This may of interest to others in the forum. Back in 1993 I wrote to the then OFTEL complaining about 0990 numbers (these were changed to 0870 during the big number change).
OFTEL totally rejected the idea that any form of revenue sharing was possible on these numbers and also stated that all users of these numbers should always clearly show the cost of the call.
So you can see how powerful OFTEL / OFCOM are, 12 years later and hardly anyone advertises the costs of these calls. So dont hold your breath for OFCOM to do anything.
I have now written to OFCOM with a copy of the letter and their reply, it will be very interesting to see how they respond to their lack of action.
Watch this space  ;D

Flutty

Can you post a copy of the letter here?

wrote on Feb 10^th, 2005 at 8:29pm:

So you can see how powerful OFTEL / OFCOM are, 12 years later and hardly anyone advertises the costs of these calls. So dont hold your breath for OFCOM to do anything.

About 3 years ago I managed to speak on the phone to the then OFTEL Director responsible for the 084/087 NTS issue.

He was a former BT man and basically totally patronising in his approach which was that as there was massive price competition for the best deal for those wishing to set up 0870 numbers that OFTEL was totally happy with the situation and saw no need to get involved.  When then quizzed on the extra calling cost issue and lack of competition for retail consumers he then just fell back on the excuse that it was only the same price as the BT Local Rate and National Rate.  

I pointed out that people like AXS Telecom (which then became Liberty Surf and then Tiscali) were only charging 2p per minute for geographic phone calls but he completely ducked this one as it wasn't costing standard BT Joe Bloggs on Standard BT line rental any more, even though of course it was because 0870 numbers were always excluded from Friends and Family and My Best Friend calling discounts.

My perception of OFCOM, as opposed to Oftel, is that the place was manned from top to bottom by loads of former BT staff and that they were only going through the motions by recommending a few small price reductions here and there while BT still racked up huge profits.

I see absolutely no reason why the phone industry was not broken up in the same way as happened for gas and electricity and had this happened I would not have to pay BT £168 for keeping a thin copper wire connected into my house even though I do not make a single phone call with that company.  By contrast Sutton & East Surrey Water only charge me £20 a year to keep my water pipe connected to the house and the bill is only about £70 per annum including all the water for a 2 bedroom apartment.

I have sent off my letter to Ofcom, Recorded Delivery, as they are very fond of mislaying correspondence. As soon as I have a reply I will post up both their reply and my original letter from them in 93/95.

Flutty

wrote on Feb 15^th, 2005 at 4:06pm:

I have sent off my letter to Ofcom, Recorded Delivery, as they are very fond of mislaying correspondence. As soon as I have a reply I will post up both their reply and my original letter from them in 93/95. Flutty

I do hope Stepen Carter (CEO) does not refer your letter to his Head of Policy, Kip Meek.

Unfortunately the said gentleman seems to totally live up to his name by never mustering the energy to actually reply to any letter passed to him by his boss (presumably he is always on a permanent Kip) and any form of policy output is always suitably Meek (as per Ofcom's pathetic NTS papers on the Call Termination Market Review and NTS Options for the Future).

Both of these documents essentially stated that Ofcom's preferred position was to make the current unbridled banditry even easier and more flexible for the telecoms industry to conduct.  They also seemed to be on a complete Kip regarding the question of the need for any form of additional consumer protection.

I recently sent an email to Ofcom complaining about the Premium rate 0870 numbers and post here the complete reply. It provides an interesting insight into their "official" position. Note they DO provide a geographic number as well as a 0845 number!

*******************

Thank you for your recent e-mail to Ofcom. By way of background, I should explain that 0845 and 0870 numbers are known as Number Translation Services (NTS), i.e. the non-geographic number sits on top of a geographic number.  

The NTS regime was created to encourage development of reasonably priced, nationwide single contact numbers for businesses and organisations to provide information and contact services to consumers. The 0845/0870 range is intended for ‘value-added’ services, that is, the caller gains value beyond the conveyance of the call. Value-added services include information and contact services and the revenue generated from the call may contribute to its provision and improved customer service.

Not all service providers use such numbers specifically to earn revenue from calls. The level of payments received for each call is in fact very small and service providers often choose 08 numbers for other reasons, such as to use advanced call answering features which can be used to vary the way calls are answered and routed depending on time of day or location of caller.

However, whilst it remains the commercial decision of service providers as to what type of number they wish to use to offer their services, Ofcom is aware of growing consumer dissatisfaction with the increasing use of 0870 numbers for information and access services. As a result, we are now actively working with advertising regulators and consumer bodies to agree how prices for calls to 0845 and 0870 numbers should be advertised in order to minimise the risk of consumers being misled.

We are also re-examining the way in which the entire NTS regime operates and we are consulting on our proposals.  One of the possible options could be to require originating operators to provide price warnings of the prices of NTS calls before connecting the call, but we have not finalised any views yet.

The consultation is available on our website at

http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/ntsoptions/

If you are interested in receiving further updates on this subject, you may wish to register for the automatic notification of telecoms related updated at

http://www.ofcom.org.uk/static/subscribe/select_list.htm

Yours sincerely

Katy Emadi
Ofcom Contact Centre :: Telecoms Support
contact@ofcom.org.uk

:: Ofcom
   Riverside House
   2a Southwark Bridge Road
   London SE1 9HA
   020 7981 3040
   0845 456 3000
   www.ofcom.org.uk

wrote on Feb 16^th, 2005 at 3:36am:

Ofcom is aware of growing consumer dissatisfaction with the increasing use of 0870 numbers for information and access services. As a result, we are now actively working with advertising regulators and consumer bodies to agree how prices for calls to 0845 and 0870 numbers should be advertised in order to minimise the risk of consumers being misled. We are also re-examining the way in which the entire NTS regime operates and we are consulting on our proposals.

So consumers are only unhappy about 0870 according to Ofcom then?

Speaking personally I am even more incensed about the misuse of 0845 numbers, most of whom are run by non profit making organisations with a duty to provide services to the taxpayer, that is the general public, who are already paying for the operation of these organisations.

Most of the 0845 operators are in non competitive market segments where there is no rival company you can take your business too and so there is no alternative place to where the member of the public can take their telephone business.

Even the BT board, who set up this scam, are now so ashamed of its excessive successes that they want revenue sharing banned on 0845 and 0870 although strangely not on 0871 which if allowed would be a complete coach and horses through what would otherwise be a very worthwhile change.

One hopes that the Ofcom contact centre people are behind the times and that in view of the strength of views that Ofcom have received (including those of their own Consumer Panel who are clearly very unimpressed with the preferred Option 2 Ofcom position) that they will be forced into going with their own Option 4 or some very close derivative thereof.

0870 and 0845 is now so widely entrenched on such a massively abusive scale that the only solution is to turn them back into ordinary price local and national rate calls and to require any of the scamster minded commercial operators (eg Easyjet and TopUpTv who both use 0871) to go through the much tougher controls of ICSTIS 09 price regulation (this would include call tariff warning announcements).

Ofcom's current position that a  bit more information to the public on the cost of the calls would stop 0845 and 0870 in their tracks is totally wrong.  It is too late.  Things have moved on too far.  Too much has been spent on promoting the numbers.  Some of the numbers have no geographic counterparts etc.

The only solution is to prevent all 084 and 087 revenue sharing and to get 084 ISPs to migrate to another number range - eg commencing 04.  Dial Up ISPs are a dying business anyway so this will just help speed up the final migration to cable and broadband internet and also assist with further reduced broadband pricing.

wrote on Feb 16^th, 2005 at 3:36am:

[...] However, whilst it remains the commercial decision of service providers as to what type of number they wish to use to offer their services, Ofcom is aware of growing consumer dissatisfaction with the increasing use of 0870 numbers for information and access services. As a result, we are now actively working with advertising regulators and consumer bodies to agree how prices for calls to 0845 and 0870 numbers should be advertised in order to minimise the risk of consumers being misled. We are also re-examining the way in which the entire NTS regime operates and we are consulting on our proposals.  One of the possible options could be to require originating operators to provide price warnings of the prices of NTS calls before connecting the call, but we have not finalised any views yet. [...]

This is worrying. It implies that these numbers will continue. I suspect that most people who use this resource do not care how 0870 is charged, advertised or operated - we just want to see the end of rip-off numbers as there is no need for them. Ofcom, as usual, will do very little and will of course favor the big businesses and other rip-off merchants that spam these numbers all over the UK. There will be little use for local phone books in a couple of years - any business in the UK will simply have an 0871 number for extortion purposes and the UK public will just go along with it as it can't be bothered to complain. Just who is Ofcom supposed to be protecting? Not me, that's for sure.

wrote on Feb 16^th, 2005 at 3:09pm:

This is worrying. It implies that these numbers will continue.

No the scam probably won't continue for much longer.  The original NTS Options for the Future Ofcom report (on which their current letters to the public are based) was written by some telecoms industry friendly idiot there (in fact I think his name is probably Geoff Brighton) but the level of wrath in the responses is such that Ofcom will have to do more than they originally proposed, especially now that MPs are asking questions to government departments and now that the COI have again changed their guidance to say that Intelligent Call Routing is available on geographic numbers.

Read both Page 21 of the BT response and the Ofcom Consumer Panel response here (www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/ntsoptions) and you will realise that the game has to be up for 0845 and 0870 in their current form.  It is just a matter of time.  The only solution is to reclassify them at the same prices as geographic phone calls with no revenue share and tough luck if any businesses go under as a result.

Matt Peacock at Ofcom's suggestion that all non geo numbers can have their geo equivalent number published instead is baloney when some of them don't actually have a geo equivalent at all because they are VOIP routed or because the call can be shunted round one of 6 different regional centres.  The only solution is for them to cost no more than other uk geographic calls.  Full stop.  End of story.  Instant solution.

[quote author=NonGeographicalMan Matt Peacock at Ofcom's suggestion that all non geo numbers can have their geo equivalent number published instead is baloney when some of them don't actually have a geo equivalent at all because they are VOIP routed or because the call can be shunted round one of 6 different regional centres.  The only solution is for them to cost no more than other uk geographic calls.  Full stop.  End of story.  Instant solution.[/quote]

But that still leaves anyone who is on an inclusive package paying twice for the 084/087 call

wrote on Feb 16^th, 2005 at 7:51pm:

But that still leaves anyone who is on an inclusive package paying twice for the 084/087 call

Whether it would or wouldn't I don't know.

What I do know is I've not yet found one of those 'inclusive' packages which costs less than I pay using 18866 during the week and OneTel's StandardUKTalk at weekends.  A so-called 'inclusive' package invariably costs £9.99 or so - that's more than 30 calls each day, every day, using 18866.

wrote on Feb 16^th, 2005 at 7:51pm:

But that still leaves anyone who is on an inclusive package paying twice for the 084/087 call

No it doesn't leave you paying twice for 0845 and 0870 under the current BT proposals.

The BT proposal is that 0845 and 0870 numbers are normalised in every respect and for billing purpose become exactly the same as a geographic number, even though unfortunately the area code still won't give you a clue as to where the number is actually located.

So in summary with say 18866 a 20 minute call to an 0870 number would could cost you 1p and on BT Option 3 a 20 minute call to an 0870 number would cost you zilch.

The whole NTS scam is now so exposed that the companies concerned on 0870 would just have to take the loss of revenue and none of them could face the public loathing associated with moving on to 0906.  Also as 20 minute queues would not be allowed on 0906 most of the 0870 merchants simply wouldn't be able to comply with ICSTIS's terms and conditions.  There is no way Easyjet would dare risk 0906 in view of how long they can keep you waiting sometimes.

NonGeographicalMan puts the case against 087x and 0845 numbers in his usual lucid and comprehensive way.  

For completeness - and noting the call box scam previously highlighted by N G Man – he must also mean that dialling a 0870 and 0845 numbers from a call box should also cost the same as dialling an 01/02 number.

The scam is so scandalous, it is worth repeating again and again.  From a BT call box, 0870 and 0845 numbers both cost the same; which is surprising to say the least.  And the cost of both calls is,   10p for every 55 seconds plus a 10p connection fee.  01/02 numbers cost 10p for 7.5 minutes plus a 10p connection fee.  (All subject to a minimum 30p charge).

KK

wrote on Feb 16^th, 2005 at 10:48pm:

NonGeographicalMan puts the case against 087x and 0845 numbers in his usual lucid and comprehensive way.   For completeness - and noting the call box scam previously highlighted by N G Man – he must also mean that dialling a 0870 and 0845 numbers from a call box should also cost the same as dialling an 01/02 number.

I didn't realise BT charged a 10p connection fee from the payphones too.  That is even more scandalous when there is no connection fee (apart from the 5p minimum but at least that buys you call time) from any residential BT landline.  The people I called on the BT payphone helpline didn't tell me about that little scam and I must confess I do not use a BT payphone for many of my calls.  Especially not now that they are no longer the cheapest way to make 0870 calls.

But yes I do mean that the BT proposal to Ofcom (their so called modified Option 2 which is actually more like Option 3) is that 0870 and 0845 calls will not cost any more than the BT Payphone rate for 01 and 02 calls.

The BT response to Ofcom talks about all 0870 and 0845 calls being charged at the BT Retail local and BT Retail national rates in future, which is a little wooly to say the least given that they do not actually currently have a BT Retail local and national rate (they only have BT Standard and BT Option 1, 2 and 3 call rates).

So to resolve this confusion I spoke at length on her mobile number (12p per minute even with 18866 - ouch) to Kath Embleton who is named as the contact on the front of the BT Consultation document and quite clearly wrote most of it.  I spoke to Kath before her mobile number was pulled from the front of the document a week or two ago.

Kath made it perfectly clear that the BT board's wish is for 0845 and 0870 numbers to be normalised to the same price as other 01 and 02 calls and that although there isn't a single BT Retail local and national rate at present that is what they mean and want to introduce.

She is a very frank northern lady who on her own admission is nearing retirement with BT and she likened some of the anomalies in BT's pricing structures and call tariffs to being a bit like "a dog living with fleas".  It was very refreshing to know that somebody as unpolitically correct as Kath was behind the BT response (although obviously the whole BT board looked at it and signed it off).  Its also clear that BT were originally behind the development of NTS but I don't think that even the BT board imagined the present use/misuse of these numbers going as far as it now has and clearly the water has now got far too hot even for them.

So in summary unless Ofcom have a death wish and completely ignore BT's own consumer friendly proposal the days of 0845 and 0870 phone call overcharging would appear to be quite literally numbered

wrote on Feb 16^th, 2005 at 11:55pm:

...Its also clear that BT were originally behind the development of NTS but I don't think that even the BT board imagined the present use/misuse of these numbers going as far as it now has and clearly the water has now got far too hot even for them.

Let's not forget that the prices of these numbers have been kept high to allow competition into the 084/087 market. As new providers entered the market they (presumably, in their wisdom) decided to provide revenue as an incentive to their 'customers'. This was nothing to do with BT! This, in turn, has fuelled the greed of businesses (even small ones) to change to these numbers.

Now BT wish to reduce the price paid to these providers. Won't this just force some out and affirm BT's domination of the market?

wrote on Feb 17^th, 2005 at 8:22pm:

Now BT wish to reduce the price paid to these providers. Won't this just force some out and affirm BT's domination of the market?

Sometimes Dave I am left wondering just exactly which side you are on!

The point is that almost no 0870 or 0845 phone number leads to a value added service in the way originally envisaged by OFTEL and there is absolutely zero regulation of the content of these services to check up on this.

I can just visit a website press a couple of buttons and voila I have such a number and no one knows who the hell I am or what service I am providing.  By contrast the ICSTIS 09 regime is quite different and becoming ever stricter.

Whatever you say NTS was orginally a BT originated proposal to OFTEL to which the ever BT friendly Mr Dave Edmonds (who seems to have just cleared his desk at Ofcom today judging from a Not Read message I got to one of my emails and the fact that emails to his Ofcom address are now bouncing back) amazingly enough gave his usual spineless approval.

There is no competition at all for the consumer in 084x and 087x calls because the customers are mainly captive and cannot shop around.  It is like a situation where you have to buy all your Mars bars at only one shop and they can set what price they like.  Surely you of all people don't buy all the Ofcom baloney about added value extra services on 084 and 087.  The only added value on these numbers is Intelligent Routing and the people paying for this should have been the companies, due to the cost savings to their businesses, and not their callers.

The only solution now is an extended Ofcom NTS Options for the Future Proposal 4 with all 084 and 087 revenue sharing banned, except that dialup ISPs could continue to revenue share (without being regulated by ICSTIS) on a new number range starting 04.  Its a shame that the dialup ISPs have to spend a bit of effort migrating these customers but its the only way to unscramble the revenue sharing dialup traffic from the 0845 voice traffic which should not be allowed to cost any more than a geographic national phone call does with whatever telecoms provider you are with.

BT surely actually do make lots of money out of 084x and 087x calls because they terminate the vast majority of these calls and earn far more from them (especially weekday daytime on 0870) than from terminating an ordinary geographic uk phone call.

Also surely the only reason Mr Darren Thomas of Blue Telecom ( www.bluetelecom.co.uk ) can offer his cheap free rider calls at 1p a time on Call18866 (presumably spare capacity from the larger business side of that telecoms companys main business) is because termination of a geographic call by BT costs him almost nothing whereas termination of an 0870 call is over 5p a minute in the weekday daytime.  Or have I missed something somewhere?

wrote on Feb 17^th, 2005 at 9:13pm:

Sometimes Dave I am left wondering just exactly which side you are on!

The competition I was referring to was the competition in companies providing these numbers. I wasn't suggesting a solution, more giving a reason why BT would be happy to see the price these calls cut.

As for why introduce 0990 in the first place. It is one thing to have local rate non-geographical numbers, but national rate (in the true sense of the words) rips-off those calling locally.

The idea of NTS should be kept separate from [Ofcom's] idea of a 'value-added' service. You say it was BT that proposed these services in the first place. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the reason that the charges for these numbers have been kept so high is due to Oftel/Ofcom rules. What has this got to do with BT and why is it BT's fault?

wrote on Feb 17^th, 2005 at 9:38pm:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the reason that the charges for these numbers have been kept so high is due to Oftel/Ofcom rules. What has this got to do with BT?

I don't think you will find that Ofcom actually set the call termination prices for 084x and 087x or the revenue share given to call centre operators.  These prices are actually determined by so called market forces.  But the main market forces here are a bidding war by the people offering these numbers to give the companies who run the call centres an ever higher pence per minute amount so as to get the business.

Since BT have Significant Market Power, according to Ofcom's own document, and BT terminate the largest number of 084x and 087x calls then surely they have the greatest control over the prices offered to terminate calls to these numbers.  The reason that prices do not fall significantly for terminating these calls is becase there is no competition for the consumer who pays the same price wherever he goes so he cannot drive down the prices paid in revenue share to the call centre operators.

NTS was surely originally a BT developed device to protect its future call revenue stream at a time when geographic call prices were being forced down constantly but they cunningly managed to dress up the main benefit as being a national presence and Intelligent Routing.

From the very moment I could first route geographic calls on my BT line with other providers like AXS Telecom at 2p per minute about 7 years ago I could never ever get the same price on 0990/0870.  This is because BT were always earning more from terminating these calls long before the revenue shares back to the call centre operators ever got so aggresively good as they are now.

The sales and marketing side of BT would I am sure love to see 084x and 087x carry on but they also have a corporate governance and social responsibility side to their actions and the whole 084x and 087x is now so obviously a rip off for the consumer that they can no longer justify it at a corporate level.  Surely no one is actually going to lose more financially if 084x and 087x revenue sharing is banned than BT?

wrote on Feb 17^th, 2005 at 9:55pm:

I don't think you will find that Ofcom actually set the call termination prices for 084x and 087x or the revenue share given to call centre operators.  These prices are actually determined by so called market forces.  But the main market forces here are a bidding war by the people offering these numbers to give the companies who run the call centres an ever higher pence per minute amount so as to get the business.

I understand that when BT originates an NTS call it keeps only the amount to carry that call, and has to pass on the rest to the TCP. It is Oftel/Ofcom that has stated this. So other OCPs don't stand a chance of bringing down the price of these calls. Add to that the fact that BT will be a Transit CP for many NTS calls, it can only be BT who determine what (pretty much) everyone pays.

The reason for saying what I say is because it is down to Ofcom to intervene. Do you expect BT to simply reduce the price of the calls when it has no incentive to do so?

wrote on Feb 17^th, 2005 at 10:40pm:

Add to that the fact that BT will be a Transit CP for many NTS calls, it can only be BT who determine what (pretty much) everyone pays. The reason for saying what I say is because it is down to Ofcom to intervene. Do you expect BT to simply reduce the price of the calls when it has no incentive to do so?

But surely BT is also a TCP for a very large number of these calls and it is the TCP operator who effectively sets the prices and ultimately determines what the OCP is then forced to charge its customers just to make a living.

But I don't work in the telecoms industry so it is only my intelligent layman's attempt to understand a system that seems to be one of the most deliberately anticompetitive and consumer unfriendly setups that one could possibly imagine.

Regarding BT what I don't expect to happen is for its salesmen to have spent so long blatantly misleading companies that in switching to 0845 calls that they were doing the right thing by letting people call them from across the country at the local rate only for BT to then change the rules of the game and abolish any distinction between local and national call prices.  BT salesman have also long been dishonest by not telling their prey that 0845 calls have always been excluded from all inclusive calling plans and have always cost more with than national geographic call prices with many third party carriers like Tiscali etc.

I managed to persuade the government funded Leaseholder Advisory Service to restore their geographical number to their website only the other day.  They were horrified when they discovered 0845 actually costs far more for people to call them than a geographic phone number.

No I don't expect BT to reduce the price of the calls on its own but I do expect Ofcom to make it illegal for them to be allowed to be called "local rate" and "national rate" and for that to have happened a long time ago.  I also expect Ofcom to make it illegal to revenue share unless you go through ICSTIS style controls to set up a revenue sharing number.

You seem very sympathetic to the BT cause Dave.  You don't by some chance work for them or something?  Even if only as an engineer or whatever rather than on the commercial side.

wrote on Feb 17^th, 2005 at 10:59pm:

Regarding BT what I don't expect to happen is for its salesmen to have spent so long blatantly misleading companies that in switching to 0845 calls that they were doing the right thing by letting people call them from across the country at the local rate only for BT to then change the rules of the game and abolish any distinction between local and national call prices.  BT salesman have also long been dishonest by not telling their prey that 0845 calls have always been excluded from all inclusive calling plans and have always cost more with than national geographic call prices with many third party carriers like Tiscali etc.

Why single out BT, this happens with all other providers? Also, as I mentioned previously, there are many other companies using these tactics to sell 084/087 numbers.

The fact is that it was inevitable that prices for (geographical) calls would fall. The rates for 0845/0870 numbers were only linked on BT's tariffs, as stipulated by the regulator. If BT were to have reduced its 0845/0870 numbers in line with BT Together rates, would there not be an uproar from providers of these numbers? Can you not see that BT cannot win? It's in a catch-22 situation!


wrote on Feb 17^th, 2005 at 10:59pm:

You seem very sympathetic to the BT cause Dave.  You don't by some chance work for them or something?  Even if only as an engineer or whatever rather than on the commercial side.

No, I don't work for BT. My dad is an ex-BT engineer.

I view the whole privatisation of the telecoms industry as a shambles. The whole idea of falling prices has been created using illusions created by the industry as a whole. BT withdrew Standard last year (see my thread on The Scream! forums, BT Standard tariff to be abolished). One big reason why I think that it was withdrawn was because BT's competitors often compared their tariffs to BT Standard. Advertising watchdogs didn't stop this. The competition within the telecoms industry seems to be built on these sorts of half truths and confustion marketing.

BT Together was introduced with lower rates that Standard, where all calls were charged per minute. Then they changed it in 2003, but kept the name. They quietly dropped £2.40 worth of call time! In 2004 they trumpeted a £1 reduction!!! We know that these sorts of halve truths have sold many businesses 084/087 numbers by calling them 'national rate' etc. BT is just one player, and to single it out above others is unfair. ALL providers are just as bad. Advertising watchdogs should have stamped this out.

Let's face it, if the likes of NEG believes it can convince doctors that their system is 'free', then there really isn't much hope.

I do not sympathise with the BT cause, as you put it. BT is a private company out to make a profit, that's what I see. I never said I agree with what it's done. I believe the whole mess can be summed up as poor regulation.

If these numbers had been call premium rate then there would be no problem. Also, don't forget that it is the regulator which determines what numbers are for and not the telcos!

Yes BT introduced 0990 numbers in the first place. As I said before, I didn't see the point of a national rate as it disavantages people calling locally. But the regulator/government should have seen this! BT hasn't broken any laws or anything, the regulator has let it happen.

Further to the mention of Kip Meek, this has been posted on the Ofcom site. I find it quite astonishing how these people get elected to more bodies when they don't even regulate their own (Ofcom) body.
Ofcom are supposed to be an independent body looking after the industry and the consumer, yet they don't even enforce existing regulations. As we have all mentioned the 0990/08xx scandal has been going on for at least 12 years with Oftel / Ofcom doing nothing. Perhaps they are just promoting him out of harms way ??   ;D

The last line HAS to be IRONY ???


Quote:

[/quote] Kip Meek appointed as Chairman of European Regulators Group Ofcom today announced that Kip Meek, its Senior Partner for Competition and Content, has been appointed as Chairman of the European Regulators Group (ERG). Mr Meek, who is an Executive Member of the Ofcom Board, will take up the post in January 2006. The ERG role will be in addition to Mr Meek's role at Ofcom. The European Regulators Group is an independent body comprising the heads of national communications regulators from 31 European Union, EU applicant and other European nations. It acts as an interface between national regulators and the European Commission, providing specialist advice and guidance on the development of Europe-wide communications markets. Fabio Colasanti from the European Commission's Information Society and Media Directorate said: "I am very pleased that Kip Meek has accepted the Chair of the ERG for 2006." He added: "His experience, and that of Ofcom, will be useful in steering the work of this very important group through a period of significant challenges for the regulation of the electronic communications sector." Mr Meek said: "Ofcom's approach to the market in the UK is being followed closely across Europe. I look forward to learning from our European colleagues and helping to inform the wider debate." [quote]

wrote on Feb 18^th, 2005 at 9:38pm:

The fact is that it was inevitable that prices for (geographical) calls would fall. The rates for 0845/0870 numbers were only linked on BT's tariffs, as stipulated by the regulator. If BT were to have reduced its 0845/0870 numbers in line with BT Together rates, would there not be an uproar from providers of these numbers? Can you not see that BT cannot win? It's in a catch-22 situation! BT withdrew Standard last year (see my thread on The Scream! forums, BT Standard tariff to be abolished). One big reason why I think that it was withdrawn was because BT's competitors often compared their tariffs to BT Standard. Yes BT introduced 0990 numbers in the first place. As I said before, I didn't see the point of a national rate as it disavantages people calling locally. But the regulator/government should have seen this! BT hasn't broken any laws or anything, the regulator has let it happen.

Dave,

With regards to your comments of a few days ago my complaint is that the non-geographical calls market is not structured in such a way that it was also "inevitable" that prices for calling those numbers also fell as the number of calls increased.

The reason this does not happen is because the actions of those paying for these products (the end consumer) do not impact on those running the lines (the call centres/service providers) because there are secret interim markets where the service providers are actually competing to get paid the best rate per call rather than to give the lowest call cost to their customers.

This whole NGN idea was invented by British Telecom and it was the whole basis on which Ofcom permitted NGNs in the first place.  I cannot help the fact that we have a regulator in the UK that has for years been totally in bed with BT rather than being a jack booted force of regulatory enforcment as for instance are the parking attendants of Westminster City Council.

Allowing for the uk telecoms industry as it is, which is dominated by a former nationalised monopoly that still behaves as a monopoly and with a so called regulator as weak as water, then it is surely totally reasonable of me to blame BT for (a) taking various devious anticompetitive steps that enabled it to prevent its BT wholesale trunk phone network from being separated from the rental of phone lines and phone calls into individual homes and (b) for coming up with an idea (NTS) that it sold on one basis, as being a handy call routing system for companies withe several call centres needing a national identity when it in fact had quite a separate objective of transferring all consumer business calls to these numbers but structuring the call payment systems for NGN calls so that consumer free choice and market forces did not control call prices.

Yes the telecoms regulator in the UK still is and always has been as weak as water but I cannot so much blame them for this as BT for using various secretive lobbying channels to bring this about and the government for agreeing to it.

As BT has Significant Market Power in the NTS market they call the shots and are primarily responsible for it.  And as for other people routing NTS calls at exorbitant costs, crying and going out of business if call prices fall well I am afraid I have no sorrow and no time for anyone who has built their business from such a parasytic and entirely consumer unfriendly range of activities.  Those who live by the sword should die by the sword is what I say.  And that includes BT.

Well said
kk

wrote on Feb 21^st, 2005 at 2:48pm:

Mr Meek said: "Ofcom's approach to the market in the UK is being followed closely across Europe. I look forward to learning from our European colleagues and helping to inform the wider debate."

Given the expectations that consumers might have of Mr Meek's proactive role at Ofcom his name does appear just a little unfortunate.

It would be nice if the man was even ever interviewed on Radio 4 etc so we could get a better idea of exactly who we are dealing with.

Does anyone know where we can find a CV for him?

When 0990 was introduced, there was only BT providing lines, so BT originated these calls and terminated them. I can see that they must have offered businesses some sort of incentive to use them instead of 0345 (local rate). I can see that this was the foundations of the mess we have today.

However, the regulator didn't do anything about it when it opened up the 0870 termination market. It seems to me that Ofcom sees competition as the be all and end all. Maybe this is why it has allowed the rates of 0845/0870 to stay so high.

Something which puzzles me is the fact that on the one hand Ofcom is purporting to be introducing competition but links pricing information to the SMP's rates! "Other networks may vary" is often used as a 'catch-all' get out.

The Post Office's offering charges 10p/min to 0870 in the daytime. If this isn't taking advantage of this misleading way of pricing, then I don't know what is. Again, I'm sure Ofcom see it as more competition, and if people wish to pay this much for the service, then it is up to them.

BT must provide access to all numbers, unless the regulator specifies otherwise. For other providers, it's up to their "commercial discretion". It just makes a complete mockery of the telephone network as a whole!

I think that it all calls in to question the competition in today's UK telecoms market. It appears to me that the 084/087 rip-off is just the tip of the iceberg.

From a domestic point of view, the fact is that BT own and run most of the network in this country. On going to another provider (CPS), BT still have to maintain the line. Therefore they have no incentive to maintain any quality of service.

As for BT going out of business, what happens to the network? Are we all left without service or will the government bail it out?

wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2005 at 1:20pm:

The Post Office's offering charges 10p/min to 0870 in the daytime. If this isn't taking advantage of this misleading way of pricing, then I don't know what is. Again, I'm sure Ofcom see it as more competition, and if people wish to pay this much for the service, then it is up to them. I think that it all calls in to question the competition in today's UK telecoms market. It appears to me that the 084/087 rip-off is just the tip of the iceberg. As for BT going out of business, what happens to the network? Are we all left without service or will the government bail it out?

Regarding the current 0870 charges of the Post Office and even call18866.co.uk, both of whom charge more for 0870 numbers than BT, it isn't actually their fault.

The reason this is happening is because in the name of competition BT & Cable & Wireless (the big boys of the telecoms marketplace) were recently allowed to charge other call carrying companies more to terminate NTS calls with BT and Cable & Wireless than they charge for terminating NTS calls that originate on their own networks.  

Thus faced with the need to earn the same percentage margin on 0870 calls as their other calls the Post Office and Call18866 were faced with no option but to charge more than BT for them.  The alternative would have been to refuse to carry the calls but that is something that it is rather hard for an "all calls" CPS provider (like the Post Office) to explain doing.  That would only then lead to angry calls to their customer service department and the explanation that "ahem in order to get you the best price we can't carry the call but you can make the call and get the best price with BT by dialling the prefix 1280 before the rest of the number".

The villain again here is Ofcom who thinks competition is the right of various parties in the industry to charge as much as they want but not the freedom of the consumer to be able to make calls to 084/7 at prices cheaper than the operator with Significant Market Power i.e. BT  Yet for BT to currently be alllowed to offer the cheapest prices to 0845 and 0870 numbers flies in the face of all Ofcom's own rules and charters about the behaviour of the dominant market supplier.

But let's just face it that on the whole Ofcom people just aren't as clever as BT commercial people and that BT basically run rings round them.  It must be like schoolteaching - if you are no good at making money in the Telecoms industry then you take a job with Ofcom.

The big step that would have some immediate impact is for Ofcom to make rules that all calls carried on BT lines with all CPS and indirect carriers and also with BT must have a compulsory price announcement facility before every call stating the price per minute (as per the facility currrently provided for free by call18866.co.uk)

There is a lot of rubbish in the NTS Options for the Future Ofcom consultation about how expensive and difficult it would be for telecoms companies to do this but if so how is it a twobit player, with only 10,000 customers, like call18866.co.uk can afford to do it and still make a profit?  It is not at all expensive to offer this facility but what would be expensive is the huge loss of call revenue to BT that would follow when people simply boycott 0870 in large numbers and send emails etc to the companies concerned instead.

As the Ofcom Consumer Panel has made very clear in its own submission Ofcom has basically been in total dereliction of its duties in the two Ofcom consultation documents on NTS and has suggested a solution that is almost entirely industry centric but in no way in the interests of promiting the cheapest prices for retail domestic telecoms consumers.

Ofcom talks about increased granularity in the price tariff being a good thing but the reality is that like the current nonsense with the 0844 doctors surgery call tariff no one then has a clue what they are paying.  In fact in terms of granularity I think Ofcom must have secretly been using icing sugar so that the whole lot would simply pass through the sieve without any effect whatsoever.

If Ofcom don't get this one right there will be calls for the head of Stephen Carter and also most certainly for the head of the elusive and seemingly highly ineffective Kip Meek.

As for BT going out of business and the telephone system disintegrating  it wouldn't happen given that the economic prosperity of the whole of the uk is at stake.  

But government money might be needed to manage a transition to a national telco running the network but with no ownerhship of the lines into the homes of most
telecoms consumers.  The same model as for the gas and electricity industries should probably be adopted in terms of final supply of the product into the homes of end users.

Now how can you put down Mr Meek just after he was unanimously elected to his new post?

I like your use of the word illusive when you might have meant elusive. What does your allusive remark mean?

Does this person really exist?

wrote on Feb 24^th, 2005 at 12:14am:

Now how can you put down Mr Meek just after he was unanimously elected to his new post? I like your use of the word illusive when you might have meant elusive. What does your allusive remark mean? Does this person really exist?

He exists here but only as a name:-

www.ofcom.org.uk/about_ofcom/boards_panels/ofcom_board/ofcom_exec/exec_cte?a=87101

Unfortunately despite being a so called communications regulator Ofcom does not publish pictures of any of their senior executive or board members.  This despite it being more or less the norm for corporate websites to do so.

But then the whole Ofcom website looks as though it was designed by Noddy rather than being a professional business like effort.

My allusion to Mr Meek being elusive was brought about by concern that his existence was simply an illusion.  I mean would a real person be called Kip Meek?  The regular guys all have standard names like Stephen Carter, Matt Peacock (seemingly very appropriately named in view of his love of radio interviews), Ed Richards and Philip Rutnam.

But as Mr Meek is the supposed policy guru of Ofcom you might expect him (a) to get some media coverage and (b) change his name by deed poll to something that did not immediately cast doubt on his credentials as a tough and effective formulator of regulatory policy.

Further to my post re: "Letter to Oftel 93/95" - I have received a reply, totally avoiding the questions I put and referring me to Icstis regarding the 0990 query!! The most wonderful part is that they also informed me that Oftel no longer exists and Ofcom has replaced it, who did they think I wrote to???

I will now write back again, pointing out the history of 0990 - 0541 - 0870 etc and requesting a reply. I truly dont think there is any hope of Ofcom coming down on the side of the consumer, they dont even understand the problem, or the situation.

more soon

wrote on Feb 27^th, 2005 at 9:14pm:

I truly dont think there is any hope of Ofcom coming down on the side of the consumer, they dont even understand the problem, or the situation.

Believe me Flutty they understand the issue very well at the Stephen Carter and Kip Meek level at Ofcom although possibly not at the level at which your letter was responded to if you made the error of writing to the mere Ofcom Contact Centre?  I would have hoped that you didn't do that and that you would have written to Stephen Carter if you wanted a sensible reply?

The reason they won't give you a straight answer is because it doesn't suit their agenda to admit they screwed up when they allowed BT to go ahead with NTS or that they completely missed the potential for revenue sharing.  And as for OFTEL being a different outfit well do me a favour but don't at least half of OFTEL's former employees still work at Ofcom.  The reality is that OFTEL to Ofcom was almost no change for many of those concerned.  The big change was for the guys from the Radio Authority and the ITC, most of whom lost their jobs when they were merged into Ofcom.

Basically a lot of hard and nasty people in the commercial world pushed to create 0870 because they hated customers calling them and wanted to make more money out of them.  And as OFTEL/Ofcom has unfortunately always been almost totally corrupted as a regulator by employing so many people from the telecoms industry they have never taken the side of consumers as they are supposed to do.

I think you might get further by writing to your MP with a copy of your letter and getting him to ask parliamentary questions about why it was ignored etc.

Just a suggestion

NGM,

It appears that Ofcom 'lost' part of my letter, despite me sending it recorded delivery. Hence all the guy got was the copies of the previous letters in 93/95. They lost my newspaper cuttings and my covering letter.
I am keeping all the correspondence and will send it my MP once I have any sort of reply from Ofcom.

thanks for your support and advice,
much appreciated,

Flutty

I am still awaiting a reply from Ofcom to my letter of Februry, they managed to lose half of the original letter, despite it being sent Recorded Delivery. The second letter never arrived, again sent Recorded Delivery. Royal Mail state that 'Large Companies' cannot sign for individual letters, therefore I cannot prove one way or another IF they got it, so sending anything Recorded Delivery is a total waste of money and time. They did get my third letter intact, but of course I am now awaiting a reply.

Of more interest is this extract from an Ofcom document:


Quote:

Section 63 . Ofcom.s general duty as to telephone numbering functions A5.6 In making the modifications to the Plan, Ofcom considers that it is fulfilling its duty in section 63 of the Act (which refers to Ofcom’s general duty as to telephone numbering functions), namely that Ofcom is: • securing the best use of appropriate numbers, in that the revised designations for the 0844, 0845, 0870 and 0871 ranges will continue to allow these numbers to be used for the provision of value-added services, whilst ensuring that there continues to be pressure on retail prices for these services; and • encouraging efficiency and innovation, in that the modifications to the Plan ensure that those applying for numbers understand what retail pricing arrangements will apply to their services when using these numbers, and those wishing to set their own retail prices in order to fund innovative services will be able to do so.

I was actually searching for the rules regulating the USE of 0845 / 0870 etc numbers. It appears that it is quite clear that these numbers should ONLY be used for 'Value Added Services', therefore not just in place of what was originally a geographic number.
The BBC Information Line could, I suppose, be a genuine case of an added value.
But certainly not when you get exactly the same service that was provided on the previous geographic number.
Has anyone out there followed this line of questioning?

It seems that my letter from 1995 could be very valuable, if Ofcom have been allowing the use of these number groupings for the wrong purposes for the last 10 years.

more soon

Flutty

wrote on Mar 15^th, 2005 at 8:50am:

Royal Mail state that 'Large Companies' cannot sign for individual letters,

Hmm, one for Postwatch I think, particularly since the Inland Revenue still manages to sign for each individual letter. But, of course, "Royal Mail Customer Service" always seemed to employ people who were unaware of the Royal Mail's services, let alone how to be of service to a customer.
And I do not recall seeing a notice in any Post Office advising customers about this change to Recorded Delivery. Grrrr

Hi Flutty

The National Audit Office has a supervisory role in Ofcom’s procedures.
Send the details of the “lost letters” to them.  John.Bourn@nao.gsi.gov.uk.

Quote from the Ofcom web site:
"7.2.1      Ofcom will be externally audited and monitored by the National Audit Office (NAO) and the Public Accounts Committee (PAC)."