site I was not convinced that they would be appreciative of Saynoto0870 style contributions.  So I didn't bother to apply.

So far as I can see Ofcom and OfcomWatch are well suited to one another as both of them avoid all of the really big issues currently facing the telecoms industries.

wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2005 at 5:13pm:

I wrote to Ofcom just yesterday asking this very same question together with a date when the last NTS focus group notes will be made available. So far, no response. The usual pattern with my communication with Ofcom relating to NTS is that it ignores my request until I submit it a second time as a FOI request. If no reaponse to what is a very simple request is received by Tuesday, it will be submitted as a FOI. What a crazy situation.

No response was received, however, a FOI request submitted elicits an almost immediate reply from Ofcom. It is incredible that this organization is unwilling to answer NTS questions from the public unless they are part of a FOI request. Anyway, the substantive part of the reply is as follows:

<<
The conclusion of the "NTS Options for the future" consultation is due to be published this week and will be made available on Ofcom’s website. Copies of the minutes of the NTS Focus Group held on Thursday August 11, 2005 at 2.00pm have not been made available to Ofcom. However;  upon receipt of these I will forward a copy to you.
>>

Ofcom failed to respond to my question as to why it has taken nine months to publish an outcome.

There is no need to mention FOI in a request for information, for the request to be covered by FOI Act.

However, asking a question of an organisation is not necessarily the same thing as requesting information that they hold.

wrote on Sep 27^th, 2005 at 3:31pm:

There is no need to mention FOI in a request for information, for the request to be covered by FOI Act. However, asking a question of an organisation is not necessarily the same thing as requesting information that they hold.

Agreed, but this wholly incompetent and clueless agency has never replied to any question or request for information that I have submitted unless that question or information request is shaped into a FOI submission.

By using FOI, the agency *has* to respond within a given timeframe, although UKPS and Hertfordshire coppers seem to have an examption to ignore that requirement.

In fairness to Ofcom, it has always met the twenty working day requirement in its responses to my submissions.

wrote on Sep 27^th, 2005 at 3:40pm:

Agreed, but this wholly incompetent and clueless agency has never replied to any question or request for information that I have submitted unless that question or information request is shaped into a FOI submission.

That is because the Ofcom Contact Centre to whom you presumably initially ask your always ignored non FOI questions is manned by staff who have been trained by the so called Contact Centre management team to show nothing but outright contempt or disdain for any customer complaint or enquiry.

This corrosive culture of incompetence and cynicism seemingly emanates from the way the telecoms part of the contact centre was set up in OFTEL days and I can only assume these senior managers in the Ofcom Contact Centre must previously have worked for either BT Customer Services or possibly for British Rail. ::) :o

But if you submit an FOI the Contact Centre staff seem to have been trained that these enquiries are from intelligent people who might cause them some trouble and where the "treat with contempt and ignore" normal contact centre approach does not work so your email then escapes from the Ofcom Contact Centre into other parts of Ofcom where able, competent and conscientious members of staff are in some cases employed to respond.

Any non FOI complaint to the Ofcom Contact Centre invariably gets the response that Ofcom is not responsible for this issue and so there is nothing it can do!  That is even when Ofcom is actually responsible for taking action on the particular issue concerned. :o

By the way have you noticed that we are now nearly in October.  Perhaps we should submit an FOI request to Ofcom to ask for its definition of the words August and September ;) ;D