Working Lunch today included a further partial treatment of NGN number abuses and customers' anger concerning them and particularly at being kept on hold for long periods.

However, just like their previous treatment of these NGN abuses they watered down the whole issue, even admitting that the BBC themselves use and abuse them, but claiming that "they make no money out of them after they have deducted the cost of providing the services on them"!!! But that is what this whole scam is about. It is quite inappropriate to claim that it costs an organisation money to have their employees answering the telephone!! It has always been thus and will always be thus. This is an overhead cost which must be born by the organisation and factored into their overall costing. That is exactly what Standard Costing is about in Management Accountancy! In the case of the BBC these abuses are a form of "stealth tax" which really represents a surreptitious  increase in the Licence Fee! It is all about pretence and dishonesty.

Again in the normal way that we are now used to with Working Lunch, they could not even get the facts concerning these abuses correct. Again either they did not get their research correct or pressure was put on them to dilute the facts. This time they were claiming that organisations receiving these abused NGN calls with queuing were receiving only 2.5p per minute! We have the evidence to show this is untrue. We know it is up to 4.7 p per minute for those with large call volumes. They claimed that BT do not make much out of these calls. We know again that that is untrue. The key issue is that BT often (due to SMP) both initiate and terminate these calls. The reason that BT insist that Ofcom make redactions in consulting documents concerning all issues of their actual revenue from these abuses is that previously BT have admitted that these abuses are now a very large part of their call carrying business and this proportion has since grown further. Since they have lost such a large proportion of their previous market share with normal geographic calls, because they are no longer competitive, their revenue from these abuses is now something like 58% of their total revenue from call traffic. That is why they attempt to keep it secret. They know their customers will be outraged if they find out the truth.

Working Lunch also glossed over the enormous difference in call costs between for example an 0870 call and a geographic call via 18866. They also wrongly represented the cost of 0845 and 0844 calls and completely ommitted the resurgent abuses with 070 PNS numbers, which are much more expensive and yield even more for the scam merchants.

In addition it has come to my attention that it is clear that commercial pressure has been placed upon the operators of Google by the 0870 and other NGN pervayors and the NGN abuse campaign sites have been deliberately removed from their database! The sites still come up well on other search engines however.

All of this points I believe to the fact that these abuses are now so endemic and yielding such large amounts of profit that those who have a vested interest in these abuses continuing are using all of their muscle and influence to defeat us. Look for the next stage in their strategy, which will be a big move to change all of the geographic numbers to which abused NGNs are patched and to conceal the new geographic numbers, so forcing increasing usage of abused NGNs and increasing the revenue generated. It will then be increasingly difficult for this site to continue to defeat these abuses.

The real problem is that we have become so successful at publicising these abuses now and at publicising the alternative geographic numbers that the vested interests can follow our every move and have now been able as a result to begin to disable us. There is big money at stake here and that is why there is a big problem.  It can only get worse unless the EU intervenes.

wrote on Mar 10^th, 2005 at 2:00pm:

In addition it has come to my attention that it is clear that commercial pressure has been placed upon the operators of Google by the 0870 and other NGN pervayors and the NGN abuse campaign sites have been deliberately removed from their database! The sites still come up well on other search engines however.

Please could you give an example of this?

I just entered "0870 numbers" into Google, and this site was third in the list.

Since I looked at it yesterday they seem to have replaced it in the database  for some searches, but not all which it should and did appear for previously.  

If I do a search for "0870 numbers" on Google.co.uk now it does not appear, but if I do a search for "0870 abuse" on Google.co.uk it is now again No. 3.

Their contacts page lists only 0870 numbers, oh and an 0871.  ::)

...and then Say no to 0870 gets a mention...  ::)

wrote on Mar 10^th, 2005 at 3:19pm:

If I do a search for "0870 numbers" on Google.co.uk now it does not appear, but if I do a search for "0870 abuse" on Google.co.uk it is now again No. 3.

Sorry it isn't, not even on the first page!

But................

It is now number 1 on Google!

The only reason that we come up on the 0870 numbers Google search is because 0870 is in the site name www.saynoto0870.com, numbers is in the main page title Non-Geographical Alternative Telephone Numbers, and both are in the page text.

To force the engines to present pages, words have to be put into the pages data in text format, and also additional descriptive words into the html page header.

Consequently, as the word abuse does not appear on the page or in the underlying html, it should not come up on a search for 0870 abuse, and indeed, it does not !!

In fact, if you try Say no to, we're down in 9th position, because it's only on the page joined up as Saynoto. But then try searching for Saynoto and for our only mention we drop to 37th/38th, albeit for a redundant link, even though we have Saynoto in the html of the main site page as link addresses !?

Funny things these Search engines - you can't rely on anything these days.  :-/

We are evidently describing different sites and different searches.

Just checked it out on a different computer.

This site is definately No 1 on Google if you enter only "0870".

If you enter 0870 on the UK site we are not listed.

Is this something to do with the title of this thread?

I hope so because entering the UK site is optional, I was worried that Google would bow to pressure from the telcom companies.

Do you really think that is likely?

j

wrote on Mar 10^th, 2005 at 8:32pm:

Just checked it out on a different computer. This site is definately No 1 on Google if you enter only "0870". If you enter 0870 on the UK site we are not listed.

There is a simple reason why the site doesn't appear in the Google listing for "pages from the UK".

The site has a .com domain, rather than a .uk domain. This alone isn't enough to stop it from appearing. However, the server that hosts the site is located in the US (or so I believe, after doing a quick traceroute). Therefore, how can Google possibly know that this is a UK-oriented site?

Google is quite an ethical company - any major competitor of Microsoft can't be that bad. They also believe in free speech. They have algorithms for ranking pages, and only exclude sites if they are found to be breaking the laws of a particular country (for example, sites denying the holocaust are blocked in Germany, but not in the UK, even if the majority of people here would detest such a site).

I refuse to believe that Google would interntionally exclude anti-0870 sites from their index - it just sounds like a slightly paranoid conspiracy theory to me! And if they did, it wouldn't appear in an international search either (as it is, it is always on the first page of results).

Totally agree. (With the final pargraph).

juby

Hi dorf
At the end of the first post, your mention the EU.

I am not a fan of the EU, but they may be of use in helping to eradicate 087x, 084x and 070x number scams.  Complain to your MEP and ask him/her to pass on your complaint to the EU Commission.

Any address for the EU commission?  Email?   sg-web-president@cec.eu.int

Any complaint should probably give a short explanation of the UK numbering system:-
We have in the UK two different categories of number:  geographical normal numbering (beginning with 01 and 02) and non-geographical (beginning with 08 and 09  - and even 070).

Companies, Organisations, Government Departments and agencies are increasingly using 087x and 084x.numbers.  (070x are creeping up!)

Disadvantages of 087x, 084x (and 070) numbers are:

•  The numbers are, in general,  more expensive than normal 01 and 02 numbers.
  
  
•  Revenue is collected from the caller and given to the called number and their telecom provider.  This “revenue sharing” is not disclosed to the caller.  
  
  
•  The numbers are anti-competitive, as telecom providers can not reduce the prices of calls below a certain level and have to allow for the revenue sharing nature of the calls.  Revenue sharing locks in high prices and locks out telecom providers who wish to provide low cost services. Because of revenue sharing, the numbers are excluded from various low cost options.
  
  
•  It is difficult or impossible to make calls from outside the UK to the many Organisations and Government Departments using those numbers.
  

For the above reasons, I believe 087x, 084x and 070x numbers are against EU law, as they are:
(1) a barrier to free trade and
(2) anti-competitive in nature.  

I would like the Commission to hold an investigation.

Hi kk Yes that is the point. I agree entirely. These abuses of NGNs particularly with 0870 are:

(1) a barrier to free trade and  
(2) anti-competitive in nature.  

The EU Commission ought therefore to investigate the whole scenario and particularly why Ofcom are not fulfilling their obligations under current law.  

However, one query I have with what you state is, when is a call to an NGN no more expensive than a call to a GN (at the same time of the same day that is)? I don't know any example of that.

The other key issue that I believe should be emphasised in any complaint to the EU Commission is that revenue sharing with NGNs other than 09 is a contravention of the UK National Numbering Plan (NTNP) which it is the responsibility of Ofcom to enforce; and the only reason that Revenue Sharing with NGNs other than 09 was initiated as a contravention of the NTNP was to circumvent the prohibition of call queuing which exists for 09 numbers and to restore BT's generated call revenue in the face of tough competition with GNs.

One other point: apparently there has recently been a revision of the Google search results index and this has resulted in many websites losing their listing or their previous ranking in the Google listings. Participants in the Google News Forum at WebmasterWorld.com have dubbed the changes "The Allegra Update", apparently named after the popular allergy medication. Many are not too pleased! It may be this revision which has resulted in the removal of associated 0870 sites from Google rather than a deliberate move in response to commercial advertising pressures or demands.

wrote on Mar 11^th, 2005 at 10:12am:

The other key issue that I believe should be emphasised in any complaint to the EU Commission is that revenue sharing with NGNs other than 09 is a contravention of the UK National Numbering Plan (NTNP) which it is the responsibility of Ofcom to enforce...

So howcome Ofcom are allowing VoIP services on geographical numbers? Doesn't this defeat the object of geographical numbers?

VoIP can operate from any location (presumably worldwide). It seems that VoIP services have been allowed to connect using 08 NGNs and geographical numbers, rather than using their own prefix. Also, if they are to have a geographical number, why can't some sort of technical restriction be put into place to ensure that they can only be accessed from one address?

Hi dorf
I agree: I have struck out “in general”.

I also agree with the point about 09 and Ofcom etc.

When I sent a letter to the EU a week or so ago, I also said:

“………Under the doctrine of “Direct Effect” Ofcom may be in breach of EU law. I would also assert that government departments and government agencies who also use non-geographical numbers are also in breach of EU law.   BT, who is not a government department, may also be liable, as under EU law,  BT could be considered as an “emanation of the state” (see Foster v British Gas [1990] ECR I-3313).

The UK does have a special category of premium telephone numbers starting with 09, to which special rules apply.  It is inexcusable that 087x and 084x number should not be placed in this special premium category.  By not placing those numbers in the premium category Ofcom are  helping to hide the true cost and nature of 087x and 084x numbers……..

I did not wish to complicate my post to this site, by putting the above into it.  It is also important not to produce a “standardised letter”, as they are not as strong as individual correspondence.

Dave, I think the point is that VOIP is a relatively new arrival  in the general consumer telecommunications scenario. VOIP was not taken into account when the NTNP was formulated.

It would now need to be added if Ofcom were fulfilling its obligation to enforce, control and maintain the NTNP.

OK kk,

I agree an individually written letter is more effective. I was just suggesting that anyone writing one should not forget to include those points for greatest effect?

wrote on Mar 11^th, 2005 at 10:28am:

So howcome Ofcom are allowing VoIP services on geographical numbers? Doesn't this defeat the object of geographical numbers?

I don't see a problem with geographical numbers being used for VoIP. Ofcom announced that the code for VoIP would be 056. From BT's site, they charge 3p/min daytime, 1p/min evening/weekend. And I bet they are excluded from BT Together inclusive packages. So in effect, they are the same as 0845 numbers. I'd much prefer people used geographical numbers for their VoIP phones so that I can call them in the evening for 5.5p/hour...

"Geographical" numbers where the code tells you the area in which then phone is located is a throwback to the days where the STD code was actually connecting you to a particular exchange. With modern technology, a code could point to a phone anywhere.

I would be quite happy for all numbers to be "non-geographical", as long as all numbers are created equal, included in the special calling packages, and revenue sharing is banned!