URGENT RESPONSE SUGGESTED: Ofcom Consultation - 070 Rip-Off, including Patientline scandal

Another Ofcom consultation:

<<
Ofcom has today published proposals to amend its guidelines on the acceptable use of 070 numbers.  The closing date for responses to the consultation is 8 November 2005.
Personal Numbering - Proposed amendment to guidance on acceptable use of 070 numbers

http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/personal_numbering/
>>

Modified Nov 2, 2005 - contributors should consider responding to this consultation, particularly wrt the Patientline scandal and the continued abuse of 070 numbers. Note the closing date of November 8. See posts below (NGM) for further details.

~ Thread title edited by Dave ~

8 November, I thought this was a mistake! That's 2 weeks to respond!  :o

according to the annexe 2

We will normally allow ten weeks for responses to consultations on issues of general interest.

Hmm seems the 070 problems isnt of general interest.

Hmmm....    or is it rather to  let the acceptable abuse continue ?

Hi all.

In the Ofcom consultation on 070 numbers and "acceptable use" at http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/personal_numbering/pn.pdf it may be worth looking in page 12, para 9:
Recent examples of services that may not fit the traditional mode of Personal Numbering, but which Ofcom considers to be legitimate Personal Numbering Services include:
1  070 numbers allocated to users of internet chat rooms who want to talk to new acquaintances without divulging their real phone numbers;
2  070 numbers allocated solely for the purpose of selling, e.g., a car through a magazine;
3  070 numbers allocated to hospital patients so that they can have their own number for the duration of their stay (but not where a generic 070 number is used that requires further PINs - see paragraph 15 below).
Please bear in mind that Ofcom counts the cover as page 0 and so the pdf page numbering still does not match the printed page number. But would any of you expect anything else involving Ofcom's use of numbers?

wrote on Nov 1^st, 2005 at 12:41pm:

3  070 numbers allocated to hospital patients so that they can have their own number for the duration of their stay (but not where a generic 070 number is used that requires further PINs - see paragraph 15 below?

Tanllan I think you needed to mark point 3 in Red and Italics rather than in Navy (which sadly looks the same as black) as you have done.

The whole point of this disgraceful hurried 2 week Ofcom consultation (compared to the luxurous 8 months they had to consider our responses to the last NTS consultation that closed in January), which deliberately tries to look utterly boring, is in fact as a smoke screen to secretly sign off Ofcom's continuing use of 070 numbers at 50p per minute by Patientline so long as Patientline gives each patient a direct individual 070 number to the phone at their bedside. If you read this other announcement by Ofcom a couple of weeks ago announcing they are going to give Patientline another 6 months to achieve direct dial to the bedside numbering at loads of their hospitals the whole ghastly Ofcom plot to merely sign off and codify another major abuse of the general public becomes all too frighteningly clear.

http://www.ofcom.org.uk/bulletins/comp_bull_index/comp_bull_ccases/closed_all/cw_804/#content

This is in fact the Ofcom consultation to sign off contined Patientline scamming at 50p per minute as being ok and you have only 1 week left  to respond out of less than two weeks.

I will be sending some emails to the national newspaper journalists who originally covered the issue to draw their attention to the matter and to get them to publish the email addreses for responses in their newspapers.  I will also be emailing all the MPs who have signed the anti 0870 motion in the House of Commons plus Dr Howard Stoate who certainly should care about this matter.

I looked at this consultation when it was published Tanllan, because of the possible Patientline angle, and I completely missed this dissgraceful sneaky attempt to sign off the Patientline scam tucked away in the small print. :o ::)

Yet again Ofcom fights shy of doing the right thing which would be to at least force these scammers to move to an 084 or 087 range and to say 070 PNS rules have been abused because customers do not have a choice about whether or not to use an 070 number to get access to phone calls in hospital (given the ban on mobile phones) and because the numbers almost certainly are not portable by the patient to redirect to their home phone or mobile phone when they leave hospital.  So as the 070 number is not totally under the customer's control it fails to meet the entire policy objectives of 070 numbers.  Unless of course Ofcom are allowed to change the rules as they propose. ::) >:(

Please respond now slating this appallingly cynical behaviour by the telecoms scammers friend - OfcoN! And also make sure to tell any friends or relatives that you think may be prepared to respond  to it as well.

With this latest appalling attempt to fail to serve uk citizens and consumer who use NHS hospitals Ofcom show once again which side they are really on.  And its certainly not the uk citizen and consumer. :o :o :o

Tks NGM

Colour (and color!) changed.

And thank you for the valuable input.

Can I suggest everyone reading this message immediately sends an email to the new Ofcom Consultation Champion, Vicki Nash, demanding that this consultation deadline be extended by 8 weeks to the customary 10 weeks for all other normal Ofcom consultations (as they admit is the case in this consultation docment) as the matters are of sufficently major public importance (despite mysteriously being hidden away on Page 14 of the document) in that the Consultation proposals appear to allow the legalisation of Patientline's previously illegal use of 50p/min 070 scam numbers for patients in hospitals, so long as Patientline implement direct dial numbers to the bedside.

Tell Ms Nash that it is totally inexcusable for the consultation to be truncated and slipped through on the quiet.  I suggest the Subject of your email should be something like:-

"Only 2 weeks allowed for Ofcom Consultation to on 070 Numbers Consultation Involving Patientline"

The Ofcom Consultation Champion is now:-  

vicki.nash@ofcom.org.uk  

Also make sure to cc your email to all of the following at Ofcom:-"

ruth.gibson@ofcom.org.uk
stephen.carter@ofcom.org.uk
david.currue@ofcom.org.uk
kip.meek@ofcom.org.uk
ed.richards@ofcom.org.uk
millie.banerjee@ofcom.org.uk
ian.hargreaves@ofcom.org.uk
richard.hooper@ofcom.org.uk
sara.nathan@ofcom.org.uk
stephanie.liston@ofcom.org.uk
claudio.pollack@ofcom.org.uk
gareth.davies@ofcom.org.uk
matt.peacock@ofcom.org.uk
colette.bowe@ofcomconsumerpanel.org.uk
bob.twitchin@ofcomconsumerpanel.org.uk
consumerpanel@ofcom.org.uk

This includes all members of the Ofcom Board, their Communications Director and the Ofcom Consumer Panel.

Hopefully this may make Ofcom think again about closing the consultation document next Tuesday, after consulting for less than 2 weeks.

Here is my email and will I think prompt some shall we say interesting reactions.

I am still left utterly stunned that Ofcom thought they could pull off this stunt of legalising Patientline via a devious 14 page consultation where the fact that hospital 070 services are even part of the plans is only mentioned on Page 12 of 14.  Ofcom just get worse and worse in their quite deliberate deviousness and cynicism.  But who is going to be able to force them to start acting in the interests of uk citizens and consumers? :o

-----Original Message-----
Sent: 01 November 2005 23:58
To: vicki.nash@ofcom.org.uk
Cc:stephen.carter@ofcom.org.uk;david.currie@ofcom.org.uk
Subject: Ofcom to Allow 50p per Minute Patientline Scam to be Legalised via Rushed & Secretive 13 Day Consultation

Dear Ms Nash,

I feel I must write to you in your role as Ofcom Consultation Champion to protest in the strongest possible terms about a Consultation published by Ofcom only 6 days ago on 26th October and which closes in just another week's time.  This means that instead of lasting a standard 10 weeks for Ofcom Consultations this Consultation is being railroaded through by Ofcom in an unlucky for some 13 days.  Furthermore this is a Consultation for which there has been no press release and for which there is no Plain English Summary available on your website.  Yet this 13 day consultation is related to another variant of Non Geographic Numbers (NGNs) for which Ofcom is currently in the midst of a 10 week consultation for NGN numbers which begin 084 and 087.

What is this mysterious rushed 13 day Ofcom consultation that is so urgent? www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/personal_numbering/pn.pdf ).  Well if you read Pages 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 out of 14 pages you wouldn't think it was really about anything very interesting at all as it makes reference to some rather obscure matters known as General Conditions of Entitlement, Range Holders, Resellers and End Users.  Gosh this does seem like one of those really dull and turgid Ofcom Consultation documents that one could consign quite happily to the nearest waste paper bin.  Surely there is nothing meaty here such as for instance the proposal to keep charging 0845 callers premium non standard call prices for four more years, whilst returning 0870 numbers to being charged the same way as 01 and 02 numbers in say 18 months time, that is contained within your other much better publicised current NGN consultation document.

But wait tucked away on Page 12 of 14 is Proposed Revised Guidance Point 9 which states "Recent examples of services that may not fit the traditional mode of Personal Numbering, but which Ofcom considers to be legitimate Personal Numbering Services include":-

sub point3:- "070 numbers allocated to hospital patients so that they can have their own number for the duration of their stay (but not where a generic 070 number is used that requires further PINs)

All of a sudden one realises that a well known uk company called Patientline has been operating services of precisely the kind described in Revised Guidance Point 9 Sub Para 3, except that Patientline historically required callers to be connected to the patient at the bedside by having to call a general 070 Patientline customer service centre number to get a Pin number for the patient concerned before then ringing another automated 07 number and entering a Pin before then finally being connected to the patient's bedside.  So could all this I now begin to ask myself have anything to do with another obscure Ofcom announcement called an Update Note (and one of four or five announcements a day that Ofcom often sends me and other people on its circulation list) issued on 19th October 2005 and referring to something Ofcom called an "Own Initiative Investigation against Patientline Limited about misuse of Personal Numbers". And this announcement tells us that Ofcom has strangely enough decided to extend an original deadline for bringing in direct dial to the patient bedside (instead of via the call centre and PIN system where Patientline clocked up another minute or two at 50p per minute) from 13th December 2005 to 13th June 2006 and that is after Ofcom had already granted another 6 months extension to Patientline on this deadline way back on 13th June 2005.

Continued/...........................................

So now it all begins to make sense and what we actually appear to have here is Ofcom rushing through in am extremely secretive and poorly publicised Consultation a proposal to legalise Patientline's widely vilified 50p per minute charge for relatives of patients in hospital that need to be contacted in the weekday daytime, a charge which cannot be avoided because mobile phone use in NHS hospitals is conveniently banned.  And why is it that Patientline can go on charging this widely condemned 50p per minute rate?  Why it is because Ofcom has now conveniently decided to retrospectively change its regulations for 070 personal numbers that previously banned the use of the numbers in this way by Patientline so that Patientline will now be conveniently acting within the telecoms regulations.

But I am puzzled when Ofcom's statutory duties and principles stated on its own website ( www.ofcom.org.uk/about/sdrp/ ) state that "it shall be the principal duty of Ofcom to further the interests of citizens in relation to communication matters and to further the interests of consumers in relevant markets" as to how this action by Ofcom can be helping citizen consumers, especially when Ofcom also does not be fulfilling its other main principle to promote competition for citizen consumers where appropriate.  But here we have Patientline running a monopoly 50p per minute phone service in NHS hospitals with no competition and in a manner that seemingly previously appeared to breach the National Telephone Number Plan and Ofcom's General Conditions of Entitlement for Range Holders and Resellers but which Ofcom is now proposing to change its regulations to legitimise.

I feel I must legitimately ask how a consultation potentially adversely affecting the interests of millions of hospital patients a year and that merely now codifies as legitimate a call rate of a whopping  £30 an hour for making a phone call to a fixed phone line in a hospital (something that I can do on my own home fixed line phone to any uk number starting 01 or 02  for just 3p for 1 hour) can be rushed through by Ofcom in only 13 days instead of its usual 10 weeks, and also without a press release announcing it and without the publication of a Plain English Summary?  I feel sure that as Ofcom Consultation Champion you may perhaps share some of those concerns as I am sure various members of the national press (who have previously covered the Patientline story) will?

Lastly I must point out that when I received one of your many email Update messages a few days ago I did spot a document about varying operating conditions of 070 numbers and I was conscious that Patientline used such numbers. However as I only had time to read the one page consultation summary document and as this made no mention at all of allowing a change to the conditions of 070 number use for hospital patients I made no connection with the Patientline issue.  So it is only because of a gentleman called Tanllan, who is a fellow member of the www.saynoto0870.com web discussion forum that I am even aware what this document is actually really all about and in a position to respond within the 13 day deadline.

In the circumstances I do hope that as Ofcom Consultation champion you will now be able to prevail upon the Board members of Ofcom to allow this important Ofcom Consultation to be extended to the normal 10 week period and also ensure that a press release is published and that a Plain English Summary of the whole 14 page document is made available.

Lastly I must express my concern that when this document is consulting about the use of a Non Geographic Number Series that effectively involves a large revenue share to Patientline that you have not been able to incorporate consultation into your currently running and well publicised consultation on revenue sharing for other classes of Non Geographic Number (especially those beginning 084 and 087) as I do not believe the underlying issues involved for these 07 PNS numbers are any different from those applicable to revenue sharing on 084 and 087 numbers.

I look forward to receiving your comments on this matter.

Regards,

I agree, NGM. I'll have a look at the consultation document.

The question is why now? And why include such examples? What are most personal numbers used for? Are a significant amount used for hospital 'services'*? ::)

* I use this term very very loosely!

I have sent an email to Ms Nash and Ms Gibson asking for the deadline to be extended. I want to respond to this condoc, however with the 0870 consultations taking up so much time, I can't devote much attention to the 070 scam at the moment even though it is just as serious.

wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2005 at 4:31pm:

I have sent an email to Ms Nash and Ms Gibson asking for the deadline to be extended. I want to respond to this condoc, however with the 0870 consultations taking up so much time, I can't devote much attention to the 070 scam at the moment even though it is just as serious.

But you have over a month yet for those consultations which need long responses.

This consultation only needs an email of about three  paras saying it is outrageous Patientline be allowed to use PNS 070 whether they have DDI dialling to the bedside or not.  Also query whether Patientline number are actually redirectable to home phones or mobile phones when you leave hospital.  If not they don't meet the requirements and should be forced to move to 09 which is for fixed line revenue sharing.

Of course it is outrageous they have cut the consultation to 13 days but it seems clear they aren't going to budge.

I suppose I should ask what the formal complaint procedure is about having a short consultation like this and then when I find out let you all know who to email.  The FSA have an excellent complaints process about their own staff and procedures but the Ofcom approach seems to be to fob off all such attempts to complain about how they operate.

wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2005 at 4:59pm:

But you have over a month yet for those consultations which need long responses.

True, but as I start work in two weeks, I want the 0870 responses out of the way sooner rather than later.


wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2005 at 4:59pm:

This consultation only needs an email of about  paras saying it is outrageous Patientline be allowed to use PNS 070 whether they have DDI dialling to the bedside or not.  Also query whether Patientline number are actually redirectable to home phones or mobile phones when you leave hospital.  If not they don't meet the requirements and should be forced to move to 09 which is for fixed line revenue sharing.

I made a similar point in my email.

wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2005 at 4:59pm:

This consultation only needs an email of about three  paras saying it is outrageous Patientline be allowed to use PNS 070 whether they have DDI dialling to the bedside or not. [...]

But to have DDI will set a president for other scammers, err, communication providers, to do the same sort of thing in other fields. The flood gates are gradually being opened...

What's more, the basic idea of a PN is that the end-user is in charge of where it goes. It is a service provided to end-users [which often costs the caller a fortune]. How is the 'end-user', who is stuck in a hospital bed, able decide where they want the number to be pointed?

The examples of internet chat rooms and small-ads which give you a 070 PN allow you the end user to point it at whatever you want. You don't have that "choice" when in a hospital bed.

I don't think I posted this at the time I received it (I can't see it on my list of contributions) but apologies if it is a repeat. I wrote to Patientline back in March to complain about lack of international inbound access. I really didn't expect a response, so was surprised when I received the following on March 21, 2005:

<<
I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for taking the time to highlight to us your concerns about our service. Patientline is committed to providing first class customer care and welcome the chance to answer any queries our customers may have.

As our telephone service uses phone numbers that are prefixed by '070' it is sometimes difficult for an overseas operator to recognise these as a range of active numbers.   There are cases where some customers have '07' numbers ranges barred from use but more often than not the problem lies with the fact that International operators are not obliged to enable the number range we have circulated and some do not have agreements with British Telecom, in these instances calls will not be connected.

Our only recommendation to bypass this situation which we accept is not ideal, is that the International caller phones 0044 208 235 0918, and pays for telephone time by credit card on behalf of the patient, we can then ask the patient to call out to the International numbers which we do enable on our system.  You can also l contact the nurses station via the hospital switchboard as has always been the case.

I fully appreciate the frustration this may cause and as a company we continue to encourage all telephone companies to enable calls to our 07 number range.  

Thank you for raising this matter with us and I hope that this has answered your queries.
>>

The unbelievable arrogance of these people! "Our only recommendation to bypass this situation which we accept is not ideal, is that the International caller phones 0044 208 235 0918, and pays for telephone time by credit card on behalf of the patient, we can then ask the patient to call out to the International numbers...."

They just clearly believe that ill or injured victims in hospitals are there to be exploited, which I suppose is bolstered by the attitude and inaction of Ofcom. Have they stopped to consider that many patients in hospitals for some while have not been able to work and may be in financial difficulties enough, without spending money at exhorbitant rates on telephone calls. Presumably once the patient has called the international number the rates payable by the caller on their credit are in danger of seriously diminishing their wealth? These people clearly have no moral scruples whatever.

As well as emailing those mentioned by NGM (post #7), also email the following Newspapers (maybe best to bcc these) and highlight Ofcom's despicable decision to allow this to continue, how the consultation doesn't have a plain english summary so in its current form actually just confuses consumers and to hurry it through so no one can respond:

EDPNewsdesk@archant.co.uk
EDPEditor@archant.co.uk
newseditor@independent.co.uk
businessnews@independent.co.uk
news@timesonline.co.uk
online.editor@timesonline.co.uk
tim.richardson@theregister.co.uk
press.releases@theregister.co.uk
stephen.moyes@mirror.co.uk;
david.derbyshire@telegraph.co.uk;
panorama@bbc.co.uk;
jessica.bown@sunday-times.co.uk;
dennis.rice@mailonsunday.co.uk;
jeff.prestridge@mailonsunday.co.uk;
oliver.lloyd@mailonsunday.co.uk; sean.poulter@dailymail.co.uk;
watchdog@bbc.co.uk

Feel free to add any I've missed.

Having emailed Ofcom a view days ago regarding this issue, I've received the reply quoted below.

All it seems to be saying is that their 070 consulation does not have any direct effect on paitentline's excessively expensive plans.  Surely  this is precisely  the problem - that we want Ofcom to tackle this rip-off?  Anyway, I'll post this for the more experienced users of the site to consider.


Quote:

Dear Gdh82, Thanks for your email, which Vicki Nash passed on to me for action. I attach below the text of a longer email explaining the detail of the various consultations and investigations. In summary, I am happy to reassure you that the proposed changes to the 070 guidance do not have any direct effect on the questions related to pricing of calls to hospital patients. I hope this addresses your concerns. Regards, David Stewart [attached text follows:] Dear Sir, I refer to your earlier note to Vicki Nash, who suggested I reply directly. In summary, I am afraid there may be a misunderstanding here - the consultation you refer to doesn't have any connection to any investigation, open or closed, involving Patientline or any other provider of calls to hospital patients. My apologies for the length of this note but I thought you might find it helpful to have the situation set out clearly. In fact, the commentary in our guidance on 070 services for calls to hospital patients remains unchanged in the revised guidance. For example, you can see the old (Jan 04) text here: http://www.ofcom.org.uk/telecoms/ioi/numbers/num_070_guide#content If you compare the text of the bullet point in relation to calls to hospital patients in the old and new versions, you can see that it has not changed. This reflects Ofcom's view about the appropriate use of 070 numbers for calls to hospital patients; this is separate (in Ofcom's view) from the question of the prices charged for those services. The reason for the new 070 consultation is (as we said at the time) to adjust our guidance to give clarity on an issue about the role of service providers and their responsibilities to take reasonable steps to ensure that their customers are using numbers in ways that are consistent with the Numbering Plan. That objective, and the context to it, are set out on our website here: http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/personal_numbering/#content To put this in context, this constitutes a minor adjustment, adding text on an issue about which the guidance has previously simply been silent. This guidance explains Ofcom's approach, but doesn't directly affect the legal rights or obligations of any person; those remain as set out in the Numbering Plan and number allocations. There is no statutory requirement for consultation under those circumstances. As you know, Ofcom is committed to transparency and to consulting above and beyond our formal requirements, and therefore, Ofcom elected to conduct a short consultation in any event. (Any contribution you wish to make to that consultation would be welcome).   Finally, I note that there are two different investigations involving Patientline and it isn't clear which one you intended to refer to: The first investigation concerns Patientline's conduct in relation to Competition Act issues (which is considering, amongst other things, the question of whether the 50p constitutes excessive pricing under competition law). This investigation is on-going. As with any open investigation, we have no public comment other than via our Competition Bulletin, available here: http://www.ofcom.org.uk/bulletins/comp_bull_index/comp_bull_ocases/open_all/cw_844/?a=87101 The second investigation concerned the use by Patientline of 070 services via a switchboard. That investigation has now closed. It resulted in our determining that the use of such services via a switchboard was inappropriate (a conclusion which is obviously consistent with both the old and new 070 guidance). This was not related in any way to the question of the pricing for incoming (or outgoing) calls - it related simply and exclusively to the use of PINs or switchboards, which we viewed as inconsistent with the requirement for callers to be able to dial directly the person using the 070 number. The outcome of that investigation was that Ofcom issued a s.94 notice to Patientline requiring them to use 070 numbers in line with our guidance. The recent decision to grant Patientline an extension to the time to comply with this requirement (in a small proportion of the sites) was not related to, and does not affect, the first investigation or Patientline's pricing for any services. Details concerning this investigation, together with the s.94 notice, can be found here: http://www.ofcom.org.uk/bulletins/comp_bull_index/comp_bull_ccases/closed_all/cw_804/?a=87101       I trust that this provides you with a clear picture of these various activities and the reasons for them. Thanks for the opportunity to clarify the situation. Regards, David Stewart Director of Investigations [ends]

It seems that this consultation may in fact all be about stopping revenue sharing on 070 numbers to the person who receives the call on the 070 number (eg the patient in the hospital).

Its seemingly all to do with changing General Condition 17.8 of the National Numbering Scheme as far as I can tell but the General Conditions aren't listed with the Consulation.

But then again why does this consultation have "Annex 4 Proposed Revised Guidance" containing the 070 hospital line stuff if nothing in those conditions is in fact changed due to this consultation, as David Stewart maintains, as that was all apparently changed back in January to slip in the clauses letting Patientline go on 070 scamming so long as they provided each patient with a direct dial number to the bedside.

Its all a bit like a Chinese puzzle really.

Answers on an electronic postcard to ruth.gibson@ofcom.org.uk

This is clearly one of those consultations that Ofcom only expected to be responded to by those in the industry they had tipped off about it and that must be why it has been written so no one else can possibly understand it.  That must be why they are trying to shuffle it through in 13 days so that only those they have tipped off to respond do respond. ::) :o

Personally I can't see why the 070 number end user shouldn't revenue share?  For instance if Patientline customers got 15p a minute back then at least they could afford to buy their relations who have had to call them a drink when they get out of hospital.

However since the consultation does include the Annex containing the full revised guidance there is still nothing to stop us responding saying we don't think Patientline should be allowed to use 070 for revenue sharing at 49p per minute because the hospital patient doesn't seem to be able to point the number anywhere else after he leaves hospital so the numbers aren't truly under the control of the person receiving the calls as is required for all legitimate 070 use.  And we think it is wrong this condition has been varied by Ofcom against the original sprit of 070 use.

The fact that in fact one can also redirect an 0845 or 0870 number under the control of the person that the calls are routed to seems to rather escape Ofcom!  If they analysed it all further they would see there is no need for and no justification for 070 PNS numbers to exist.  Practically all 070 numbers are in fact used as a form of premium rate revenue share scam masquerading as a mobile number which most callers believe 070 to be.

SNAP !!
I got exactly the same email, a couple of days ago, in response to my mailing Vicky nash etc.
And it came back so quickly, I knew it was a 'round-robin'.

wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2005 at 2:12pm:

But then again why does this consultation have "Annex 4 Proposed Revised Guidance" containing the 070 hospital line stuff if nothing in those conditions is in fact changes due to this consultation, as David Stewart maintains....

But, as he says, it's a straight copy of Ofcom's guidance on the use of 070 numbers.

The 070 guidelines were updated on 24 January 2004 btw, not this year.

As I said, gradual changes are allowed to be made.

Quote:

Recent examples of services that may not fit the traditional mode of Personal Numbering, but which Ofcom considers to be legitimate Personal Numbering Services include:....

So does this mean that any companies who want to operate 'services' which don't fit the "traditional mode" start their service first and then find out whether Ofcom will "consider it to be [a] legitimate Personal Numbering Service".

With "Light touch," regulation how is Ofcom going to stop a company using numbers 'incorrectly'. It is allowing them to push the boundaries further and further.

wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2005 at 2:36pm:

So does this mean that any companies who want to operate 'services' which don't fit the "traditional mode" start their service first and then find out whether Ofcom will "consider it to be [a] legitimate Personal Numbering Service".

Dave,

Surely you know by now that Ofcom always merely writes regulations to legalise what the telecoms companies are already doing unless a telecoms company who isn't part of the cosy Ofcom cartel decides to do something that the telcos at large don't approve of. ::)

It is what the majority of telcos want that determines what rules get made by Ofcom.  As for the uk citizen and consumer well sadly they don't seem to get much of a look in! :o

NGM, re your earlier comment concerning revenue sharing with the terminating subscriber on 070 PNS: I understood that revenue sharing with the terminating subscriber had been banned (only temporarily) with 070 PNS by Oftel some while ago. So I don't think it would be possible for any patient to have a share? In any case I don't believe that the rip-off companies like Patientline would want to share their ill-gotten gains. They want all the revenue they can get.

wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2005 at 3:43pm:

NGM, re your earlier comment concerning revenue sharing with the terminating subscriber on 070 PNS: I understood that revenue sharing with the terminating subscriber had been banned (only temporarily) with 070 PNS by Oftel some while ago. So I don't think it would be possible for any patient to have a share? In any case I don't believe that the rip-off companies like Patientline would want to share their ill-gotten gains. They want all the revenue they can get.

But how can the patient be the "end-user" as they are not "in charge" of the number? It is Patientline who is incharge and who sets the where the number goes! But they receive revenue!

wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2005 at 3:50pm:

But how can the patient be the "end-user" as they are not "in charge" of the number? It is Patientline who is incharge and who sets the where the number goes! But they receive revenue!

Presumably Patientline could provide a service to allow the hospital patient number to be redirected elsewhere once the patient has left hospital.  They should have a more or less infinite stock of 070 PNS numbers available to issue.

Of course no patient will probably actually use the facility to direct calls elsewhere but its very existence would I suspect make Patientline legal.  Also I suppose Patientline might offer to redirect the 070 number to your home number when you leave hospital and then if some of your friends don't realise you are back at home Patientline then go on clocking up 50p a minute and you the ex patient will have no way of knowing the call was going via the 070 number instead of being dialled direct.

Although bearing in mind how expensive 070 is I expect that once most callers had found you were now back at home they would want to redial you on your normal number.  But there again there does seem to be a healthy market in people who do let directory enquiries put them through to their destination number at 50p per minute.  As the old saying goes.  There's one born every minute. ::)

wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2005 at 4:00pm:

Of course no patient will probably actually use the facility to direct calls elsewhere but its very existence would I suspect make Patientline legal.  Also I suppose Patientline might offer to redirect the 070 number to your home number when you leave hospital and then if some of your friends don't realise you are back at home Patientline then go on clocking up 50p a minute and you the ex patient will have no way of knowing the call was going via the 070 number instead of being dialled direct.

But surely we also want the free pre-connection announcement of the charge. 18866 do it...   :)

wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2005 at 5:21pm:

But surely we also want the free pre-connection announcement of the charge. 18866 do it...   :)

But as we know other Telcos can't afford to do it.  Even when they are charging 49p per minute. ::)

The whole point of 07 numbers in fact seems be to run a premium rate service whilst dodging using an 09 number controlled by ICSTIS.  >:(

wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2005 at 5:35pm:

The whole point of 07 numbers in fact seems be to run a premium rate service whilst dodging using an 09 number controlled by ICSTIS.  >:(

...and how will the telcos that run university accommodation phone systems generate 'revenue' to 'pay for' their 'systems' if revenue sharing is done away with on 0870? Answer: with these 070 personal numbers. Of course, when they do this they'll be free to charge whatever they want or can get away with.

wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2005 at 5:35pm:

But as we know other Telcos can't afford to do it.  Even when they are charging 49p per minute. ::) The whole point of 07 numbers in fact seems be to run a premium rate service whilst dodging using an 09 number controlled by ICSTIS.  >:(

No we don't know that. An effective regulator could require such a thing where citizen-consumers risk abusive business practices  ;D
OK, we laugh, but that is the answer. Or else forbid such scams - even in rip-off Britain.

Dave,

The person "in charge" may or may not be the end user or terminating subscriber. My point was that NGM had posted "Personally I can't see why the 070 number end user shouldn't revenue share?  For instance if Patientline customers got 15p a minute back then at least they could afford to buy their relations who have had to call them a drink when they get out of hospital. "

This to me was suggesting that the terminating subscriber could legally have a revenue share (i.e. the patient). According to the current prohibition this would be illegal. However as we know what the sly boys do is to nominate a dummy entity as the terminating subscriber so that they can as NGM says use 070 PNS as Premium numbers at a much higher rate than 0870 or 0871 at present.

So it would be possible for the patient to be given a share (illegally) by Patientline, but this would defeat their objective of maximising revenue yield from the scam.

wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2005 at 7:50pm:

The person "in charge" may or may not be the end user or terminating subscriber.

I don't think that's the case. See Ofcom's guidance on the use of personal numbers here.

Quote:

(B) The end user must be in charge of the destination number 12. Although Personal Numbers were originally designed for people who habitually move location this is not an essential characteristic (see para 7 above). 13. However, what all Personal Numbering Services have in common is that it must be the called party who decides which destination the 070 number is routed to. Additionally, if the service that is being offered is the facility to be reached at any chosen destination then the End-User must be in charge of changing as well as allocating the destination number. This follows on from Criteria A, above.

The key thing about Personal Numbers though is that the actual tariffs seem to be truly exorbitant in relation to the facilities that are provided - even if one accepts the validity of the PNS concept.

The only use they seem to be justifiably deployed to is a facility that will even let calls be redirected to overseas mobile numbers on the PNS k rate.  As international mobile calls were, until about 6 months ago, very expensive this didn't look such bad value.  The d rate PNS numbers do seem pointless since the same facilities of redirection to international fixed lines seem to be offered on 0871 at only 10p per minute.

Of course most of the money goes to revenue share to the PNS company and not to the underlying onward routing telecoms supplier, which is clearly why the rates aren't falling fast, even though telecoms costs are.

The things is that the same scams seem to be operated quite profitably in universities using only 0870 numbers so I really don't see how the extra 070 rakeoff can be justified?  And the tv part of the bedside apparatus is being paid back through the extremely lucrative rental charges.  So how the idiots at the NHS ever agreed to the use of 07 numbers is beyond me.  I suspect Mr Derek Lewis has connections in the NHS though. ;)

I feel sure that the current Ofcom investigation will merely rubber stamp the current scam though (with direct 07 dial to the bedside) and say that these hospital patients really are now getting genuine PNS numbers that are their own.  But I bet in the small print it says that if calls aren't received to the number at least once a month that they can be reallocated by Patientline..............................  That's the case with a PNS number I used to have for redirection to an international mobile number.

Dave, sometimes I wonder whether we are describing the same occurrence? You quote from Ofcom's statements: "However, what all Personal Numbering Services have in common is that it must be the called party who decides which destination the 070 number is routed to. Additionally, if the service that is being offered is the facility to be reached at any chosen destination then the End-User must be in charge of changing as well as allocating the destination number. This follows on from Criteria A, above."

Where does it mention any "person in charge"? This seems to be a term you have coined? The reality at present, which is what the scam with 070 PNS is all about, is that legally it is now only intermediaries in the NTS routeing who may receive revenue share, since Oftel banned revenue sharing for the terminating subscriber.

However what is actually occurring is that illegal revenue sharing is being enacted to the real terminating subscriber, who is arranging with the intermediaries to nominate a dummy (friend, associate or colleague) as the recorded terminating subscriber, so that they as an intermediary can take revenue share. In the case of companies like Patientline they are in realitiy intermediaries so they take the lot. It is big money because 070 PNS rates are extremely high.

This is the attraction of 070 PNS abuses. The rates are so high and queuing is allowed. Even some of the international telcos themselves have been ripped off with these - big time! See http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/FCC-04-32A1.html.

So I really do not understand your point?

NGM, you mention:

"The things is that the same scams seem to be operated quite profitably in universities using only 0870 numbers so I really don't see how the extra 070 rake-off can be justified?" The reason is as you observe that the call rates are so high. It is just sheer greed and avarice which is at the root of it. And if course Ofcom play into their hands and   condone it all!

I sent an e-mail to vicki nash of Ofcom requesting that the 070 PNS consultation deadline be extended (with copies to all on NGM's list). I received the same response as the rest of you from David Stewart. But I then replied to his replies and eventualy got not just the brush-off, but the "silence". I.E. too embarrassed to make any further reply.

My e-mail:

Dear Ms. Nash,

As a Citizen Consumer I must protest most strongly about the unacceptable way that Ofcom has attempted to undertake a supposed "consultation", deliberately allowing a ridiculously short period of 2 weeks only from its release to its closure, with a clear hidden objective of rushing through surreptitiously the legalisation of a scam service to exploit citizen consumers who have the misfortune to be ill in hospital. I refer to the current consultation  070 acceptable use. With other citizen consumers who are equally incensed at this I must request in the strongest possible terms that this consultation period is extended to the normal 10 weeks, since it is such an important issue and has the potential, if Ofcom persist in their current desire to conceal this and rush it through, of becoming the biggest NGN scam which Ofcom have allowed and actively supported so far.

What makes it all the very much worse is that this issue is really about an effective monopoly which Ofcom will be handing out to one specific company to profit from this absurdity - namely Patientline. The consultation document is clearly arranged, as is Ofcom's strategy now, so that a smoke screen of verbosity hides the real issue, which is hidden amongst the words on Page 14 of the consultation document. The clear real object is to allow the legalisation of Patientline's previously illegal use of 50p/min 070 scam numbers for patients in hospitals, so long as Patientline implement direct dial numbers to the bedside. This is clearly outrageous.

Ofcom in reality well know and even state on their own web site "It shall be the principal duty of Ofcom to further the interests of citizens in relation to communication matters and to further the interests of consumers in relevant markets". How could this action possibly further the interests of citizen consumers, particularly those who have the misfortune to be sick and in hospital? Of course there is no way in which it could; rather the reverse is true: this action is most clearly to further the interests of a telecommunications provider, namely Patientline. In addition this action by Ofcom will further reduce competition, by handing a virtual monopoly, at least initially, to one particular company - namely Patientline. This is completely outrageous, and a deliberate and distinct failure to meet your obligations under the Telecommunications Acts, and gives the remarkable impression of favouring one particular commercial company for some salient and particular reason? In addition this action would contravene the regulator's own original NTNP.

Due to the short time-scale allowed initially I have already replied to this particular Ofcom consultation, but when I read the document quickly at that time, due to the pressure of response time I had not noticed this outrageous feature of this consultation then on Page 14 and so was not able to include this issue in my response. I believe for this reason that those who have already been pressurised into responding under the duress of this artificially imposed short consultation period should be able to respond again in a longer period of 8 weeks which ought to be now allowed by Ofcom.

The principal duty of Ofcom is supposed to be to further the interests of the Citizen Consumer and to ensure fair and free competition. This Ofcom are most clearly, deliberately and continuously failing to do, but instead you are furthering the interests of telecommunications providers and their big businesses instead, and in some cases even condoning and fostering monopolies! Soon the question will have to be asked - "Why is this happening?" There will have to be a parliamentary committee examining and determining the exact reasons for Ofcom's continued failures to undertake its primary duties in telecommunications, which is its remit.

Regards,

drrdf3

I received the reply from David Stewart:

Dear drrdf3,



I refer to your earlier note to Vicki Nash, who suggested I reply directly.



In summary, I am afraid there may be a misunderstanding here - the consultation you refer to doesn't have any connection to any investigation, open or closed, involving Patientline or any other provider of calls to hospital patients. My apologies for the length of this note but I thought you might find it helpful to have the situation set out clearly.



In fact, the commentary in our guidance on 070 services for calls to hospital patients remains unchanged in the revised guidance.



For example, you can see the old (Jan 04) text here:



http://www.ofcom.org.uk/telecoms/ioi/numbers/num_070_guide#content



If you compare the text of the bullet point in relation to calls to hospital patients in the old and new versions, you can see that it has not changed. This reflects Ofcom's view about the appropriate use of 070 numbers for calls to hospital patients; this is separate (in Ofcom's view) from the question of the prices charged for those services.



The reason for the new 070 consultation is (as we said at the time) to adjust our guidance to give clarity on an issue about the role of service providers and their responsibilities to take reasonable steps to ensure that their customers are using numbers in ways that are consistent with the Numbering Plan. That objective, and the context to it, are set out on our website here:



http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/personal_numbering/#content



To put this in context, this constitutes a minor adjustment, adding text on an issue about which the guidance has previously simply been silent. This guidance explains Ofcom's approach, but doesn't directly affect the legal rights or obligations of any person; those remain as set out in the Numbering Plan and number allocations. There is no statutory requirement for consultation under those circumstances. As you know, Ofcom is committed to transparency and to consulting above and beyond our formal requirements, and therefore, Ofcom elected to conduct a short consultation in any event. (Any contribution you wish to make to that consultation would be welcome).  



Finally, I note that there are two different investigations involving Patientline and it isn’t clear which one you intended to refer to:



The first investigation concerns Patientline's conduct in relation to Competition Act issues (which is considering, amongst other things, the question of whether the 50p constitutes excessive pricing under competition law). This investigation is on-going. As with any open investigation, we have no public comment other than via our Competition Bulletin, available here:



http://www.ofcom.org.uk/bulletins/comp_bull_index/comp_bull_ocases/open_all/cw_844/?a=87101



The second investigation concerned the use by Patientline of 070 services via a switchboard. That investigation has now closed. It resulted in our determining that the use of such services via a switchboard was inappropriate (a conclusion which is obviously consistent with both the old and new 070 guidance). This was not related in any way to the question of the pricing for incoming (or outgoing) calls - it related simply and exclusively to the use of PINs or switchboards, which we viewed as inconsistent with the requirement for callers to be able to dial directly the person using the 070 number.



The outcome of that investigation was that Ofcom issued a s.94 notice to Patientline requiring them to use 070 numbers in line with our guidance. The recent decision to grant Patientline an extension to the time to comply with this requirement (in a small proportion of the sites) was not related to, and does not affect, the first investigation or Patientline's pricing for any services. Details concerning this investigation, together with the s.94 notice, can be found here:



http://www.ofcom.org.uk/bulletins/comp_bull_index/comp_bull_ccases/closed_all/cw_804/?a=87101      



I trust that this provides you with a clear picture of these various activities and the reasons for them. Thanks for the opportunity to clarify the situation.



Regards,



David Stewart

Director of Investigations



david.stewart@ofcom.org.uk








--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Vicki Nash
Sent: 02 November 2005 10:55 AM
To: David Stewart
Subject: FW: Only 2 weeks allowed for Ofcom Consultation to legalise Patientline 50p/min scam



and another

Vicki

You can see at the end that vicki nash has received quite a number of these and is just delegating the task of sending the usual Ofcom boilerplate.

I then sent the following reply:

Dear Mr. Stewart,

Thank you for your reply to my e-mail sent to Vicki Nash concerning the unacceptable shortness of the period allowed for your consultation about permissible usage of 070. I assure you that there is no misunderstanding here, as you claim. I and other Citizen Consumers are by now well aware of the spin methods which Ofcom use to bulldoze their already decided extensions to the current abuses with NGNs through into implementation, quite regardless of the expressed views and interests of Citizen Consumers, and it is clear that this short consultation period is to attempt to ensure that there will fewer embarrassing submissions from Citizen Consumers, which will inevitably disagree with what you are proposing, since these proposals are not in the interest of Citizen Consumers, as Ofcom are in fact well aware.

Clearly you do not and would not mention Patientline by name in your consultation document. Nevertheless it is quite clear to Citizen Consumers who are aware of what is going on that the references to  "070 numbers allocated to hospital patients so that they can have their own number for the duration of their stay (but not where a generic 070 number is used that requires further PINs ....)" in your consultation document can apply only to companies like Patientline and probably were inserted in particular direct favour of Patientline! I did not in fact refer to any of the investigations involving Patientline, as you claim. My point was that the very issue of dial-through use of 070 without a PIN number which you are proposing to allow is clearly referring to the operation of a company like Patientline, to give them licence after any investigations which there may be (which inevitably will find them to be blameless) to continue to operate their existing series with a slight change. Your proposal is therefore not in the interest of Citizen Consumers, as Ofcom are in fact well aware. To me as a Citizen Consumer it seems that one of the key things which Ofcom are attempting to achieve in this proposal is to now allow 070 P.N.S with its much higher charge rates to be freely used for rip-off hospital use exploiting Citizen Consumers who are sick or injured, with this sly change hidden on Page 14.  

Despite the length of your note you have evaded my principal point, which is that with such important elements of this particular issue it is unacceptable for you to rush through this consultation in 2 weeks instead of allowing the normal 10 week period. If your proposals stated in this document are implemented it will generate very significant and expensive problems for Citizen Consumers. To effectively guillotine this consultation in this way is thus decidedly against the interests of Citizen Consumers, and this specific proposal to allow 070 numbers to be allocated to hospital patients so that they can be ripped-off during their unfortunate stay in hospital as captive victims with an 070 PNS number being used as a disguised Premium number, so long as there is no further PIN required, no doubt with yet a further distorting amendment to the NTNP to permit it, is even more against the interests of  Citizen Consumers.

I must remind you once again, since for some strange reason Ofcom always seem to loose site of it, the principal responsibility of Ofcom under the Telecommunications acts is to protect the interests of the Citizen Consumer, and also to ensure free and open competition. To rush this consultation through in 2 weeks only and to intend to implement a licence for yet a further extension of the blatant abuses of non-09 NGNs as Premium numbers, most of all with 070 PNS and their higher rates, is an abuse of your powers and will be to the severe detriment of the interests of the Citizen Consumer. I must therefore ask you again, please therefore extend the closing of this consultation for a further 8 weeks.

Regards,

ddrf3

I then received the following reply from David Stewart:

Dear ddrf3,

As you correctly point out, Ofcom’s statutory mission is to act in ways that further the interests of citizens and consumers. I am sorry you feel so strongly that Ofcom isn’t doing so in this instance. We may have to agree to disagree on this point on this occasion.

On the issue at hand, I can only reiterate two points I made in my earlier email, that:

-          the section dealing with use of 070 services for services to hospital patients predate this consultation – a situation you can check for yourself by following the links in my note; and
-          the question of pricing for calls to hospital patients is and remains under active investigation. No decision has been taken by Ofcom in this matter.

I hope this is helpful to you.

Regards,

David Stewart

wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2005 at 9:25pm:

Dave, sometimes I wonder whether we are describing the same occurrence? [...] Where does it mention any "person in charge"? This seems to be a term you have coined?

The subtitle:
(B) The end user must be in charge of the destination number

My point being that this does not include Patientline's use as the called party does not determine the destination number. That means that whilst Patientline's system is listed as an accepted example use of these numbers, its use is contradicted by the part I quoted in my above post.

I would agree that the current rules permit Patientline to take all the revenue.

I then sent the following reply to David Stewart:

Dear Mr. Stewart,

Thank you for your reply to my e-mail of 2nd November 2005. However as before you have again somewhat skilfully avoided answering my original question and the additional question which I raised.

1) Is this proposed change to allow the use of 07 PNS with 070 numbers allocated to hospital patients so that they can have their own number for the duration of their stay (but not where a generic 070 number is used that requires further PINs ....) as stated in this consultation, although 070 PNS was never intended for such a use and is not allowed in the National Telephone Numbering Plan for such a use, in the interest of the Citizen Consumer? The answer is clearly NO (it is not in the interest of the Citizen Consumer). Therefore your claim that " the section dealing with use of 070 services for services to hospital patients predate this consultation" is irrelevant, since it is Ofcom's statutory responsibility to protect the interests of the Citizen Consumer, and Ofcom therefore have a statutory duty in this consultation to over-rule this predated illegal decision. Therefore the proper normal time of 10 weeks should be allowed for this consultation.

2)  Will you please therefore extend this consultation period to allow time for more Citizen Consumers to inform you of their real position, since it is your primary statutory duty to take account of what they state, so that you can be sure what is actually in the interest of the Citizen Consumer?

It seems therefore that by default your answer to Question 1 is "Yes we know that but we are going to do the opposite anyway."

It seems that by default your answer to Question 2 is "Although we know that it is our principal duty to protect the interests of the Citizen Consumer we will not agree to any requests to extend this consultation to the normal period of 10 weeks, because we know that if we do we will receive too many responses from Citizen Consumers stating the opposite of what we want to hear, and that is why we want to guillotine this consultation."

Unless I hear from you that these default answers are incorrect I shall publish this correspondence.

Regards,

drrdf3


As would be expected, he did not reply again, so the default answers are correct, and Ofcom do not intend to take any account of the interests of Citizen Consumers on this issue of 070 PNS abuses and they will not consider extending this consultation period, because they wish to guillotine it through to ensure that their pre-consultation decision already made in advance is implemented.

What I ask you is the point of having a "regulator"?

Hi Dave,

Yes but my point is that because the poor victim in hospital has no option, under duress they are accepting Patientline's terms. This means that the patient is by default agreeing to accept Patientline's termination of the 070 PNS call because they have no option other than getting up out of bed and going far enough away from their bed outside in the hospital grounds, which is what many do, to use their own mobile phone.

So the called user (terminating subscriber) is in effect setting the destination number, by having to agree to Patientline's dictat under duress. I don't see any difference. That is how it is a scam. And surely this is the very issue which Ofcom is intending to warp still further to allow these abuses to continue?

Hi drrdf

You refer to page 14 of the consultation. This is part of the 'proposed' revised guidelines which is identical, word for word, to the existing guidelines. So which part are you referring to?

Also, the acceptable use of 070 numbers lists these hospital systems in the January 2004 edition, so it appears that this one was 'legalised' a while ago.

wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2005 at 9:46pm:

Therefore your claim that " the section dealing with use of 070 services for services to hospital patients predate this consultation" is irrelevant, since it is Ofcom's statutory responsibility to protect the interests of the Citizen Consumer, and Ofcom therefore have a statutory duty in this consultation to over-rule this predated illegal decision. Therefore the proper normal time of 10 weeks should be allowed for this consultation. Will you please therefore extend this consultation period to allow time for more Citizen Consumers to inform you of their real position, since it is your primary statutory duty to take account of what they state, so that you can be sure what is actually in the interest of the Citizen Consumer? As would be expected, he did not reply again. What I ask you is the point of having a "regulator"?

Drrdf,

You have only just appeared on this forum with us but you seem to have an acutely keen and incisive mind that fully understands the abusive manner in which Ofcom operates.  It is not without reason that this body is given a mention at http://www.newlabourscandals.co.uk/bodies.htm where attention is drawn to the 70 Ofcom staff on packages of over £100,000 a year. :o

As you rightly state this consultation contains the whole revised guidance, including the changes first made in 2004, and to which we so strongly object, allowing Patientline style operations to abuse 070 so long as they offer direct dial numbers to the phone at the patient bedside.

Ofcom cannot have it both ways by putting the whole guidance including these clauses in their document for consultation and then say we cannot make our objection to those clauses known because they had in fact changed them earlier.  This consultation appears to in fact be an opportunity to comment on the whole Ofcom Guidance on the acceptable use of 070 numbers.  And that includes the unacceptable parts of that guidance viz hospital numbers.  The reality of the matter is that Ofcom have the power from legislation to change the whole guidance again if they want to as a result of the consultation, especially if there is enough strength of opinion on that matter in the responses to the consultation.  But of course the 13 days consultation is to try to make sure there aren't any such responses. But hopefully we will be able to well and truly cook their goose on this one.

Therefore it is quite legitimate for us to say that we do not believe any 070 use by Patientline hospital numbers is acceptable, especially when the facilities and the technology involved are actually no different from the phone lines provided for students in student acommodation and to which we have actually even been objecting to the ripoff involved in 0870 being used compared to 01 or 02.

However as the student halls telcos actually manage to make a decent living to pay for the equipment from 0870 numbers then there can be no case at all for 070 to be used by Patientline, especially when we know that Ofcom's policy is to keep on changing the regulations and keep granting Patientline extended deadlines to remedy their queuing abuses, just so they can retrospectively legalise a still totally unacceptable operation.

We also all know that the Ofcom's investigation into prices will not end the use of the 070 prefix by Patientline, although perhaps as a sop Ofcom may demand that the call rate on this general class of 070 numbers is cut to say 30p per minute peak, rather than its present 49p per minute.  Its clear however that Patientline won't be asked to renumber again away from 070 when Ofcom have already just asked them to go through one such exercise to provide direct dial to the bedside.

But it does seem to me that Ofcom could say this 070 call rate per minute is anti-competitive and force it to be reduced to 30p or 25p per minute peak.  But £15 an hour would still be an awful lot to pay to call your mum in hospital. :o

wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2005 at 10:27pm:

As you rightly state this consultation contains the whole revised guidance, including the changes first made in 2004, and to which we so strongly object, allowing Patientline style operations to abuse 070 so long as they offer direct dial numbers to the phone at the patient bedside. Ofcom cannot have it both ways by putting the whole gudiance including these clauses in their document for consultation and then say we cannot make our objection to those clauses because they had changed them earlier.  But this consultation appears to be an opportunity to comment on the whole Ofcom Guidance on the acceptable use of 070 numbers.

This is becoming clearer to me now.

So what you're saying is that Ofcom made the changes in January 2004 without consulting. It has decided to make some other changes, namely the insertion of paragraph 6. The changes proposed are to emphasise CP's and re-sellers responsibilities to see that the numbers are used in accordance with the rules, as Mr Stewart points out.

However, this consultation is suposedly for the afforementioned changes, but in revising 'the guidelines' as a whole, that is, by definition, consulting on the entire guidelines document.

I still stand by what I said in reply #24 and consider that this will open the floodgates for these university systems to adopt 070 numbers aswell, and that this contradicts the statement "The end user must be in charge of the destination number".

Dave,

I hope you will be responding to Ofcom making these very points.

If PNS numbers hooked up to DDI lines on a PBX are good enough for Patientline then it would surely be good enough for the DognBones of this world.  So why should DognBone etc not be allowed to use 070 for their student switchboards while Patientline can or vica versa.

If anything the student room phones are more suitable for PNS because the students are mobile all the time and have mobile phones whereas the hospital patient is fixed to his bed and the one extension.  Of course the actual concept of PNS is a fairly good one (hunting round various real numbers through a list set by the user to find one that answers) its just the skyhigh pricing that is outrageous.

But having had an account for a k class PNS that could redirect to my Liechtenstein mobile (www.riiing.com) I recall that you could put in loads of different numbers in the PNS software control panel for the Personal Number to hunt through in order till one answered.  But are hospital patients to be given any access to this functionality or controlling it in their hospital beds??  Wheras by contrast clearly DognBone could provide students with their laptops and room internet access with precisely these facilities.

I am tempted to suggest that we try to upset the whole applecart by tipping off the management of DognBone about about this consultation and asking them to complain to Ofcom that it is anticompetitive that Patientline are allowed to use PNS for fixed line only DDI telephony while they are not.  As the government surely couldn't possibly let students relatives be charged 50p perminute for calling them for 3 years it would have to be Patientline on 070 that was outlawed if Ofcom have to choose between the two.

It is so crooked of Ofcom to allow Patientline to go on using PNS, so long as they bring in DDI dialling, when its obvious that Patientline flouts every concept of PNS.

What can be done about Ofcom. Grrrrhhhhhh >:(  They codify every scam going as legal while getting paid 6 figure sums for doing so.  Why do I suffer from wanting to fight on the side of what is right instead of being happy sitting on the side of where the money is as the Ofcom careerists do.

The whole deal with Patientline is linked to the New Labour stealth tax ideology.  Can you imagine the fuss if the Tories were still in power and had allowed 50p per minute phone systems to patients bedsides in hospital?  If that had happened Labour would be on and on about it day and night in the press.

Why does New Labour constantly allow far bigger business scams to happen than would ever have been possible under a Conservative government. :o  Answer it seems because the Tory party is too polite to make a big fuss about it.

Hi Dave, It seems I made a mistake in that because the reference should have been to Page 12. which is “070 numbers allocated to hospital patients so that they can have their own number for the duration of their stay (but not where a generic 070 number is used that requires further PINs – see paragraph 15 below).”

I just copied the reference to Page 14 from the original statement in this topic which it seems was wrong.

Hi NonGeographicalMan, I did in fact register originally back in June 2003, but I lost my password and then the e-mail address which I had used became defunct. So I could not retrieve my password and I then re-registered as drrdf3. I have followed the arguments closely on this forum, although I have not contributed much. I am a firm supporter of the campaign to have these rip-offs stopped though and have responded to Ofcom's consultations.

As you say the position and stance of Ofcom is unbelievable. The biggest problem I feel is that every time they do something like this to increase the number of opportunities for rip-offs they just change the Plan to allow all the new ones thereafter.

I feel that even if Ofcom have already agreed to this scam they should now in this consultation use their regulatory powers and put an end to present and future rip-offs with 070s.

drrdf3

The document uses page twelve when printed, but is page 14 when using the pdf paging.
Hence my use of page twelve and the reference to page zero - and the comment about numbering  ;)

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

I feel that even if Ofcom have already agreed to this scam they should now in this consultation use their regulatory powers and put an end to present and future rip-offs with 070s. drrdf3

Hi drrdf,

Its good to hear you have in fact been following the forum for a while.  What was your original user name?  I would have thought Dave or Daniel (admin) could have readvised the password if you had asked them.  Although I suppose we have to guard against the opposition who would no doubt be very happy to delete my membership of the forum and all my posts. :o

As to the current 070 Ofcom consultation they have put all the guidelines in it and not just listed the change highlighted and thus clearly it is possible to comment on the whole lot since they interact and operate together as one logical set.  Also why weren't these issues consulted on together with 084/7 and 09 numbers as one complete consultation document on NTS.  Instead Ofcom have three separate consultations.  Divide and rule as usual it seems.

A key thing to comment on is how they can allow 070 use by Patientline when it doesn't seem that any Patientline customer will be using a hunt group of numbers to find one that they answer on.  Surely one of the key characteristics of a personal number.

It seems to me we could respond saying that if they allow Patientline to use 070 then why are they not allowing student acommodation operators to use 070 since as students have mobiles a number which hunted first on their student landline and then on their mobile and then even to their home number at their parents address could be very handy for them.

Not that we want students relatives to be charged 50p per minute but as Ofcom couldn't possibly allow this it will draw attention to the logical inconsistency of their own PNS Guidelines and hopefully make them back track on allowing 070 for Patientline (there again pigs might fly since we know that signing off the existing abuses of their telecoms industry chums seems to be standard Ofcom practice).

I have now asked Vikki Nash what is the Ofcom process for making a formal complaint about the 14 day consultation period compared to the usual 10 weeks.  Meanwhile we must all respond to this consultation opposing the inappropriate use of 070 for hospital patients on a fixed line by next Tuesday 8th November.

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

It seems I made a mistake in that because the reference should have been to Page 12.

It seems as though Ofcom can't get someone who can produce PDF files correctly. The other consultations vary between whether contents are page 1 or whether the summary starts page 1. The page numbers are in the centre on the 070 consultation.

On the PRS Information consultation, even numbers are left justified and odd numbers are right justified. Thing is, I've printed it book style on my printer and the odd pages are on the left and the even pages are on the right, so the numbering is now next to the centre binding rather than at the edges of the pages! ???

Anyway, to stop rambling and get back to the topic at hand...


wrote on Nov 4^th, 2005 at 12:13pm:

It seems to me we could respond saying that if they allow Patientline to use 070 then why are they not allowing student acommodation operators to use 070 since as students have mobiles a number which hunted first on their student landline and then on their mobile and then even to their home number at their parents address could be very handy for them.

I think that we should avoid any reference to the company/system Patientline. Just keep it in general terms, ie "070 number allocated to hospital patients" as that is what Ofcom has referred to in its example list of suitable uses.

A hospital patient may have his own PN, does this mean that they can have this pointed to the bedside phone? I somehow doubt it!

wrote on Nov 4^th, 2005 at 1:12pm:

I think that we should avoid any reference to the company/system Patientline. Just keep it in general terms, ie "070 number allocated to hospital patients" as that is what Ofcom has referred to in its example list of suitable uses. A hospital patient may have his own PN, does this mean that they can have this pointed to the bedside phone? I somehow doubt it!

You are right Dave.

So the comparison should just be why can hospital phone service operators provide their direct dial services to the bedside use PNS while student phone service operators to the room cannot and instead have to use Special Services numbers (viz 0845, 0844, 0870 and 0871).  Bearing in mind that the technological formats of the two types of phone system seem to be virtually identical.

Not of course that we want to see PNS used for students you will understand but rather to demonstrate just why Ofcom cannot justify PNS use for hospital patient phone services.

wrote on Nov 4^th, 2005 at 1:22pm:

So the comparison should just be why can hospital phone service operators provide their direct dial services to the bedside use PNS while student phone service operators to the room cannot ...

Where does it state that the student accommodation phones cannot use 070 numbers?

wrote on Nov 4^th, 2005 at 1:26pm:

Where does it state that the student accommodation phones cannot use 070 numbers?

Because the Ofcom PNS guidance doesn't make a special provision for student room phone services to now be allowed for PNS.

But this exception has now been made by Ofcom to allow 070 for hospital patient services.

wrote on Nov 4^th, 2005 at 1:33pm:

Because the Ofcom PNS guidance doesn't make a special provision for student room phone services to now be allowed for PNS.

Yes, but it doesn't make a point of saying that they cannot be used for such purposes.

The guidelines state:

Quote:

Recent examples of services that may not fit the traditional mode of Personal Numbering, but which Ofcom considers to be legitimate Personal Numbering Services include: • 070 numbers allocated to users of Internet chat rooms who want to talk to new acquaintances without divulging their real phone numbers; • 070 numbers allocated solely for the purpose of selling, eg, a car through a magazine; and • 070 numbers allocated to hospital patients so that they can have their own number for the duration of their stay (but not where a generic 070 number is used that requires further PINs – see para 14 below).

So these aren't ("may not") be traditional uses, but Ofcom has allowed them. Do you think that the last one about hospital systems appeared on the list before such systems appeared in hospitals?  ::)

wrote on Nov 4^th, 2005 at 1:48pm:

Do you think that the last one about hospital systems appeared on the list before such systems appeared in hospitals?  ::)

I take your point Dave but I think Ofcom know they couldn't get away with making students relatives pay 50p per minute for 3 years!

Ofcom seem to think this scam can be allowed to work with Patientline though because most people are only in hospital for a few days or weeks.  And I expect Mr Derek Lewis has lots of important contacts with the right government ministers and senior staff at Ofcom whereas DognBone possibly do not. ::)

wrote on Nov 4^th, 2005 at 2:05pm:

... I think Ofcom know they couldn't get away with making students relatives pay 50p per minute for 3 years!

Granted NGM. But that doesn't mean that they can't charge less. They could have an 070 which charges the same as the current 0870. I don't know whether the revenue will be the same, but I guess it mustn't be far off. They could of course push up the price a bit, say to 10p/min. To do that now, they would have to go to 0871.

That said, at present, they probably hide behind the 'national rate' lie.


Quote:

Ofcom seem to think this scam can be allowed to work with Patientline though because most people are only in hospital for a few days or weeks.  ....

That's the cost of the call and not the number prefix that they have been investigated for, is it not?

The other investigation was/is to do with whether Patientline could use 070 as non-DDI numbers, which they cannot.

Patientline use of 070 numbers was categorically 'accepted' when Ofcom revised its guidelines. According to Mr Stewart's email to drrdf, they don't have to consult on such changes.

My understanding of this is taken from what Ive observed on this forum, so if you know different, let us know.

Does this make sense?

Further to my previous post, the hospital system example is in an uncompetitive environment. As there are many different rates (what Ofcom refer to as 'pricing points') for 070 numbers, there needs to be some 'market forces' to drive down these prices. I ask Ofcom, where are they in this example?

Perhaps Ofcom hopes that the NHS will be privatised and that we will all be given some "choice" of which hospital we go to. That way, should we be struck down with some illness, we can elect which hospital we would "like" to go, based on the "services" it provides, including whether friends and relatives can ring us at a cheaper rate.  ::)

Also, by putting Patientline-type systems on the list of acceptable uses, by definition, permits them to charge upto 50p/min, unless there are rules that state otherwise. So pricing is relevant wherever there is the question of extending legitimate uses of 070.   ::)

Exactly Dave. That is the key issue in the end.

wrote on Nov 4^th, 2005 at 5:32pm:

So pricing is relevant wherever there is the question of extending legitimate uses of 070.   ::)

Assuming there are any legitimate uses of 070 in the first place given that 0871 seems to be able to do all of the same jobs.  The only reason people use 070 is to get a higher rate per minute.  It is also favoured by abusers like Retainacar who use it for their customer call centre which is clearly only based in one place.

wrote on Nov 4^th, 2005 at 7:01pm:

...The reason I brought the discussion on personal numbers over here is because, IMO, Ofcom are allowing the boundaries of what it can't be used for to be eroded.

I agree.  Patientline are using the 07 personal range numbers as a premium rate number to gain revenue but by doing this on 07 personal number range means that they avoid the protection/guidelines of coming under the remit of ICSTIS.

If Ofcom allow the patientline or any other company to continue this then nothing is stopping other companies that currently operate premium rate numbers or are thinking of using a premium rate number to use the 07x number range to gain the revenue but avoid coming under the remit and added protection from the ICSTIS.

Plus having an 07x personal number to most people just looks like a normal mobile number so most people would think that the call would be included in their inclusive anynetwork minutes they may have.

The goalposts keep getting wider and wider and is therefore open to more abuse from companies wanting to make extra revenue without being subject to strict ICSTIS guidelines which are there for our protection from abuse.

Normally a personal range 07 number doesn't have revenue sharing associated with it but it obviously must have otherwise Patientline wouldn't use it.  I also believe that Vodafone used a personal range number a while ago (not sure about now though) for their contact number.

I realise patientline want to make some money back on what it cost them for the units, etc but if they want to continue revenue sharing then they should could choose an 0871 number or something.  This is a lot cheaper than their current rip-off 50ppm number.

If patientline were to use this number range then they would probably get more people ringing the number and for longer.  They (patientline) could then advertise this by saying something like, "A new lower cost contact number costing only 10ppm so now you can talk longer"

Right now they do have monopoly over calling patients inside hospitals and therefore it is definitely anti-competitive and should be investigated by ofcom (instead of brushed under the carpet) and OfT (if its within their remit).  Any company that has a monopoly is unfair/uncompetitive and regulation needs to be in force to protect against abuse.

(I continued this over on this thread to save it from becoming too much related to the 07/patientline issues although I agree it was worth mentioning on the other thread)

And I think that all such revenue sharing, even if "notional revenue sharing" as here, should be behind 09 and subject to control. That is what 09 was for in the new numbering plan.
That and protection for the citizen-consumer.
Now off to look for a flying-pig smiley.

wrote on Nov 5^th, 2005 at 10:07am:

And I think that all such revenue sharing, even if "notional revenue sharing" as here, should be behind 09 and subject to control. That is what 09 was for in the new numbering plan. That and protection for the citizen-consumer. Now off to look for a flying-pig smiley.

I can't see what is notional about the revenue share Tanllan?

The calls go to Patientline who get the revenue share and Patientline then pass them to hospital patients who don't get the revenue share.

But this is no different from the arrangement between Cable & Wireless and Capita & the BBC where Cable & Wireless get the revenue share and in return seem to provide Capita and the BBC with phone line rental and also outgoing calls at very reduced or possibly zero rates.  In the same way it will be argued that the hospital patient doesn't have to pay phone line rental so the caller is in fact passing a revenue share on to the patient for the free phone line that sits at his bedside which he does not have to rent.

Since Patientline customers have to pay a £3 a day or more charge for the television the answer seems to be to make it £4 a day but allow the incoming calls to be on an 0844 number at 1p at all times or even a geographic phone number instead.  I am sure that most hospital patients would rather pay extra themselves for the phone facility rather than have their relatives put off calling them due to the exorbitant call cost.

wrote on Nov 5^th, 2005 at 10:22am:

...this is no different from the arrangement between Cable & Wireless and Capita & the BBC where Cable & Wireless get the revenue share and in return seem to provide Capita and the BBC with phone line rental and also outgoing calls at very reduced or possibly zero rates.  In the same way it will be argued that the hospital patient doesn't have to pay phone line rental so the caller is in fact passing a revenue share on to the patient for the free phone line that sits at his bedside which he does not have to rent.

The difference is that Capita use a 8ppm line and Patientline use a 50ppm.


Quote:

Since Patientline customers have to pay a £3 a day or more charge for the television the answer seems to be to make it £4 a day but allow the incoming calls to be on an 0844 number at 1p at all times or even a geographic phone number instead.  I am sure that most hospital patients would rather pay extra themselves for the phone facility rather than have their relatives put off calling them due to the exorbitant call cost.

I've visited many times to hospitals and they moan about the cost of £3.50 now for very, very few channels they get for it. I don't think they would like an increase to subsidise the incoming calls.  Besides how much increase would it need to be so that the incoming calls are reduced from 50ppm to a geographical rate?  I suspect it would cost well in excess of an extra £2 for TV to so that calls could be charged at geographical rate and patientline don't lose any revenue?

A compromise needs to be made and that's where I think a reduction from 50ppm to 10ppm although not idea is better than nothing.  TV could stay the same and they are likely to get more people ringing and spending longer on the line than than at 50ppm.

I still firmly believe that they've used a 07 number instead of an 09x number to avoid paying and coming under the tight guidelines of the ICSTIS.

wrote on Nov 5^th, 2005 at 12:40pm:

I still firmly believe that they've used a 07 number instead of an 09x number to avoid paying and coming under the tight guidelines of the ICSTIS.

Also because 07 numbers aren't perceived to be as expensive as 09 numbers as well.

The thing is if these Patientline terminals bring in £1000 a year in rental charges for the tv then how come Patientline aren't already coining it from that and how come they need to charge any more than 0845 for the phone access?  Is it because Mr Derek Lewis and co are paying themselves huge dividends?

Thinking about what a Patientline terminal and linked systems involved surely at £3.50 day they would pay back the cost of the equipment in less than a year so I really can't see how anything more than 0845 for the incoming calls can be justified, and I personally think they should actually be DDI 01 or 02 numbers.  A small extra charge for outgoing calls above BT rates might be justified.

Or are the NHS charging Patientline a huge annual fee for the exclusive right to operate these services in hospital so is there a further hidden tax to pay for the NHS out of patient's pockets?  Is that why Patientline need to charge so much a day and so much for phone calls to make a profit, as I can't see the equipment they have installed is that expensive and should be easily covered in year or less by the daily tv charge alone.

Hi NGM
The "notional" aspect was to differentiate between actual money being handed over, as with 09X and now 084 and 087, and a service being given - as with the beeb and so on.

Some of you participating in this thread might want to contribute to this other new thread on the user friendliness of the Ofcom Consultation Process which I have just started here:-

Click Here - for Responding to Ofcom Made Difficult by Design Thread

Hi all
Today's the closing day.
Good Luck with your submissions. Particularly with the very tight time allowed.

Just a Message to point out to everyone who participated in this thread that today is the closing day for representations to Ofcom on their 070 number consultation.

Please respond saying:-

1) 070 should not be used for fixed line only telephony as they were intended for totally mobile communication.

2) 070 are simply a way to carry out covert revenue sharing at 50p per minute whilst avoiding being regulatd by ICSTIS

3) By changing the guidlines to include Patientline Ofcom have opened the floodgates to loads of student halls telephone operators saying they have the same rights to charge 50p per minute as long as they allow students to reassign the number to their mobile phone or parents home phone

4) That its is wrong that this 070 PNS issue was not made part of the current 10 week NTS consultation when the issues involved are the same

5) Neither 0844/45/70/71 or 070 numbers with revenue sharing are valid because they do not make it explicit to the caller that part of the call price is being used as a revenue payback to the terminating call operator instead of as a fair payment for the value of services consumed

6) It is outrageous that Ofcom tried to shuffle this consultation through in just two weeks instead of the usual 10 weeks.

Send your thoughts now before the consultation closes to :-  ruth.gibson@ofcom.org.uk

Thanks for reminding us about this NGM.

For those who followed what I was saying about the hospital uses contradicting the guidelines, I'm not so sure now. Please feel free to skip the rest of this post if you wish. It is not my intention to make you fall asleep and miss the 5pm deadline!


Quote:

14. However, what all Personal Numbering Services have in common is that it must be the called party who decides which destination the 070 number is routed to. Additionally, if the service that is being offered is the facility to be reached at any chosen destination then the End-User must be in charge of changing as well as allocating the destination number. ...

Ofcom employ a team of very good wordsmiths!

I draw your attention to the "Additionally, if" in bold. Therefore, if it's not a service that allows the facility to be reached at any destination, then the End-User doesn't have to be able to be in charge of changing as well as allocating the destination number.

So what we have with the first sentence is "...it must be the called party who decides which destination the 070 number is routed to." The destination in this case is not the number, but where it comes out. Thus, the patient in their hospital bed must have decided where their 070 number (for the duration of their stay) goes!

wrote on Nov 8^th, 2005 at 2:28pm:

Is there a 5pm deadline Dave?

Yes there is. See Annex 1 on page 6.

wrote on Nov 8^th, 2005 at 2:36pm:

Yes there is. See Annex 1 on page 6.

Strange.  I don't think there is for the current NTS consultation is there?

Looks like my response just got more bullet pointish then.

wrote on Nov 8^th, 2005 at 2:59pm:

Strange.  I don't think there is for the current NTS consultation is there?

Yes, they all have 5pm deadlines. In the section entitled "Responding to this consultation" within each consultation it is in bold.

wrote on Nov 8^th, 2005 at 3:05pm:

Yes, they all have 5pm deadlines. In the section entitled "Responding to this consultation" within each consultation it is in bold.

But isn't this really based on a pre email world when the front doors of their offices would close at 5pm and there would be no way to deliver it on a verified time basis after that moment.

I can't see the need these days with email running 24/7.

Anyhow back to finishining my response.

wrote on Nov 8^th, 2005 at 2:09pm:

So what we have with the first sentence is "...it must be the called party who decides which destination the 070 number is routed to." The destination in this case is not the number, but where it comes out. Thus, the patient in their hospital bed must have decided where their 070 number (for the duration of their stay) goes!

But they still are not in control of it with regards to being able to then have that number divert to their landline or mobile or wherever they choose.

They are allocated a number for the bedside only and if this number cannot be used by the end party other than when in hospital then they, by my definition, are not in control of that number.

wrote on Nov 8^th, 2005 at 3:37pm:

But they still are not in control of it with regards to being able to then have that number divert to their landline or mobile or wherever they choose.

But they are allocated it for the duration of their stay. So they wouldn't need it to be pointed to their landline. However, as I will be putting in my response, they may want it forwarded to their mobile, if they went outside, for example.

wrote on Nov 8^th, 2005 at 3:40pm:

But they are allocated it for the duration of their stay. So they wouldn't need it to be pointed to their landline.

True. You could say they are only partly in control of it - specifically only whilst in hospital.

I've already sent mine off the other day but you may want to mention that do they then get this exact same number back on their next visit or is their 07 number used by another patient after so long?

My response has been submitted, just after 11am Eastern Standard Time today, so I've beaten the deadline! It's rushed and not really what I would have have wanted to submit given more time, nevertheless it has been sent, and I hope others will submit something, even if it is just a few lines.

Ofcom will accept late submissions, so don't worry too much about the 5pm aspect.

My submission has also been sent.

I may publish it here in due course.

Here is my response to Ofcom.  Of course it will also be published on their website in due course I hope:-

-----------------------------------------------------------------

I would like to respond as follows in respect of your current Consultation on a Proposed amendment to guidance on acceptable use of Personal Numbers

I would also like to note in responding my concern that Ofcom only allowed 13 days and 8 hours for responding to this consultation compared to its usual 10 weeks and that it also failed to produce a Plain English distillation of its proposals in what is a somewhat technologically complex but more importantly especially jargon filled subject area.  This has hardly helped protect the interests of uk Citizens and Consumers in being able to access the proposals in this consultation and to respond within this very reprehensibly short consultation period.

Although I believe your Director of Investigations, Mr David Stewart, has attempted to justify this on the basis that Ofcom was not under a statutory duty to run this particular consultation, the fact is that you did choose to do so and it really does stretch the bounds of public credibility to suggest that all the relevant stakeholders and private individuals involved are likely to hear about and have had time to respond to such a consultation in such a short period of time.  In fact the more cynical amongst us might be inclined to believe that when such an important matter is involved in the consultation (namely telephone access to hospital patients who are barred from using their mobile phones in hospital buildings) that the short notice involved was specifically designed to ensure that Ofcom only received responses from those parties most likely to agree with the recommendations in its guidance on acceptable use of Personal Numbers - that is only from other professionals in the telecoms industry who are on Ofcom's daily Update lists and are paid for their living to respond on matters commercially important to the companies that employ them..  Also I must disagree with Mr David Stewart that Ofcom is only consulting on those paragraphs in the Guidance on Acceptable Use of Personal Numbers which it has amended in this version, since it is very clear that it is the whole document from Paragraphs 1 to 22 inclusive, as outlined in Pages 11 to 14 of the Consultation document (or confusingly numbered 13 to 16 in the PDF posted by Ofcom on its website) on which it is in fact asking for comments.

I would like to respond to the proposed revised guidance as follows:-

1) I am very concerned that this proposed guidance on acceptable use of 070 numbers is intended to retrospectively sign off the misuse of 070 numbers for certain applications for which they were never originally envisaged.  Furthermore it is clear to me that the original concept of Personal Numbers was that the numbers were totally flexible and that calls could be redirected to either one number or a hunt group list of numbers specified by the personal number owner and able to be easily changed at will at any time by the personal number owner.  This would occur either through a call centre, touch tone driven menus or these days via a website run by the company selling the 070 number services to the end user.

2) It is clear that the concept of a Personal Number was that it was totally under the control of the end user and such numbers were generally chosen because end users normally chose to terminate calls on a variety of different fixed line and mobile telephones from day to day but it was certainly never envisaged that 070 numbers would be used to terminate only on fixed line extensions on a DDI switchboard where the number assigned to the person being called, whilst specific to the person called ,was not a number chosen by the person called or a number that they could have redirected at any time at their own discretion.

Continued/...

3) I would therefore like to object in the strongest possible terms to Ofcom's statement in Paragraph 9 of the proposed revised guidance that "examples of services that may not fit the traditional mode of personal numbering but which Ofcom considers to be legitimate uses of Personal Numbering Services include:-"numbers intended for use in internet chat rooms, numbers intended solely for the purposes of selling and numbers allocated to hospital patients so that they can have their own number for the duration of the stay".  The characteristic feature of all these attempts to vary PNS usage terms by Ofcom seems to me to be that although at the very moment they are used they do route calls directly to the personal number user they are not actually able to be retained by the end user or redirected by the end user to other mobile or fixed line numbers in the manner originally intended for personal numbers.  In fact the consequences of such a permission by Ofcom is to drive a coach and horses through the whole National Telephone Number Plan so that what we are faced with is higher priced Special Services numbers that should be controlled by ICSTIS but are instead allowed to be operated on the 070 number code without adequate awareness of or notification to those calling the numbers that they are charged at rates of up to £30 an hour.

4) For Ofcom to claim that this use of PNS is legitimate is for Ofcom to merely look for a way to rewrite its own acceptable use guidance so as to legitimise the activities of all existing 070 PNS number users, especially users providing access to hospital patients, that were in fact quite clearly outside the intentions for which 070 PNS numbers were originally set up.  And although those intentions are I think in hindsight themselves very questionable, and although all such uses could legitimately have been confined entirely to 09 premium rate numbers, if there was a legitimate use it was actually for individuals who intended to keep the numbers long term and reassign them to different fixed line and mobile phones regularly, under their own control and for their own convenience.

5) It is utterly clear to me that numbers assigned to hospital patients for simply the duration of their stay in hospital do not meet the spirit or  the letter of the intended original use of PNS, even when the number does at least lead to the bedside of the individual in hospital who needs to be called.

6) It is abundantly clear that by trying to draw a distinction between NTS numbers where the called party can share revenue and those that cannot share revenue in this way that Ofcom is not acting in the best interest of citizens and consumers but is instead acting to legalise the abuses of the National Telephone Number Plan perpetrated by certain parts of the telecoms industry.  In my opinion this is because too many staff at a senior level at Ofcom have recently worked in those industries and so are unable to adequately separate the best interests of the uk citizens and consumers Ofcom is supposed to protect from the best interests of telecommunications companies

7) In my opinion there are no circumstances that justify allowing those staying in hospital to only be given access to a monopoly fixed line phone service at the patient bedside at rates of up to 50p per minute that do not also justify such services being properly regulated by ICSTIS as Premium Rate and assigned 09 telephone numbers with all the requirements for cost disclosure that entails.

8 In my opinion because of the potential confusion of the 070 access number with being a mobile phone number and the likelihood of people calling such numbers on other mobile phones expecting to be able to use inclusive cross network minutes the whole concept of 070 personal numbers is now entirely wrong and flawed and the numbers should be reassigned to an 09 prefix code.  Whether or not a revenue share is involved to the end user is utterly immaterial to the caller who only cares about being made properly aware of what they are likely to have to pay for the call.

9) However even if one accepts for a moment the concept of legitimate personal number use these hospital services most certainly do not meet its requirements because the Personal Number is not under the control of the patient, is not permanently assigned to them so that they can use it when they come back to hospital a few months later in a different bed or even a different hospital. In addition the numbers cannot, as far as I know, be redirected to their mobile phone or landline when they eventually leave hospital as again would be expected of any legitimate 070 PNS use.

10) Ofcom does not seem to have thought through properly or logically the potentially appalling consequence of legitimising PNS use for such applications and an obvious next step would be to encourage numerous operators of fixed line telephone services to student rooms in student halls to attempt to offer the services on 070 numbers at up to 50p per minute instead of the 0844/0845/0870 and 0871 Special Service Numbers that they currently use at significantly lower call rates.

In summary this Guidance on Personal Number is not in the best interests of uk citizens and consumers for the reasons set out above and should be replaced by Ofcom with proposals for a revised guidance that is in the best interests of those uk citizens and consumers

Regards............

The responses to the consultation on Personal Numbering have been published here.

Several consumers have responded, including Dr Feltham. The sentiments of consumers' responses are generally the same, and the hospital uses figure highly.

The only PNS provider to respond is FleXtel. It suggests that price transparency is needed in the UK telecoms market, and suggests that telcos should provide call price announcements. A 1xx prefix would be used to turn this on or off.

Responses from TUFF (Telecommunications UK Fraud Forum) and VOPNS (Victims of PNS) mention the scams and AIT (artificial inflation of traffic) that takes place with 070 numbers.

These responses were only published after I prodded them several times this week.  Those who follow this forum regularly will note the response by a certain Councillor in addition to the good Doctor.

At the workshop on Thursday Ofcom Competition Partner Sean Williams was not even aware of the existence of the 070 consultation when I challenged them on why there wasn't one logical consultation document for all of NTS numbering at one go.

By the way did you or Daniel or DaveM submit a response to this consultation Dave?  Perhaps you were one of the two Anons? ::)

wrote on Nov 26^th, 2005 at 8:36pm:

By the way did you or Daniel or DaveM submit a response to this consultation Dave?  Perhaps you were one of the two Anons? ::)

Oh, I responded.  ;)

I recognise a few familiar names who are members on here.

The two Anons, they were very similar, just a bit reworded. Both refer to 07 personal numbers, as opposed to 070 personal numbers. I could be forgiven for thinking that they were written by the same person.  ::)