Source: http://www.ofcom.org.uk/media/news/2006/02/nr20060223

Ofcom today published its review of the UK National Telephone Numbering Plan.

Telephone numbers underpin all telecoms services and play a key role in how UK households and businesses access and pay for £34 billion worth of services every year. Under the Communications Act 2003 Ofcom is responsible for managing the UK National Telephone Numbering Plan - an important national resource.

Background

Ofcom allocates blocks of telephone numbers to communications providers upon request and at no cost; providers then in turn allocate these numbers to their customers. Geographic numbers - the numbers used for homes and businesses in every part of the UK - are normally allocated to providers in blocks of ten thousand for each telephone exchange covering a specific area. Ofcom is also required to allocate other kinds of numbers, such as mobile numbers or non-geographic numbers, when asked to do so by any provider.

Telephone numbers are a finite resource. As competition grows, an increasing number of providers require Ofcom to allocate new number blocks. Additionally, new technologies (such as Voice over Internet Protocol services) and changes in demographics over time (such as population growth in London and South-East England) mean that Ofcom must ensure its approach to numbering is sufficiently flexible to adapt to future demand.

No changes to geographic telephone numbers are proposed as part of the numbering framework; instead Ofcom is proposing specific measures to reduce the need for such changes in the years ahead.

Proposals

Ofcom's telephone numbering framework seeks to encourage greater innovation, support the creation of new services, increase consumer awareness and enhance consumer protection.

Ofcom’s proposals cover six key areas:

Create a new country-wide number range - 03 - which would be charged to the consumer at the same rate as calling a geographic number.
Organisations requiring a national presence would be able to use this range without charging consumers a premium for contacting them; and calls to 03 numbers could be included in any inclusive or low-cost call packages offered by landline or mobile phone companies;

Introduce a new consumer protection test to the allocation system which would deny numbers to providers who have previously abused consumer trust and might do so again through their involvement in telephone scams;

Introduce a new 06 number range for personalised number services. Over time this new number range would replace the current 070 personal numbers, and both the old and new numbers would have a price ceiling. Many consumers confuse 070 numbers with mobile numbers (which also begin with 07), leading to the potential for abuse and scams. The use of 06 numbers would remove confusion, strengthen consumer protection, and allow the 07 number range to be uniquely identified with mobile services;

Simplify the structure of the 08 range used for chargeable services. Ofcom plans to band new numbers by price and type of service to develop an association in the consumer's mind that the lower the digit that follows 08 the lower the price in that range. For example, calls to a number beginning 082 would be charged at a lower rate than those to a number beginning 089. These proposals complement work already underway to reform the current 084/087 numbering scheme, the conclusion of which will be published next month;

Simplify the structure of 09 premium rate service numbers in a similar way to 08, by making different groups of 09 numbers represent different prices and services. This will also enable consumers to bar specific types of 09 numbers;

Introduce a new allocation system to avoid changes to geographic numbers in the future. Ofcom wants to encourage providers to use the numbers available in blocks already allocated to them as efficiently as possible and is consulting on principles for a new administrative pricing system (at a nominal cost). It also proposes to allocate more numbers in smaller blocks of one thousand instead of ten thousand, to maximise supply.

A table illustrating Ofcom’s proposals and the full consultation document are available from the Related Items. The closing date for responses to the consultation is 4 May 2006.

Ofcom Chief Executive Stephen Carter said: "Telephone numbers are at the heart of a well-functioning communications industry.

He added: "From 01 to 09 we are proposing a planning framework that provides clearer consumer information and is future-proofed for growth."

Ends.


UPDATE:

Ofcom's webpages on this consultation can be found here and below are important links taken from their site:-
Consultation Summary
Full main Consultation (.pdf - 1.5mb)
Numbering Review: Report of Market Research Findings
Finer Digit Analysis of Telephone Numbers for Routeing Purposes
Consultation Responses

idb wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2006 at 12:01pm:

Create a new country-wide number range - 03 - which would be charged to the consumer at the same rate as calling a geographic number. Organisations requiring a national presence would be able to use this range without charging consumers a premium for contacting them; and calls to 03 numbers could be included in any inclusive or low-cost call packages offered by landline or mobile phone companies; Simplify the structure of the 08 range used for chargeable services. Ofcom plans to band new numbers by price and type of service to develop an association in the consumer's mind that the lower the digit that follows 08 the lower the price in that range. For example, calls to a number beginning 082 would be charged at a lower rate than those to a number beginning 089. Simplify the structure of 09 premium rate service numbers in a similar way to 08, by making different groups of 09 numbers represent different prices and services. This will also enable consumers to bar specific types of 09 numbers;

Outwardly, at a brief glance, that looks reasonable enough although some will find problems with parts of it.

The questions are - how fast will reputable organisations that want to show goodwill migrate towards the 03 numbers; how fast will public opinion realise this and expect them to do it? And - will telecoms companies actually include these in call packages rather faster than the 0560 numbers that half of them seem to have still not heard of?

I know some disagree about the 08/09 overlap, but any improvement in the clarity of 08 number tariffs would be welcome, so you could know the charge from looking at the number. Here, I am thinking that they are legitimate for callthrough numbers to reach international destinations, rather than that some companies will want to keep them for call centres

I liked the second paragraph:-
Quote from The Register's website:

Quote:

Instead, Ofcom's looking at other areas where it can increase the availability of numbers. For instance, it's looking to create a new country-wide number range, beginning "03", which would be charged at the same rate as calling a geographic number.

The important question would they include revenue sharing and whether or not they would be included within 'inclusive' calling plans many of us have.

UPDATE:
Just noticed this paragraph from Ofcom's link quoted by idb:-

Quote:

Create a new country-wide number range - 03 - which would be charged to the consumer at the same rate as calling a geographic number. Organisations requiring a national presence would be able to use this range without charging consumers a premium for contacting them; and calls to 03 numbers could be included in any inclusive or low-cost call packages offered by landline or mobile phone companies

Quote:

3.  Introduce a new 06 number range for personalised number services. Over time this new number range would replace the current 070 personal numbers, and both the old and new numbers would have a price ceiling. Many consumers confuse 070 numbers with mobile numbers (which also begin with 07), leading to the potential for abuse and scams. The use of 06 numbers would remove confusion, strengthen consumer protection, and allow the 07 number range to be uniquely identified with mobile services

Quote:

4.  Simplify the structure of the 08 range used for chargeable services. Ofcom plans to band new numbers by price and type of service to develop an association in the consumer's mind that the lower the digit that follows 08 the lower the price in that range. For example, calls to a number beginning 082 would be charged at a lower rate than those to a number beginning 089. These proposals complement work already underway to reform the current 084/087 numbering scheme, the conclusion of which will be published next month

Quote:

5.  Simplify the structure of 09 premium rate service numbers in a similar way to 08, by making different groups of 09 numbers represent different prices and services. This will also enable consumers to bar specific types of 09 numbers

One would think that had this been thought of in advance then it wouldn't be needed now but at least they are finally going to look into the mess of number allocations that currently exist.

I've also started a thread on MSE here.

You're spot on with the yellow highlight - could, should, might, must, can't be arsed?

Just noticed the following taken from paragraph 4:-

Quote:

...These proposals complement work already underway to reform the current 084/087 numbering scheme, the conclusion of which will be published next month

So this would still seem to indicate that ofcom will publish the result of the consultation next month as planned!?!?!?!?

idb wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2006 at 12:01pm:

Create a new country-wide number range - 03 - which would be charged to the consumer at the same rate as calling a geographic number. Organisations requiring a national presence would be able to use this range without charging consumers a premium for contacting them; and calls to 03 numbers could be included in any inclusive or low-cost call packages offered by landline or mobile phone companies

This 03 NGN code charged at geographic rates is basically my proposal as put forward at the Ofcom NTS Consumer Workshop back in November.  I and my fellow less well known SayNoTo0870 reps also hit Ofcom very heavily with the current NTNP being essentially a bankrupt and totally compromised document.  To which they now seem to be responding with this consultation before no doubt then tieing it all up in about June with their report back on NTS Way Forward.

At the meeting in November Ofcom ran us through their NTS Way Forward consultation and justified most of their proposals in the consultation, including their retention of higher rate charging for all 0845 numbers for 3 or 4 years, by rabbiting on about all the value added services 084/7 had provided etc.  To which they were then hit by our response that there weren't any value added voice services on 0845 and 0870 and that 0845 number users in particular (eg Inland Revenue) had only adopted these numbers because they wanted a national number that could be directed anywhere using Intelligent Call Routing.  It was pointed out that the disgraceful situation with 0845 costing more than 0870 for up to 2 years or more was only coming about because of regulatory failure to ever establish separate NGNs that were only charged at geographic call rates.  I even suggested at that meeting that the 03 number range be used for this geographically priced set of NGNs and I think also suggested this in one of my consultation responses.  I was strongly supported in most of these suggestions by Marc Michaels from the COI.  He said they wanted a number which could be routed around call centres and be national but that did not cost more than normal calls.  The COI did not want to use freephone numbers for most government call centres because they brought many problems of their own with some users making unnecessary calls and kids making calls from phoneboxes etc, etc.

What I am very unhappy about though in these proposals is the proposal that 080 Free will be kept with the rest of 08 Chargeable Services which will let the 087 scammers carry on untouched.   This is quite wrong as to bring the 084/7 local/national rate scam rapidly to an end can only be achieved by 08 being returned to Freephone only number use and the chargeable 08 services either moving to 09 or to another code which shows they are lower rate chargeable services.  My suggestion to Ofcom was that 06 be used for the 084/7 services but I see they are depressingly going to use that for the continuation of Patientline and other PNS scamming.  Logically 04 would be the most appropriate code for lower cost chargeable services since that code has been unused since the original 04 codes all became 014 several years ago.

What this is all about though is letting those companies who were conned to get an 0845 number replace it with a geographic equivalent immediately without having to wait two or three more years for 0845 to move to being charged as per geographic calls.  So all the legitimate 0845 voice users will now have to get a new 03 number to do the right thing.  Bang goes the argument that 084/7 is so great as you never have to get a new one.  Well that was always a lie anyhow and is bound to be so when we all move to voip phone names over the next 5 to 10 years.

So in summary Ofcom have found a way to let legitimate 0845 users immediately offer customers an alternative charged at geographic rates and this will be adopted with enthusiasm by people like the Inland Revenue, the Police and so forth.  But meanwhile all the 0844 and 0870/0871 scammers can stay put and and ISP can go on ripping off customers on old legacy dial up charges at 3p per minute for as long as possible.

The big issue is that unless use of 084/7 chargeable services is banned they are not going to have to obtain replacement numbers and so will have little incentive to migrate to using 03.  The most likely outcome is that the ethical 0845 voice service users (the vast majority of those using 0845 for voice) will set up an 03 charged at geographic rates routing to the same place as the 0845 before those are ultimately discontinued.  I also have a big fear that Ofcom is now going to change its mind on 0870 being charged at geographic rates.

So don't be fooled as this new NTNP is going to allow most of the scamming to continue and not to be regulated by ICSTIS as Premium Rate.  Its only point is to offer Ofcom and its predecessor OFTEL a back door way out of their mistake in letting 0845 be used for data services and local rate voice so that all the original local rate voice services can migrate to the new 03 national rate NGN call code.  Although unless Ofcom prohibits the offering of voice based 0845 services after a certain date I am far from convinced this will be universal.

I haven't read the new NTNP in detail but judging from the summary headings quoted I feel sure that this is Ofcom's game.

So, the numbering plan will be something like follows:

• 01 Geographical
  
• 02 Geographical
  
• 03 Non-geographical NTS charged at geographical rates
  
• 04 Unallocated
  
• 05 VoIP services
  
• 06 Personal numbering
  
• 07 Mobile and pagers
  
• 08 Freephone and low premium services
  
• 09 Premium services

This is based on what I've read here, so if anyone knows different, speak up!

With the above plan, it leaves 04 free for future use. However, what about geographical expansion? I thought that 03 was reserved for this purpose, and bearing in mind that when 02 numbers were introduced it was felt that the likes of Coventry required a 3 digit code with an 8 digit local number rather than a 4 digit code with 7 digit local number.

So, within 02x format, there are still five free prefixes which could be used as 3+8 or 4+7, but why prevent further expansion to 03 when it was previously set aside?

Dave wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2006 at 11:22pm:

This is based on what I've read here, so if anyone knows different, speak up!

Well according to Ofcom's consultation both 04 and 05 are to be kept free for future use.  Except of course that 05 is in fact already in use for both Freephone and Voip services.  Trust Ofcom to not know what it is talking about! ::)

Ofcom is to allow 07 PNS scammers to continue unfettered as long as they change numbers to one starting 06.  Oh well bang goes the idea that a Personal Number was one you could keep for life!  ;) ;D

See www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/numberingreview/numberingplan/

or

www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/numberingreview/numbering.pdf for the full 158 page version. :o

Dave wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2006 at 11:22pm:

So, the numbering plan will be something like follows: This is based on what I've read here, so if anyone knows different, speak up! With the above plan, it leaves 04 free for future use. However, what about geographical expansion? I thought that 03 was reserved for this purpose, and bearing in mind that when 02 numbers were introduced it was felt that the likes of Coventry required a 3 digit code with an 8 digit local number rather than a 4 digit code with 7 digit local number. So, within 02x format, there are still five free prefixes which could be used as 3+8 or 4+7, but why prevent further expansion to 03 when it was previously set aside?

It doesn't make much sense whichever way you look at it ...

There is no city in UK that needs 100 million phone numbers, and few that need 1 million - though in fact there are not that many within each code as most are reserved or unallocated and none begin with 0, 1 or 9. Round here the city starts with 8 and the surrounding villages with 7; I have a Sipgate/Magrathea number starting in 6, and there are some other providers with 2 allocated but I've never seen one.

So there is a huge amount of redundancy - do we really need more exchanges or more numbers per exchange? I do wonder why we didn't get something like France where a regional 1 to 4 was added a while back ....... ummm, except they still have one digit fewer than us for the same population

You're probably right - they could easily use 04 for this new allocation and leave 03 spare

andy9 wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2006 at 11:46pm:

You're probably right - they could easily use 04 for this new allocation and leave 03 spare

I think Ofcom's reason for using 03 is because it enhances the perception that these new 03 numbers are part of a continuous sequence of numbers charged at standard uk call rates between 01 and 03.  Although how Ofcom manage to justify both Freephone 08 and chargeable revenue share numbers on 08 is anyone's guess, especially when 04 is free for use for this purpose.  And anyhow 03 for geographically priced non geographics was my suggestion to Ofcom and judging from how many telecoms industry ideas Ofcom have previously fallen for hook, line and sinker it seems that Ofcom employees have relatively few ideas of their own on such matters.

As to keeping 03 free for further geographic phone numbers it seems unlikely that we will run out of 02 prefixed exchange codes before the end of the whole PSTN phone number based system and its complete replacement with voip phone names some time within the next 5 to 15 years.

For Ofcom's thoughts on Voip services you may want to also look at the consultation specifically on Voip services that they published yesterday.  You will no doubt be pleased to hear that "Ofcom is also updating its guidance to encourage VoIP providers to offer access to 999 emergency services"

So if I have a heart attack at my friend's house and they only have a Voip phone and their telecoms provider has not been encouraged by Ofcom it looks like I may wind up dead :o

I wonder how many of us would have access to 999/112 on our landlines or especially our mobiles if those providers had only been encouraged to provide access to the emegency services? ::)

See www.ofcom.org.uk/media/news/2006/02/nr20060222

As I put in my consultation response, if they want to change the numbering system, OFCOM and the Telecoms industry must test it properly with consumers:


Quote:

A note for the future - How OFCOM could do its job better OFCOM and the telecoms industry, by its frequent use of the jargon “granularity” appears intent on creating new pricing and numbering relationships, outside the bands we consumers all understand, (0800/0500 Free, 01/02 Local, 01/02 National, 07 Mobile, 09 Extortion) If so, it must: a.      introduce brand new number ranges for such new pricing ranges which are in line with the National Telephone Numbering Plan (although amusingly 0898 might be a good place to start – most people are still rightly wary of that one!) b.      ensure delivery of clear and accurate pricing range information to consumers c.      provide robust and statistically valid proof that pricing ranges are accurately understood, across all consumer groups, within 6 months d.      correct the pricing to match the perception, if there is a discrepancy, immediately after the 6 month investigation period. e.      if the research shows there is no single clear perception of the price, then calls to the new range must become free calls, also immediately after the 6 month investigation period, to remove commercial incentives to exploit confusion. This framework motivates the telecoms industry to put its money where its mouth is, thus proving to the consumer that OFCOM takes its consumer protection regulatory duties seriously.

Yes I know -  the words "or at least acknowledges them" should have been appended to the last sentence!

wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2006 at 11:57pm:

it seems that Ofcom employees have relatively few ideas of their own on such matters.

Er, yes, I read their incomplete advice on roaming charges and sent in a query whether they'd like some help or suggestions for additions ...

andy9 wrote on Feb 24^th, 2006 at 1:11am:

Er, yes, I read their incomplete advice on roaming charges and sent in a query whether they'd like some help or suggestions for additions ...

Most of the ideas which they present as being their own in fact come from their old colleagues in the telecoms companies.

wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2006 at 10:24pm:

The big issue is that unless use of 084/7 chargeable services is banned they are not going to have to obtain replacement numbers and so will have little incentive to migrate to using 03.  The most likely outcome is that the ethical 0845 voice service users (the vast majority of those using 0845 for voice) will set up an 03 charged at geographic rates routing to the same place as the 0845 before those are ultimately discontinued.  I also have a big fear that Ofcom is now going to change its mind on 0870 being charged at geographic rates.

I share this fear too that they will drop plans to restore the link between 0870 and geographic call rates.  After all, regrettably, from Ofcom's point of view, they may consider it a duplication - there would be no difference between 0870 charged at geographic rates and the proposed 03-range.

And, as NGM also raises, how does Ofcom intend to encourage users of 0870/0845 numbers to transfer to the new 03-range.  As it stands there seems very little incentive and Ofcom would then probably say its not their place to force companies to do anything, Ofcom just provides the 'framework'.  Yet again, we'd end up with a mess of 03s, 087s and 0845s - confusion reigns again.  >:( :o >:(

I too support the view that as part of introducing the 03-range and to achieve greater clarity and consistency, abolish 087x and 084x, and any revenue raising 08x must move to 09x!  This would also clearly leave 08 as freephone.  Surely, this clearly makes common sense? (Even if it does trample over some of the vested interests of the Ofcom/Telecoms Industry!)  :-[

[quote author=gdh82 link=1140696094/15#15 date=1140775871]Surely, this clearly makes common sense? (Even if it does trample over some of the vested interests of the Ofcom/Telecoms Industry!)  :-[/quote]

Unfortunately Ofcom's plans do not ever encompass common sense and what is good for the citizen/consumer but only whatever is required to make life as easy as possible for people like Rupert Murdoch (a major New Labour crony who continues to support Tony Blair) and Sky who are major 0870 abusers.

Then by doing whatever New Labour and its telecoms industry cronies want Messrs Currie and Carter hope to receive their just deserts of a seat in the House of Lords and a well paid regulatory job somewhere else in due course.

As dorf would have said the whole thing is bamboozle and a smoke screen for allowing the scamming to continue.  The only difference will be that those 0845 users who genuinely do not want to charge callers extra will be abled to get a new 03 prefixed NGN number charged at normal geographic national call rates.

But note that the people who are inconvenienced by having to get a new 03 number are those who want to do the right thing while the 084/7 scammers can continue their ripoff businesses untouched using the same old 084/7 numbers. :o >:(

Isn't the new 03 code just a re-hash of the Oftel corporate numbering proposal which they were planning in the 05 range.

http://www.ofcom.org.uk/static/archive/oftel/ind_groups/numbering/forum/corptnmb.ppt  

grimp wrote on Feb 24^th, 2006 at 1:31pm:

Isn't the new 03 code just a re-hash of the Oftel corporate numbering proposal which they were planning in the 05 range. http://www.ofcom.org.uk/static/archive/oftel/ind_groups/numbering/forum/corptnmb.ppt

I am unaware of the Corporate Numbering Proposals and I have not yet had the time to plough through the 158 pages of this consultation in detail.

Why on earth would corporates need a special number?  Is that just so they could hide their true uk geographic location?

I think that Ofcom has decided to drop the corporate name but I do think that "A2.35 Our specific proposal is to target this new range at those businesses and public sector bodies which require a non-geographic number because they require a national presence, rather than because they wish to generate revenue from incoming calls." p93 sounds like a similar idea but spun differently.

Back in 1997 Oftel consulted on allocating the 05 number range to corporate companies. So instead of the teleco's owning a 05 range the company would. This would be instead of a geographic number and not masking one like current NGNs. The theory was that the company would then be able to mange its communications systems (including allocating its own numbers) in a more cost-efficient and effective way rather than having to deal with one or many telecoms companies, essentially setting up a private network Also, as it is the company that owns the number range they would effectively be able to play the telcos off against each other and get the best deal for themselves. The link is a powerpoint slide trying to push this idea to an industry group.  

How this could work would be that Tesco's would get the range 03 251 0000 to 9999. So national customer services could be 0000, store a 0001, store b 0002, Head office 0003 etc...    

grimp wrote on Feb 24^th, 2006 at 2:57pm:

How this could work would be that Tesco's would get the range 03 251 0000 to 9999. So national customer services could be 0000, store a 0001, store b 0002, Head office 0003 etc...

Personally I think we would be much better off with everything staying on geographic codes that let you identify where you are calling , including voip services.

But I suppose the whole thing will fall apart as everything moves over to voip name calling instead of phone numbers in due course.  Then you won't know where in the world you are calling to or being called from.

wrote on Feb 24^th, 2006 at 1:36pm:

Why on earth would corporates need a special number?  Is that just so they could hide their true uk geographic location?

Partly that, but they probably also like the idea of having numbers the customers might easily remember - 03210 321321 or 03456 456456 for example, but maybe we'll be stuck with 03078 and 03847 prefixes instead  ::)

andy9 wrote on Feb 24^th, 2006 at 3:05pm:

Partly that, but they probably also like the idea of having numbers the customers might easily remember - 03210 321321 or 03456 456456 for example, but maybe we'll be stuck with 03078 and 03847 prefixes instead  ::)

There also seem to be plenty of highly memorable 01 and 02 numbers though and surely there are many marketing disadvantages in not being perceived as a locally based company and/or not offering the cheapest phone costs to your callers?

wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2006 at 10:24pm:

[ What I am very unhappy about though in these proposals is the proposal that 080 Free will be kept with the rest of 08 Chargeable Services which will let the 087 scammers carry on untouched. ... I also have a big fear that Ofcom is now going to change its mind on 0870 being charged at geographic rates.

When I read that proposal, I too was concerned that they were going to change their mind on 0870 numbers. They do say, "These proposals complement work already underway to reform the current 084/087 numbering scheme, the conclusion of which will be published next month," but how does a geographical rate 0870 fit into a scheme where 082 numbers are cheap, 089 numbers are expensive, etc? Unfortunately, it will complement 0870 numbers better if they are charged at 8p/min!

However, freephone numbers do fit in logically if 080 is to be free, 081 is cheap, etc.

jrawle wrote on Feb 24^th, 2006 at 5:56pm:

However, freephone numbers do fit in logically if 080 is to be free, 081 is cheap, etc.

Why does it make sense for 0800 to be under a code prefix also used for chargeable services???

It would make far more sense to revert 0800 to Freephone only use and then move all the chargeable 084/8 services on to an 04 code with number allocations banded by cost levels.

You only think 080 at 0p is sensible because you have been prepared to accept the illogical basis on which the Ofcom goalposts have been erected.  But allowing the 084/7 scammers to stay put will mean them also being able to rely on the longstanding miseducation of the public that these numbers are charged as local/national rate calls.  Even if weak, weedy and spineless Ofcom finally manages to find a way to stop BT and other still describing 084 and 087 as Lo-Call and National Rate.

No make all the 084/7 scammers suffer and force them to get a new number that alerts the public to there having been a change is what I say.  And this time Ofcom should be forced to take out tv and press advertising alerting the public to the basis on which its new system is being imposed.

wrote on Feb 24^th, 2006 at 6:10pm:

No make all the 084/7 scammers suffer and force them to get a new number that alerts the public to there having been a change is what I say.  And this time Ofcom should be forced to take out tv and press advertising alerting the public to the basis on which its new system is being imposed.

And then prove that the message has sunk in with Joe Public. This isn't difficult - brand owners do it all the time. You can bet BT knows exactly how many people can accurately reel off the benefits of their latest wheeze, and for that matter how many DON'T know about the downsides.

The difficult bit is persuading OFCOM that clear communication matters - even though you'd think the Office of Communication would see it as a vital deliverable!

GrahamH wrote on Feb 24^th, 2006 at 7:02pm:

The difficult bit is persuading OFCOM that clear communication matters - even though you'd think the Office of Communication would see it as a vital deliverable!

Their dictionary's definition of communication seems to be the same as the one for exploitation in most other people's dictionaries. ;) ;D

wrote on Feb 24^th, 2006 at 6:10pm:

It would make far more sense to revert 0800 to Freephone..

And, of course, we might revert to 080 being free - from all payphones and mobiles - indeed everywhere. As well as accessible from abroad at an appropriate international rate.

Tanllan wrote on Feb 24^th, 2006 at 11:45pm:

And, of course, we might revert to 080 being free - from all payphones and mobiles - indeed everywhere. As well as accessible from abroad at an appropriate international rate.

Surely not when the scammer's friend Ofcom is not going to even insist on the mobile phone companies providing all their Pay As You Go customers with access to their call records and call charges history? ::)

Tks, NGM; one more for the response as part of the overall plan.

If my memory serves me correctly but wasn't the old 03x codes used for NGN before they were all changed to 08x? (eg, I'm sure there were codes like 0345 which migrated to 0845).

I assume that ofcon and COI will recommend that govt depts use these new codes so as not to charge us more than necessary like they do with current range.

I do believe that Ofcon have chosen this route based on NGMs and other forum member comments and obviously after reading this site.  As mentioned by NGM, most gov depts use 0845 for intelligent call routing only and specifically not for the revenue they can receive if they shopped around so it made perfect sense to have a number that offered same ICR but without the added expense.

I suspect that ofcon can't force teleco's to include this new number range (03x) into existing call packages that most of us have except for maybe BT because they do have Significant Market Power (SMP).

bbb_uk wrote on Feb 25^th, 2006 at 12:45pm:

I suspect that ofcon can't force teleco's to include this new number range (03x) into existing call packages that most of us have ...

Can't or won't?


bbb_uk wrote on Feb 25^th, 2006 at 12:45pm:

... except for maybe BT because they do have Significant Market Power (SMP).

For telcos that don't have so-called SMP, they often stick together when it suits them. Look at mobile networks charging for freephone numbers and higher rates than geographicals at that. If that had been BT then Ofcom would have played its SMP card.

Dave wrote on Feb 25^th, 2006 at 1:09pm:

bbb_uk wrote on Feb 25th, 2006 at 12:45pm: I suspect that ofcon can't force teleco's to include this new number range (03x) into existing call packages that most of us have ... Can't or won't?

Probably more won't that can't.  They dont like using the many powers they have as regulator.  Most of the time they don't mess with anyones pricing structure except for BT's.  The only time they have done this is forcing mobile networks to reduce their termination costs when calling cross-networks and this was done because they said it was anti-competitive which obviously it was and probably because of an EU investigaton into anti-competitive behaviour of the two biggest networks.


Dave wrote on Feb 25^th, 2006 at 1:09pm:

bbb_uk wrote on Feb 25th, 2006 at 12:45pm: ... except for maybe BT because they do have Significant Market Power (SMP). For telcos that don't have so-called SMP, they often stick together when it suits them. Look at mobile networks charging for freephone numbers and higher rates than geographicals at that. If that had been BT then Ofcom would have played its SMP card.

I totally agree.  I just hope that ofcom does force the networks to introduce call announcements on these type of calls because faced with that I believe the networks would lower their charges to these numbers - not as cheap as landline but not far of.

Ofcom’s proposal for number reclassification has some reasonable points but unfortunately still retains the potentially confusing numbering system that will in time be exploited to the detriment of the consumer.  I would avoid the confusion between calls that cost the same and are treated in all respects like the present 01 and 02 numbers and calls that cost more or are treated differently.

I would have 3 classes of number.

Normal numbers.  Numbers that are charged at the normal rates as 01 or 02 and are treated in all respects like normal numbers (that is 0p/min on option 3 and 1866 etc )

Mobile numbers.  Kept only to 07

Premium numbers.  Numbers that exceed the cost of normal numbers or are not treated in all respects like normal numbers. I would confine those numbers to the “09" class only.  The 11 digit 09 class can be subdivided into 090, 091, 092, 093, 094, 095, 096, 097, 098 and 099 each with 99,999,900 different numbers (allowing for 100 unusable combinations).

In summary.

01      geographic numbers   (costing between 3p to 0p/min and included in “free” packages).

02      geographic numbers   (costing between 3p to 0p/min and included in “free” packages).

03      non- geographic numbers   (costing between 3p to 0p/min and included in “free” packages).

04      reserved  - if used, would cost between 3p to 0p/min and included in “free” packages.

05      reserved  - if used, would cost between 3p to 0p/min and included in “free” packages.

06      reserved - if used, would cost between 3p to 0p/min and included in “free” packages.

07      for mobile phones only      (“personal numbers” moved to 097)

08      free phone only      (084x and 087x moved to "09" or "03", depending on price structure required)


[  Now amended, see post #43  ]

kk,

Yours is the ideal model but Ofcom won't go down that route because changing to 09 would totally destroy the businesses of all the 084/7 scam operators. Yes I know we would like that to happen but you have to accept that Ofcom have a different agenda of not interfering in business unless it is to protect the consumer. And the consumer can be protected without making these types of calls move to 09.

I do however think it would be reasonable to define 06 as lower costs chargeable services (avoiding the word premium rate which is not acceptable to Ofcom or the people who offer these services) and for all 084/7 services to have to move there if they want to go on charging more than standard calls.  Also all these new 06 numbers would have to provide compulsory call price announcements.

To allow the 084/7 scammers to stay where they are with no call price announcements will allow them to continue to perpetuate the grotesque local/national rate call cost myth.

Also the mobile phone numbering system should be restructured so that each mobile operators is associated with a particular 07 number sequence.  Although allowing for ever increasing number portability this doesn't work so the only solution is for all 07 mobile calls to carry compulsory pence per minute call price announcements.

And don't forget that Ofcom has proposed in its number portability consultation that landline numbers can be ported to mobile use and the caller charged mobile rates for calling an 01/02 number.  Outrageous yes but this is what scam helping and "let's not stand  in the way of profitable business" Ofcom has incredibly proposed.

bbb_uk wrote on Feb 25^th, 2006 at 12:45pm:

I suspect that ofcon can't force teleco's to include this new number range (03x) into existing call packages that most of us have except for maybe BT because they do have Significant Market Power (SMP).

Ofcom does have the power to regulate that 03 numbers have no revenue share or micro payment mechanism involved and are charged exactly the same way to telcos as 01 and 02 numbers.  If all that is done then 1899, TalkTalk etc have no possible reason to charge extra for any 03 number or to excude it from all inclusive calling plans like BT Option 3.

Dave wrote on Feb 25^th, 2006 at 1:09pm:

For telcos that don't have so-called SMP, they often stick together when it suits them. Look at mobile networks charging for freephone numbers and higher rates than geographicals at that.

Yes its what they call an Oligopoly in Economics or an anti-competitive price fixing cartel in modern regulatory jargon.

The other unacceptable areas are none of them providing proper call itemisation for Pay As You Go customers who want it and the fact that none of the uk networks have roaming agreements with each other to cover the substantial parts of the uk landmass where they have no coverage but a competitor does have coverage.  At the moment they have no incentive to improve their coverage if you can't roam on to a rival operator's network when your own priovider does not have coverage.

wrote on Feb 25^th, 2006 at 7:20pm:

The other unacceptable areas are [...] the fact that none of the uk networks have roaming agreements with each other to cover the substantial parts of the uk landmass where they have no coverage but a competitor does have coverage.  At the moment they have no incentive to improve their coverage if you can't roam on to a rival operator's network when your own priovider does not have coverage.

It's quite astounding that Ofcom has apparently done nothing about this. Still, I'm sure that in London there is coverage everywhere, except maybe the Underground, or have they got round to this? It would make sense for all the networks to work together and "do their bit" on this one.

Similarly, does the GSM system not allow for keeping calls running whilst switching networks which could be implemented in rural areas with restricted or no coverage on particular networks? I presume that the 3 service works like that when roaming onto O2's network.

In South (I think, continent anyway) Africa the operators with masts are delighted to rent space to those without, because of the income, and those without are delighted to pay rent, because it is cheaper than building a mast.
And in the UK? Well, b off with you it's ours.

Looking at Ofcom's consultation pages for this here, I noticed that the response sheet had 61 questions (yes, I couldn't believe it either).

More information:

Consultation Summary
Full main Consultation (.pdf - 1.5mb)
Numbering Review: Report of Market Research Findings
Finer Digit Analysis of Telephone Numbers for Routeing Purposes
Consultation Responses

bbb_uk wrote on Feb 26^th, 2006 at 6:25pm:

Looking at Ofcom's consultation pages for this here, I noticed that the response sheet had 61 questions (yes, I couldn't believe it either)

Clearly Ofcom didn't like the freehand responses they have been getting (especially from me, dorf and idb) so have tried to head this off by spinning the responses in the direction they want them to go.  As most people are lazy and just answer Yes/No to the questions asked there is a danger that Ofcom will be successful in fiddling the consultation to get the answers it wants to hear.

Also by asking 61 questions it is likely that most people will feel they can't be bothered and just give up.  The only people this won't be true of is the large corporates who have staff members paid to respond to these consultations.  Again Ofcom seem to be trying to make their consultations as inaccessible as possible to the uk citizen and consumer.

It seems to be that the standard response form should be just a single box for the one or two points that most consumers typically have to make on a consultation and the 61 questions should only be responded to by the experts who will understand the consultation in this much detail.  Even then I suspect it may be better to send in a freehand response by email avoiding Ofcom's biased questions.

Is it just me, or is it not possible to print question 32 onwards from the Ofcom site - in response questions? :-[

[quote author=Tanllan link=1140696094/30#41 date=1140987080]Is it just me, or is it not possible to print question 32 onwards from the Ofcom site - in response questions? :-[/quote]

Can you clarify the precise nature of the problem Tanllan as I must confess to not quite understanding the nature of the technical issue you have encountered.

After further consideration, I have reworked my previous reply and for convenience posted it in its new form.

Ofcom’s proposal for number reclassification has some reasonable points but unfortunately still retains the potentially confusing numbering system that will in time be exploited to the detriment of the consumer.  I would avoid the confusion between calls that cost the same and are treated in all respects like the present 01 and 02 numbers and calls that cost more or are treated differently.

I would have 3 classes of number.

Normal numbers.  Numbers that are charged at the normal rates as 01 or 02 and are treated in all respects like normal numbers (that is 0p/min on option 3 and 1866 etc )

Mobile numbers.   07  ("peronal numbers" moved out)

Premium/Special numbers.  Numbers that exceed the cost of normal numbers or are not treated in all respects like normal numbers. I would confine those numbers to the “09" class only.  The 11 digit 09 class can be subdivided into 090, 091, 092, 093, 094, 095, 096, 097, 098 and 099 each with 99,999,900 different numbers (allowing for 100 unusable combinations).

In summary I would propose:

01      geographic numbers   (costing between 3p to 0p/min and included in “free” packages).

02      geographic numbers   (costing between 3p to 0p/min and included in “free” packages).

03      non- geographic numbers   (costing between 3p to 0p/min and included in “free” packages).

04      reserved  - if used, would cost between 3p to 0p/min and included in “free” packages.

05      reserved  - if used, would cost between 3p to 0p/min and included in “free” packages.

06      reserved - if used, would cost between 3p to 0p/min and included in “free” packages.

07      for mobile phones only      (“personal numbers” moved to 097)

08      free-phone only      (084x and 087x migrate to "09" or "03", depending on price structure required)

09      any land-line number which cost more than the normal rate and/or is excluded from a consumers call options at 0p/min.    
             This 11 digit “09" class can be split into  090, 091, 092, 093, 094, 095, 096, 097, 098 and 099 sub-classes,
             each sub-class having 99,999,900 different numbers (allowing for, say, 100 unusable combinations).  

        For example:        
        090 all calls at less than the normal rate, but not included in “free” call packages - eg  internet dial up and lower cost revenue sharing.  
        091 charges above the normal call rate (say up to 10p/min)
        092 charges above the normal call rate (say 20p/min)
        093 charges above the normal call rate (say 30p/min)
        094 charges above the normal call rate (say 40p/min)
        095 charges above the normal call rate (say 50p/min to 150p/min)
        096 charges above the normal call rate (reserved)
        097 for so called “personal numbers” (now on 070).
        098 fixed charge per call.
        099 for adult lines.

That scheme appears to have no definition of or space for call rates between 1p and 10p per minute, which is surely rather important, given that fairly few people actually use the present 09 numbers except maybe televoting etc where the tariffs must be clear.

If it is confusing that personal follow-me services are on 070 at present, then 097, bundled in with different tariff types and usage, is no better. Nowadays most of them are overpriced compared to mobiles so are probably becoming less used except for contentious cases like hospitals.

I know that several disagree, but I reckon 080 free and 081 to 089 in steadily increasing tariffs is perfectly understandable and a great improvement on the present. I can understand similar use in other countries at a very brief glance.

Hi Andy9

My aim is it to keep all calls that cost more than the normal rate or are excluded from call packages, in one tariff class , that being “09". I take your point about the calls up to 10p and have modified my previous post.  It is perfectly reasonable to modify or rearrange the suggested sub-classes within “09", but the basic principle should be to keep all extra cost call within one “09" range.

Ofcom’s suggestion to modify the “08" class into incremental bands misses a great opportunity to clean up the “08" class and keep it for free-phone numbers only.  We should encourage the growth of free numbers.  

The present problems have arisen by putting 087x and 084x side-by-side with 0800, so creating more of them in the 08 class would make matters worse not better.  The introduction of a new “03" non-geographical class, (which must be treated, in all respects, the same way as the current “01" and “02" range), would give organisations less excuses to use revenue sharing numbers.

If organisations wish to have revenue sharing,  make it obvious , and use a newly structured “09" class, which can have prices ranging from 1p to 150p/min. This class can hold over 999 million numbers.

To expand the current “08" class would be to expand the current mess and confusion and aid the organisations wishing to perpetuate numbers scams.   I can hear it now:-  “082x ...    083x ..... is only the same cost as a normal call, so why are you complaining?   We would then start all over again - then we would have:- SayNoTo 08xx”

Well I'm sorry, but a firm offering calls to 50 countries (including the UK!) for 1p per minute is not perpetuating a numbers scam. Nor is one that allows calls at 10p per minute to the mobile phones of a large number of countries.

It is perfectly reasonable that this should not be lumped in the same category as £1.50 a minute numbers.

Why should all these other 08 numbers be shifted out to permit a non-existent need for a billion freephone numbers? Even the USA has only 4 8xx codes in use compared to the 2 UK ones I'm aware of, 0800 0808, and they use a lot more of them than we do.

I'm aware that people here disagree about this, but I think it would be easier for consumers to learn to recognise tariffs in future with a sensible progression through 08 numbers, rather than a system made more complicated to satisfy some people's spite that is rightfully applied to some but certainly not all of these numbers.

For another thing, shifting them all to 09 numbers would be a perfect excuse for mobile companies to dump the rest of these from inclusive minute packages

I hear that there may be an industry day at Ofcom, probably defined as those interested in (rather than "merely" a company financial interest in) the proposals - possibly 15 March for those wanting to check and to plan.

Letter into todays Times.

"Quote  .........  The Times March 02, 2006

Dial M for More digits

Sir, Yet another change of telephone number, causing great expense and confusion to millions of us (report, Feb 24).
Half a century ago we abandoned letters and numbers in favour of all numbers. North America did the same thing, instituting seven numbers (3+4) for local calls and ten (3+3+4) for long-distance calls. It has made only one minor change since then, in adding a 1 in front of long distance calls (4+3+4), leaving the remainder unchanged. This covers Canada, the United States and the Caribbean in one unified, simple, understandable, easily recognisable, unchanging system.

What incompetence it is to require our small system to change every five years from one complicated and confusing system to another.

JIM SWIFT
Crawley, W Sussex   "

End quote

Sadly the writer to The Times is ill-informed, because the US has a tremendous number of adjustments, changes and overlays (even featuring in the The Simpsons, where the poor part of town was to have its code changed).
But there is much to be done. Even adopting the wide area codes originally planned would help: 020 for London, 023 for part of the South Coast, 024 in the Midlands, 029 for Wales. Do the people of NI really want to return to lots of separate codes? Even if BT still lists (London)Derry as +441504  ::)

wrote on Feb 24^th, 2006 at 6:10pm:

Why does it make sense for 0800 to be under a code prefix also used for chargeable services??? It would make far more sense to revert 0800 to Freephone only use and then move all the chargeable 084/8 services on to an 04 code with number allocations banded by cost levels.

I meant that in a scheme where 081 numbers are cheap (maybe 1p/min) and 089 numbers are more expensive (9p/min?) it is perfectly logical for 080 numbers to be free (0p/min). I see the prefix as being 080 rather than 08 - and it's 080 that signifies a free number at present. However, I'm not suggesting this scheme is desirable.

I can see the argument for moving all revenue-sharing numbers to 09 numbers and letting existing users of 087 and 084 keep their numbers without revenue sharing, which I thought was Ofcom's idea originally. I don't see the point of having yet another code (04 or 03) with another meaning which doesn't follow on logically from either 01/02 or 09 numbers.

Quote:

Sadly the writer to The Times is ill-informed, because the US has a tremendous number of adjustments, changes and overlays (even featuring in the The Simpsons, where the poor part of town was to have its code changed).

I really cannot agree with that statement. As the writer to the Times states, the US (or more correctly, the North American numbering system) is logical and relatively stable. The development of the system started in 1947, and implementation started in 1951. A previous restriction that the middle digit of an area code (the first three digits) had to be a 0 or 1 was removed in 1995. Could you say that the UK numbering plan has been relatively stable since 1951..... ;D

The North American system is simple to understand. All premium rate numbers are in the 900-NXX-XXXX format. You KNOW if you see a 900 code, it is going to cost you. Clear. Simple. Unambiguous. Compare that with 087, 084, 080 etc.....

Sure, some area codes are under pressure due to population growth. However, that doesn't mean that a new and completely different numbering scheme is being proposed. Changes are made within the system.

In addition, of course, the system does not differentiate between fixed line or wireless numbers - a HUGE advantage to the consumer!

If anyone is interested, they can look at [url=www.nanpa.com[/url]]www.nanpa.com[/url] for further details. But - be aware that the simplicity may make you weep..... ;)

Yup, I take your point: the overall plan still stands - such elegance - but the overlays are not good.

mikeinnc wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2006 at 6:33pm:

In addition, of course, the system does not differentiate between fixed line or wireless numbers - a HUGE advantage to the consumer!

That is not the case. Wireless numbers are tied to a geographical area code in NANPA but are charged differently in many cases. I believe that mobiles should be on different area codes to fixed lines.
Take Jamaica for example. It has one NANPA area code 876 with all numbers 1-876-NXX-XXXX. So you have no idea whether your calling mobile landline or even which particular network you are calling & end up with nasty bills because of it.
So the numbering system may not differentiate between fixed and wireless but the billing system certainly can.
In addition the toll-free code 1-877 is very close to 876, Why?

So don't thik the NANPA system is perfect it has it's fair share of anomalies & is sometimes too rigid for it's own purpose

See also this thread on USA's numbering scheme, in particular non-geographical numbering.

I very much doubt that The Times will print this.

4 March 2006

The Times
1 Pennington Street
LONDON
E98 1TA

Dear Sir

Mr Swift (letters, Mar 2) is right to point out that there is great confusion in the minds of millions of telephone subscribers in the UK. It is the high cost of calls to the so-called non-geographic numbers beginning 084 and 087 that is generally not understood, and therefore exploited by the telecoms industry, government and business alike, and condoned by Ofcom (and their predecessor Oftel) since their introduction in the late 1990s. Observers in the USA have said that there would be “blood on the streets” if their telecoms companies tried to introduce this kind of number.

Ofcom’s proposal, and it is no more than that, is to introduce a non-geographic range of numbers beginning 03 which will always cost the same as calls to 01 or 02 numbers. It will be interesting to see how many businesses come clean and make the change.


Yours sincerely

A splendid letter IainMacCallum, if they don't print it, send it to all the other papers.

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

The primary purpose of this site is to campaign against the use of non-geographic numbers such as 0870 and 0845 and their ugly sisters 0871 and 0844. As NGM said, they are spreading like a virus.  They are popular with organisations and telecom providers because they provide a ready source of income from customers who generally are unaware that money is being syphoned off by revenue sharing or have no choice but to ring those numbers..

Some organisations put their customers to extra expense, but receive little or no income from the calls, and are themselves victims of spin from their telecom providers and intermediaries, who pocket the income.  We are fed lies and half-truths to justify and support the insidious spread of those numbers. The obfuscation is aided by BT who perpetuate the myth of “local” and “national” price differences which has been abolished for all practical purposes.  BT never make an clear statement that: ‘for 99.9% of all customers making voice calls, using 087x and 084x numbers,  never cost less than using numbers beginning with 01 or 02'.

I can’t understand why BT don’t abolish the local/national price differential for the comparatively few ‘light users’ and advertise the fact that telephoning anywhere in the UK cost the same.  Call traffic would increase, and they would make more money.

0845 numbers are to some extent the most pernicious of the non-geographic numbers, as they are portrayed as low cost numbers.  Try telling that to a person attempting to contact their bank, on an 0845 number, from a pay phone at 10p for 55 seconds - over five time the cost of calling an 01 or 02 number from a pay phone.  

We are informed in the consultation that it is proposed to keep 0845 and 0870 numbers at 4p and 7p/min, and so the scams and half-truths will continue. If that wasn’t bad enough, Ofcom propose adding some more “low cost” 08 numbers.  Well isn’t that just fine!

All 08 revenue sharing numbers are an underhand way of syphoning money from unsuspecting callers.  If revenue sharing must happen for companies providing a genuine value added service,  then why not make it obvious.  The only way to make it obvious and to alert callers that the call is revenue sharing, is to place it into the appropriate sub-class of the revenue sharing category of  “09".  With prices ranging from 1p/min upwards.

As Mikeinnc said (post #51):        “The North American system is simple to understand. All premium rate numbers are in the 900-NXX-XXXX format. You KNOW if you see a 900 code, it is going to cost you. Clear. Simple. Unambiguous. Compare that with 087, 084, 080 etc.....”          
The North American Numbering System is not perfect, but it is far more stable and clear that ours.   The words “Clear” “Simple” “Unambiguous” are not words that could easily be applied to Ofcom’s current proposals.  By considering the entire numbering system they have a golden opportunity to make it so.

The proposal to use a separate “03" class for non-geographic number, if they are to be treated in the same way as 01 and 02, is fine.  So is the proposal to remove personal numbers (070) from the mobile phone class. The rule should be that all numbers (except mobiles) that are to cost more than normal numbers should be placed in the expanded and revamped  “09" class. 09 can hold over  999 million numbers. [see posts #45 and #43]   
Clear - Simple - Unambiguous

kk wrote on Mar 4^th, 2006 at 10:48pm:

A splendid letter IaimMacCallum...

Ditto. Straight the point and concise.


kk wrote on Mar 4^th, 2006 at 10:48pm:

...The obfuscation is aided by BT who perpetuate the myth of “local” and “national” price differences ... I can’t understand why BT don’t abolish the local/national price differential for the comparatively few ‘light users’ and advertise the fact that telephoning anywhere in the UK cost the same.  Call traffic would increase, and they would make more money.

This is a good point kk. BT's 'user-friendly' pricing information is here and includes an area for looking up your local call area. Why is this still relevant and why does the page not point out that this has no relevance on BT Together tariffs? Also, why is this still available in a prominant position on the website, when the BT Standard tariff never got a look in on the main BT.com website towards the end of its life?


kk wrote on Mar 4^th, 2006 at 10:48pm:

0845 numbers are to some extent the most pernicious of the non-geographic numbers, as they are portrayed as low cost numbers. ...

I think that this issue involves the fact that the perception of telephone rates is often higher than the real rates. This is fuelled by the charges levied by mobile providers where it's not uncommon to pay 10p/min or 35p/min and above to call a mobile on another network. So when you tell someone that it costs 3p/min to call 0845 and 7.51p/min to call 0870, they say "so what?" and any explaination of why this is is often lost.


kk wrote on Mar 4^th, 2006 at 10:48pm:

We are informed in the consultation that it is proposed to keep 0845 and 0870 numbers at 4p and 7p/min, and so the scams and half-truths will continue. If that wasn’t bad enough, Ofcom propose adding some more “low cost” 08 numbers.  Well isn’t that just fine!

So Ofcom haven't learnt from the introduction of 0844 and 0871.  ::)

I guess that this latest consultation is effectively Ofcom's response to the NTS: A way forward consultation last year.


kk wrote on Mar 4^th, 2006 at 10:48pm:

All 08 revenue sharing numbers are an underhand way of syphoning money from unsuspecting callers.  If revenue sharing must happen for companies providing a genuine value added service,  then why not make it obvious. ...

But companies never want to talk about revenue.


kk wrote on Mar 4^th, 2006 at 10:48pm:

The proposal to use a separate “03" class for non-geographic number, if they are to be treated in the same way as 01 and 02, is fine.  ...

But if there is very little uptake of this new code and very little awareness by the public of what it is and how it differs from 084/087 numbers, then it will be a wasted effort.

Dave wrote on Mar 5^th, 2006 at 2:12pm:

kk wrote on Mar 4th, 2006 at 10:48pm: The proposal to use a separate “03" class for non-geographic number, if they are to be treated in the same way as 01 and 02, is fine.  ... But if there is very little uptake of this new code and very little awareness by the public of what it is and how it differs from 084/087 numbers, then it will be a wasted effort.

I believe it will be.  There will be no incentive whatsoever for existing gov depts/companies, etc to move to this range.  Why should they when they can get away with the current system and still receive revenue?!

NGM mentioned this in an earlier post and I agree and didn't want to write this in case ofcon got any ideas, but I believe there is a very strong possibility that the proposals for 0870 (ie removing revenue share) will be axed and left as it is.  Ofcon will then come back and go we have introduced a new code which will satisfy those wanting same benefits but without the added expense that current NGN have.  This, of course, means that no company is likely to migrate due to loss of the revenue and cost of migrating.

Dave and bbb-uk both identify a valid point about the take up of the proposed “03" class of non-geographic numbers.  [Proceeding on the assumption that “03" will for all purposes be treated in the same way as “01" and  “02" geographic numbers are now treated.]

The only way to ensure take up of “03" is to abolish all “08" revenue sharing numbers.  All revenue sharing numbers should be confined to an appropriate sub-range in the  “09" class, with prices ranging from 1p/min upwards.  
I have suggested the sub-range 090 and 091 for "small cost" revenue sharing (see above), but this is a matter of detail.

Organisations would then make a choice:

• Change to an 01 or 02  geographical number.
  

• Change to the new 03 non-geographical number that will cost all customers no more than 01 or 02 would cost them, including 0p/min and Option 3 etc)
  

• Change to an appropriate 09 class of revenue sharing numbers.
  

As the choice will be transparent (which 084x and 087x is not), market forces will, to a large extent, influence the choice made.

Unless the number starts 080, I just assume all 08 and 09 numbers are too expensive to call.  And I don't.

Wicked wrote on Mar 6^th, 2006 at 4:49pm:

Unless the number starts 080, I just assume all 08 and 09 numbers are too expensive to call.  And I don't.

Make sure you have 070 on your list aswell. They cost upto 50p/min.

Dave wrote on Mar 6^th, 2006 at 5:35pm:

Wicked wrote on Mar 6th, 2006 at 4:49pm: Unless the number starts 080, I just assume all 08 and 09 numbers are too expensive to call.  And I don't. Make sure you have 070 on your list aswell. They cost upto 50p/min.

No.  Calls to cellphones don't cost anywhere near that much (although I do try to avoid them too).

Wicked wrote on Mar 7^th, 2006 at 9:30am:

Dave wrote on Mar 6th, 2006 at 5:35pm: Wicked wrote on Mar 6th, 2006 at 4:49pm: Unless the number starts 080, I just assume all 08 and 09 numbers are too expensive to call.  And I don't. Make sure you have 070 on your list aswell. They cost upto 50p/min. No.  Calls to cellphones don't cost anywhere near that much (although I do try to avoid them too).

070 numbers are personal numbers and can cost that much, try phoning Patientline, 070******* 49p per minute.

Wicked wrote on Mar 7^th, 2006 at 9:30am:

Dave wrote on Mar 6th, 2006 at 5:35pm: Wicked wrote on Mar 6th, 2006 at 4:49pm: Unless the number starts 080, I just assume all 08 and 09 numbers are too expensive to call.  And I don't. Make sure you have 070 on your list aswell. They cost upto 50p/min. No.  Calls to cellphones don't cost anywhere near that much (although I do try to avoid them too).

Mobile phone numbers start with 077, 078 and 079.
Pagers started with 076.

As Derrick says, 070 numbers are personal numbers. These cost upto 50p/min from a BT landline. You can often route these numbers to mobiles as well as landlines and overseas numbers. See one provider, FleXtel.

From a technical point of view they fulfill the same purpose as 08 and 09 numbers because they are number translation services. In English that means they are 'pointed' at real (geographical) numbers and have the possibility of time of day routing and so on (depending on provider), just like 08/09 numbers do.

Wicked wrote on Mar 7^th, 2006 at 9:30am:

Dave wrote on Mar 6th, 2006 at 5:35pm: Wicked wrote on Mar 6th, 2006 at 4:49pm: Unless the number starts 080, I just assume all 08 and 09 numbers are too expensive to call.  And I don't. Make sure you have 070 on your list aswell. They cost upto 50p/min. No.  Calls to cellphones don't cost anywhere near that much (although I do try to avoid them too).

This just serves to illustrate the confusion caused by OfCon - even members of this board are confused by the lumping together of multiple call types and price ranges within a single component of the so-called 'Telephone Numbering Plan'.

:'(

To repeat again what  Mikeinnc said (post #51): “The North American system is simple to understand. All premium rate numbers are in the 900-NXX-XXXX format. You KNOW if you see a 900 code, it is going to cost you.     Clear. Simple. Unambiguous.    Compare that with 087, 084, 080 etc.....”

The North American Numbering System is not perfect, but it is far more stable and clear that ours. The words “Clear” “Simple” “Unambiguous” are not words that could easily be applied to Ofcom’s current proposals. By considering the entire numbering system they have a golden opportunity to make it so.

The Golden rule should be that ALL numbers (except mobiles) that are to cost more than normal numbers (01 and 02) or be excluded from call packages, should be placed in an expanded and reorganised “09" section.  It could be named “Special Costs”.

“09" can hold over 999 million numbers and each sub-section (090, 091, 092...) can hold over 99 million numbers.

[see posts #45 and #43 and #56]

Clear - Simple - Unambiguous

kk wrote on Mar 12^th, 2006 at 10:39am:

To repeat again what  Mikeinnc said (post #51): “The North American system is simple to understand. ... Clear - Simple - Unambiguous

I can't agree - but I've continued the discussion of the N.American system here, rather than under this topic.

I agree that the North American Numbering Plan (NANP) does have its complications, but the central point made is that the American system is not “the bee’s knees” or even the “cat’s whiskers”, but that the NANP appears to offer callers a clear distinction between “normal numbers” and numbers that share revenue, ie “special rate numbers” which are confined to the “900" classification.

When you see “900",  you are alerted to the fact that the call will be at a rate quite different to what you normally pay or expect. That is the central point made.

I am not a champion of the NAMP, but wish to see that our UK telephone numbering system is clear and unambiguous.

We should take the golden opportunity offered by a review of the UK  numbering review, not to continue with the muddle we have now over 084x, 087x and 070, (or indeed make it worse!), but to make it transparent and clear.

The lack of transparency in the UK numbering system has allowed organisations to make hidden profits.   All calls that cost more than normal or are not included in the various call packages, should  be confined to a reorganised “09" class renamed  “Special Rate”.   “Special Rate” numbers should be placed into appropriate  sub-classes of 091, 092, 093 etc., with costs ranging from 1p/min to 150p/min, depending on the service offered.  

Transparency and clarity should be the aim. Transparency is a legislative requirement imposed on Ofcom, but Ofcom’s own research shows that the current numbering system confuses most people, most of the time.

Thanks to an invitation passed on to me by another forum member yesterday afternoon I was able to attend a seminar at Ofcom's riverside palace at Southwark bridge.  This was billed as being a Stakeholder workshop on the invite but when I got there the screens howed Industry Workshop and the list of attendees was all BT, Vodaphone, TalkTalk etc.  I didn't formally tell Ofcom in advance I wanted to attend this meeting as I knew I woul probably be told it was not for Consumers and I just showed up at Ofcom's offices at the appointed hour when on Reception not finding me on their official list of attendees they still gave me a Visitor badge and directed me to the meeting room.  Initially no one from Ofcom I knew was there before the meeting started but when Clive Hillier (Ofcom Competition Partner and Board member) walked in to give his presentation he immediately spotted me sitting quietly and suited in the back of the audience.  This was pretty impressive considering he has only met me once before at the Ofcom Consumer Workshop in November and he spotted me simply while walking up to the front to give his speech.

The presentation began explaining their proposals basically to create the new 03 Countrywide number proposals for NGNs at geographic rates plus to restructure 08 and 09 number classes so the initial 081, 082 etc gives an indication of the likely call cost .  They also plan to do this with 09.  They also plan to allow 07 PNS scam numbers so favoured by Patientline to continue as long as they are renumbered 06.

After Clive Hillier's presentation I rather went to town on the question front and asked how these numbering proposals interfaced with NTS Way Forward and why they weren't part of that consutation. I also asked if Ofcom weren't nw going to backtrack on their proposal to move 0870 to geographic rates and instead expect all ethical 0845 and 0870 users to set up an 03 alternative.  This would mean those who had used 0870 and 0845 for call feature rather than revenu reasons having to adopt new numbers while the 0870 and 0845 scammers remained untouched.

To do Clive Hillier credit he didn't say I had come to the wrong forum or use that as an excuse not to answer but instead said these proposals were in addition to proposing to change 0870 to geographic rates.  So I then said how did that make sense when their own new number plan only listed 080 Free and 08 everything else Chargeable Services and when their own document pointed out that 08 was still very widely identified as being Free calls.   There was then a lot of excuses about Ofcom needing to do the best they could within existing structures without disrupting business too much.  To which I replied that Section 3 (1) of the Communications Act 2003 said that the interests of Citizen Consumers came first/  They ignored that point.

We then went on to a presentation from Ofcom person Steve Unger during which interruptions for questions at any point were allowed.  He gave us some spiel about the new proposals ensuring they woud not run out of 01 or 02 numbers within the lifetime of phone numbers still being used as many corporates would now run their call centres on 03 or revised 08 and handle them increasingly via voip systems at the back end so they didnt require a different real physical phone line and number for each separate call handling position in the call centre.  He also tried to take us through the logic of their 06 proposals which he said were numbers that would be capped at no more than 20p per minute.

I then asked why PNS was still necessary at all and why these companies couldn't be made to either take am 09 or an 03 number depending on whether they wanted their caller to pay for the extra call handling facilities or wanted to pay for them themselves.  I also asked if this meant a Green Light to Patientline remaining in business and if the maximum 20p call rate had been agreed with the Department of Health.  To which basically my question was dodged and the answer was that it was for the Department of Health to reply about Patientline.  At this point some rather haughty and upper class industry person from somewhere like Vodafone asked whether valid though my questions no doubt were if I was at the right forum to raised them.   So once again we see that Ofcom prefers only to meet in person with industry persons where they can all talk industry speak and keeping the telecoms industry profitable.

There was one public spoken senior looking industry chappie in a smart suit who asked Steve Unger why when consumers had asked repeatedly for a call price announcement facility over the years (especially for 07, 09 and 084/7 type calls plus 118 dq calls) Ofcom had never done anything about this and wouldn't  it be better for the industry's reputation if it had.  To which the answer was that Ofcom's surveys showed not much consumer demand and that it was very expensive and difficult for telcos to offer this facility.

The meeting ended shortly afterwards and stranged and I detected an immediate shying away by most telecoms industry persons when i tried to join their little informal chat groups etc.  I did then manage to have a conversation with Steve Unger who said he knew it wasn't as much as we would like but Ofcom couldn't do any more due to the need for its regulatory remedies not to be considered as being disproportionate etc, etc.  I still asked how their dogs breakfast 08 code was better for anytone to which he had no answe

Well done NGM!   :)

Should we be asking for a similar seminar for consumers to have the system explained and the opportunity to put questions?

Apologies for various spelling mistakes and typos in above but my one year old HP Pavilion DV1139EA Centrino Notebook turned up its toes on Tuesday evening and appears to have had a total motherboard failure.  So it has now gone off to HP for a repair of up to 2 weeks and meanwhile I am trying to access the internet and access email using a Netgem IPlayer Freeview and Internet/Email tv box.

Unfortunately its only means of navigation around web pages is with the four cursor keys on the keyboard as it has no mouse or touchpad. And it only shows me about a quarter of a web page at once :o :'(

Really I have posted my message about the Ofcom meeting in the wrong place but I can't cut and paste from one thread to another with the Netgem.  And the front page of this website still refers to the consutation that closed in December instead of this new one.

Anyhow coming back to the Ofcom meeting there were about 33 industry members present and this included 2 from BT and 2 from Kingston Communications.  The rest included C& W, Carphone Warehous, Easynet, NTL, Magrathea Communications, 2 from NTL, Mobile Broadband Group, Teleworst, Opera Telecom, Orange, Quazzle, Redstone, Tiscali, TMobile, Tesco Telecoms, Vodafone, Voicenet, Wanadoo, Zimo, Intellect x 2, Interconnect 3, FCS, CMS and AT & T.

However I see that the Dti and Otelo also had a rep each which rather adds legitimacy to me being there in my local government and SayNoTo0870 hats.

Dave wrote on Mar 15^th, 2006 at 7:39am:

I see we're still waiting for the end of January 2006.....................  ::) ::) See here.

The Ofcom page now reads:

Quote:

This document was originally published by Oftel, one of the organisations replaced by Ofcom at the end of 2003. It will be updated to reflect the conclusions of Ofcom's Numbering Review (http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/numberingreview/) in late summer 2006.

Thanks for the meeting notes NGM.

If I may summarise:

Smoke and mirrors proposals are in hand, various changes will be made, various scams will be allowed to continue with slight variations and the numbering system will be in an even worse mess and completely unintelligible to the public when they've finished messing about with it.

Wicked wrote on Mar 17^th, 2006 at 11:30am:

If I may summarise: Smoke and mirrors proposals are in hand, various changes will be made, various scams will be allowed to continue with slight variations and the numbering system will be in an even worse mess and completely unintelligible to the public when they've finished messing about with it.

Yes that is absolutely it Wicked.

Basically anyone who wants to have an NGN and not scam is forced to get an 03 NGN or Countrywide number as Ofcom calls them that will be charged at geographic rates.  So those wish to do the right thing will be forced to get a new number whereas those who wish to go on scamming on 0844, 0845 and 0871 will be able to do so without any interference in or interruption of their business.  The only exception to this will be 0870 where the scammers will have to get a new number to go on scamming and a non scamming number code will be created in the middle of a class of numbers (087) that will will otherwise be all about scamming.

Basically Ofcom are people of no principle or firm action whatsoever and despite Section 3(1) of the Communications Act putting consumers first Ofcom will always come up with an intellectually incoherent bodge so as to let the work of their scammer friends remain as largerly profitable and as unchanged as possible.

Most disgraceful of all the 084/7 scammers will carry on with the great its only the BT National/Local rate scandal and only take their misleading signs down (especially the voice based ones of all their deliberately mistrained call centre operators) to this effect for 5 minutes when the Ofcom inspectors call by on say 10 days advance warning!

I must apologise if this message is confusing.  I have attempted to isolate the quote from the letter but can only do this by the use of ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,  

I wonder if any members of this forum are aware of an article published in last week’s Sunday Times.  It is by Stewart Mitchell and is  titled "Talking point: New phone codes aim to curb those premium-rate rip-offs".  Much of it is taken up with Trojan Horses, premium line "free offer" rip offs and the like and the apparent inability of Ofcom and Icstis to contain the problem but it contains the following observations.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Quote starts

Yet rip-offs are merely one symptom of a telephone numbering system that is plainly out of control and confusing to all but the super-numerate. Most people know that it costs nothing to call, say, Amazon on an 0800 number, to check up on your order of Alan Sugar’s The Apprentice. Yet how are we to know that calling Lastminute’s 0871 number to book a fancy weekend in Brooklyn costs 10p per minute? Or that a glimpse into the future from Live Psychic Readings’ 0906 hotline costs £1.50 per minute? They must have seen us coming.

Thank heavens, then, that public vexation has persuaded Ofcom to propose simpler, tariff-related dialling codes and enable consumers to bar premium-rate scams, too. For a start, both 08 and 09 prefixes would, in future, be followed by a digit that reflects price. Calling 082, for example, would be cheaper than 089.

As well as indicating cost, these new numbers would, in theory, enable parents to bar children from calling premium-rate sex-talk lines. Even better, if you hate companies that use high-priced 0870/1 numbers to increase profit while providing basic customer services, Ofcom is proposing a new 03 nationwide prefix, charged at the same rate as geographic numbers such as 0161 (for Manchester).

Whether companies will use the new numbers and forgo revenue is debatable. If they were serious about customer service, they would have adopted the free 0800 numbers.

Simplifying the current brain-taxing system sounds sensible, but initial reactions were mixed from Craig Skinner, a numbering expert at the telecoms researcher Ovum. "Most concern centres on the 08 and 09 number ranges, where the changes will be difficult to manage. This will require education of customers and significant cost for individual business."

What of the scammers? Ofcom plans to change the way numbers are allocated, and threatens to deny numbers to phone networks that have hosted service providers which have abused consumer trust. So, if fraudsters use their networks illegally, the responsibility for policing the premium-rate market passes to the private sector. Skinner said: "The ban on revenue-sharing on 03 numbers might help, but this won’t clear up scams among companies that choose to stick with 08 and 09 numbers."

Ofcom has a table illustrating its proposals at tinyurl.com/ezgww, and the consultation runs until May. Doors invites your suggestions for improving telephone numbering, which we will forward to the regulator. Mail them to doorscampaign@sunday-times.co.uk.
Quote ends
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Bracketing 08 with 09 numbers as the writer does, suggests that he has not grasped the essence of the rip-off although in a later paragraph he seems to do so.

I wish to make two points about this article

1. He has not publicised the Ofcom consultation site, merely the site illustrating the pricing differentials
2. This article gives all forum members access to a national newspaper which has invited comment.  

It will be recalled that the Sunday Times spearheaded a campaign on Rip-Off Britain which resulted in a OFT enquiry.  Unfortunately the outcome of this was that Rip-Off Britain was a myth.  

I suggest that it would do no harm if forum members responded to Stewart Mitchell’s invitation.  I have already done so.

wrote on Mar 17^th, 2006 at 9:54am:

To do Clive Hillier credit he didn't say I had come to the wrong forum or use that as an excuse not to answer but instead said these proposals were in addition to proposing to change 0870 to geographic rates.

As you said this is in contradiction to making clearer the cost of 084/087?  Us consumers, which are always thought of last in the eyes of Ofcon, are likely to be confused over these new number range charges because at first thought 087, in the eyes of most consumers, will be thought of as more expensive than 084 simply because of how they are numbered.

To me it still sounds as though ofcon are going to do a U turn on their proposals for 0870 numbers despite having more than 1200+ plus consumers telling them they want this number range charged at geographical rates.  Mainly the ones who objected to this were companies that have a interest in keeping this scam going for as long as possible - especially from mobile networks because they charge so much more.


Quote:

He also tried to take us through the logic of their 06 proposals which he said were numbers that would be capped at no more than 20p per minute.

I agree that this appears to give Patientline scam the go-ahead but at a lower charge even though they are using the personal number range purely to gain revenue without being under ICSTIS control.

Quote:

At this point some rather haughty and upper class industry person from somewhere like Vodafone asked whether valid though my questions no doubt were if I was at the right forum to raised them.   So once again we see that Ofcom prefers only to meet in person with industry persons where they can all talk industry speak and keeping the telecoms industry profitable.

I totally agree.  The workshop clearly has implications and concerns us consumers so we should have been invited but they want to try and keep things in their little quiet domain then just force things upon us without warning.


Quote:

There was one public spoken senior looking industry chappie in a smart suit who asked Steve Unger why when consumers had asked repeatedly for a call price announcement facility over the years (especially for 07, 09 and 084/7 type calls plus 118 dq calls) Ofcom had never done anything about this and wouldn't  it be better for the industry's reputation if it had.  To which the answer was that Ofcom's surveys showed not much consumer demand and that it was very expensive and difficult for telcos to offer this facility.

I agree it may be expensive but at the very least mobile companies should be forced to do this first because they generally charge so much more than BT do.  Mobile networks already have a similar thing in operation for their 080 freephone calls which aren't generally free anymore.  They inform people ringing that they will be charged for the call despite it being freephone.  Why can't this existing system be widened to include 084/087 calls especially from mobile networks that charge so much more than BT, etc.

Well done NGM.
And surely free front-end announcements can not be that expensive if the Finarea Group, amongst others, can manage it.
After all, what could they have to hide? 8-)



~Edited by bbb_uk: Post title amended

Tanllan wrote on Mar 19^th, 2006 at 7:16pm:

Well done NGM. And surely free front-end announcements can not be that expensive if the Finarea Group, amongst others, can manage it. After all, what could they have to hide? 8-)

Very good point. I'd forgotten about how Call18866/1899, etc can manage it on the little money they must make compared to the mobile networks.

Ofcom, please take note of this!

And, when they've done, they'll still not be able to tell you what's the difference between the numbers which are charged at g7 and p9 rates (both are 10p/minute incl. VAT at all times) or give a reason why all chargeable 08 numbers can't simply be moved to the 09 range for 'transparency' (that's a word even their New Labour bosses know now).

For example:

0871 660 xxxx – g7 - 10p/minute at all times

0901 71x XXXX - p9 – 10p/minute at all times

Fabian wrote on Mar 19^th, 2006 at 4:26pm:

Yet rip-offs are merely one symptom of a telephone numbering system that is plainly out of control and confusing to all but the super-numerate. Most people know that it costs nothing to call, say, Amazon on an 0800 number, to check up on your order of Alan Sugar’s The Apprentice. Yet how are we to know that calling Lastminute’s 0871 number to book a fancy weekend in Brooklyn costs 10p per minute? Or that a glimpse into the future from Live Psychic Readings’ 0906 hotline costs £1.50 per minute? They must have seen us coming. Thank heavens, then, that public vexation has persuaded Ofcom to propose simpler, tariff-related dialling codes and enable consumers to bar premium-rate scams, too. For a start, both 08 and 09 prefixes would, in future, be followed by a digit that reflects price. Calling 082, for example, would be cheaper than 089. As well as indicating cost, these new numbers would, in theory, enable parents to bar children from calling premium-rate sex-talk lines. Even better, if you hate companies that use high-priced 0870/1 numbers to increase profit while providing basic customer services, Ofcom is proposing a new 03 nationwide prefix, charged at the same rate as geographic numbers such as 0161 (for Manchester). ... Simplifying the current brain-taxing system sounds sensible, but initial reactions were mixed from Craig Skinner, a numbering expert at the telecoms researcher Ovum. "Most concern centres on the 08 and 09 number ranges, where the changes will be difficult to manage. This will require education of customers and significant cost for individual business."

How are the proposed changes a simplification of the current system? All the current numbers will still exist; they will introduce yet more codes under the 08 prefix; there will be new 03 codes and possibly 06; 0870 will be stuck in the middle of the 08 range but priced the same as an 01 call (although I'm finding it increasingly hard to believe that will happen).

As for 082 being cheaper than 089, that sounds like a good idea, but it still doesn't tell you what it will cost with your particular provider. Only annoucnements before calls would do that. I can't believe this is expensive to implement as all services are computerised, so they can easily program it to do that. If 0844 numbers keep their current pricing, it'll mess that up anyway as they cost between 0.5p/min and 5p/min, and you have to look right to the 8th digit in some cases to find out the cost - if you can find a price list at all. So 081 to 083 will have to cost less than 0.5p/min. 088 and 089 calls will have to cost more than 10p/min as they have to cost more than 0871  ;D

How does this change premium rate call barring in any way? One can already bar 09 numbers - it's free with BT, although if you want a PIN so you can unbar it occasionally, they charge a quarterly fee. International call barring costs too.


What they should do is not allocate any more 08 numbers (apart from freephone). Existing operators may keep their numbers (as forcing businesses to change numbers every few years is stupid - not all of them are scammers). Renevue sharing on 08 numbers could then end in phases, starting with 0870, with numbers becoming geographical rate. Companies then have a choice of keeping their numbers, or moving to an 09 premium number (starting at 1p/min). Much simpler.



~Edited by bbb_uk: Amended title to match thread

jrawle wrote on Mar 20^th, 2006 at 5:25pm:

Much simpler.

But not, I fear, as profitable - nor in line with the decisions already taken?
We may merely be going through the motions (pause, to check medical meaning).  :'(

The last point jrawle makes is well worth repeating.

".....What they should do is not allocate any more 08 numbers (apart from freephone). Existing operators may keep their numbers (as forcing businesses to change numbers every few years is stupid - not all of them are scammers). Renevue sharing on 08 numbers could then end in phases, starting with 0870, with numbers becoming geographical rate. Companies then have a choice of keeping their numbers, or moving to an 09 premium number (starting at 1p/min). Much simpler. ...."

I note a remarkable lack of responses at http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/numberingreview/responses/

I have read and reread Ofcom’s  full document “Telephone Numbering” (157 pages) in preparation to responding to the consultation   The Ofcome response sheet poses 61 questions in a text box format, which I find unwieldy.  Ofcom have sent me a copy of the consultation questions and cover sheet in Word format, which I find more convenient, so I sent a copy of this Word file to this site for publication some weeks ago, but nothing has appeared.  I also requested that Ofcome publish this combined Word document on its web site, but it has not appeared.

The last response on the related  subject of NTS numbers had an unprecedented response of over 1000.  I suspect that this response may have been made long and complex to deter such a massive  response.

kk wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2006 at 11:37am:

The last response on the related  subject of NTS numbers had an unprecedented response of over 1000.  I suspect that this response may have been made long and complex to deter such a massive  response.

I completely believe you are correct.

Ofcom have just emailed me to tell me of further slippage in the publication of their intended Statement on NTS: A Way Forward that they had last claimed would be published by the end of March.

I have emailed them back asking how they can publish any Statement on NTS: A Way Forward that is not integrated with the outcome of their consultation on the new NTNP and if they aren't also totally and utterly incompetent not to have consulted on the new NTNP proposals at the same time as NTS: A Way Forward.

See www.saynoto0870.com/cgi-bin/forum/YaBB.cgi?num=1127944230/345

wrote on Apr 4^th, 2006 at 7:26pm:

Ofcom have just emailed me to tell me of further slippage in the publication of their intended Statement on NTS: A Way Forward that they had last claimed would be published by the end of March. I have emailed them back asking how they can publish any Statement on NTS: A Way Forward that is not integrated with the outcome of their consultation on the new NTNP and if they aren't also totally and utterly incompetent not to have consulted on the new NTNP proposals at the same time as NTS: A Way Forward

Have they emailed you back with a response to your email yet?

Most likely a lack of response would mean they know you have a very good point.

bbb_uk wrote on Apr 6^th, 2006 at 7:00pm:

Most likely a lack of response would mean they know you have a very good point.

No Response from OfCoN.  Even the evangelical Mr Matt Peacock (their Communications Director) seems to have given up trying to persuade me that they are the good guys really but simply much misunderstood.  I need to post some articles on www.ofcomwatch.org.uk really and email the 50 interested MPs to alert them of the disgrace of the disconnect between the 084/7 work and the new NTNP from Ofcom.

But it seems guaranteed that so long as New Labour remains in office that telecoms highway robbery will continue to be allowed and the simple thing of people knowing how much a phone call costs before they decide to make it will not come about.

And since anyone with any consumerist led zeal is screened out in favour of salary promoting careerists in the Ofcom staff selection process there seems to be no hope at all of anything changing so long as Mr Stephen Carter continues to rearrange the regulatory furniture to better suit the needs of his old employers. :o >:( >:( >:(

The dealine for this consultation is exactly 3 weeks today on 4 May 2006  :o  :o

Like a lot of people I feel overwhelmed by the 61-question-response form, even though I feel strongly about the subject.  I know I can ignore them and just structure my response as I so wish but I thought it might be useful to perhaps highlight a dozen or so of the key questions.  I need help with this though!  ::)

Personally speaking I would find that helpful in focussing my reponse and maybe it would be helpful to others too.  I've cut and past the questions below within further posts:

PS May I also request that a count-down clock be added to the site's Home page and Search page (as was done previously) as well as links to updated consultation information, so to raise awareness and encourage responses...

Quote:

Question 1:What are your views on the strategic principles that Ofcom proposes to apply to its numbering policy decisions?   Question 2:What do you think are consumers’ key current views on numbering, how do you think those views will change, and how should Ofcom’s current decisions take those changes into account?   Question 3:What do you think are the main ways in which technological developments will change the focus of numbering policy decisions, and how should Ofcom’s current decisions take these developments into account?   Question 4:Do you have any comments on Ofcom’s assessment of the current challenges to the Numbering Plan, in terms of a) number availability, b) transparency, or c) consumer abuses?   Question 5:Do you agree that the extension of conservation measures is the best approach to take before the impact of NGNs eases the pressure on geographic number demand? Question 6:Do you agree that the use of overlay codes is the best backstop approach in the event that extended conservation measures are not sufficient to meet demand for geographic numbers? Question 7:Do you agree that Ofcom should continue to respect the geographic identity of numbers until consumer understanding of the impact of technology change evolves further, and what do you consider is the best way to develop that consumer understanding?   Question 8:Do you agree with Ofcom’s proposal to open a new ‘03’ number range for non-geographic, non-revenue sharing services?   Question 9:How should the ‘03’ range be structured, in terms of tariffs and services ? Question 10:How should the ‘08’ range be structured, in terms of tariffs and services? Question 11:Which broad approach should Ofcom take to structuring the ‘09’ range, and if a re-structured ‘09’ range is preferred how would you arrange the different types of ‘09’ services (e.g., according to price per minute, price per call, inclusion of adult content)? Question 12:Should any specific PRS service categories be identified or segregated in order that parents can block access by their children (e.g.,sexually explicit content, gambling)? Is there merit in having a general ‘adults only’ classification, including a range of services to which access might be restricted on the grounds of content, or might consumers wish to apply different rules for different types of content? Question 13:Are there any practical means by which the Numbering Plan could provide improved mobile tariff transparency? Question 14:Do you agree that personal numbers should have a tariff ceiling (or recorded message) to restore trust in those numbers? If so, what level, and should that ceiling include the cost of recorded messages?   Question 15:Do you agree with Ofcom’s proposals to move personal numbers (with the same consumer protection provisions) to the ‘06’ range and to pursue the direct allocation of numbers to end users as proposed at some point in the future? Question 16:Do you have any comments on the use of the 05 number range? Question 17:Do you agree that Ofcom’s overall proposals for a future Numbering Plan are coherent and comprehensive, and do you have any comments on the timescales in which the changes should be implemented ? Question 18:Do you agree with the principle of using consumer protection tests in numbering in order to limit consumer abuses, as long as the relevant legal tests are met? Do you have any suggestions for what tests would be appropriate or any conditions that should be met to pass such tests? Question 19:Do you support the proposal to extend the tariffing provisions of the Numbering Plan so that they apply to customers of all providers on all types of network? Question 20:How do you think the new Numbering Plan could be effectively communicated to consumers? Question 21:What are your views on Ofcom’s analysis and the different options for number charging ? Question 22:Which, if any, numbers might appropriately be allocated using a value-based charge ? Question 23:Do you have any other comments on Ofcom’s proposals for numbering as discussed in Section 5, or any other suggestions for how Ofcom might revise the current Numbering Plan or its administration? Question 24:What do you think of Ofcom’s proposed general approach to managing geographic numbers? Question 25:Do you have detailed evidence or suggestions on the variables likely to influence demand for geographic numbers, how those variables will change over time, and how Ofcom should develop a demand model? Question 26:Do you agree with the specific proposal for how to extend conservation measures, including the extension to areas with a number shortage predicted in the next five (rather than two) years? Question 27:Do you consider there to be any upper limit, in terms of technical feasibility, on the number of areas in which conservation measures could be used ? Question 28:Do you agree with Ofcom’s assessment of the impact of conservation measures on stakeholders? Question 29:Do you agree that Ofcom should pursue these additional ways to improve number utilisation and, if we do, how would stakeholders be impacted and what practical issues are involved?

Quote:

Question 30:What are your views on overlay codes, and Ofcom’s assessment of them, as a fallback option to increase number supply? What should be the maximum number of areas where overlay codes are introduced? Question 31:What are your views on closing the scheme, and Ofcom’s assessment of it, as a fallback option to increase number supply? Question 32:What are your views on wide area codes, and Ofcom’s assessment of them, as a fallback option to increase number supply? Question 33:Might wide area codes be appropriate in regions with a strong identity and, if so, which specific regions are suitable for wide area codes? Question 34:Do you agree with Ofcom’s assessment of the problems with current 08 and 09 in terms of information clarity and consumer perceptions? Question 35:Which of these options for current 08 services do you think is best in terms of a) increasing consumer transparency and b) minimising the costs of re-structuring the 08 range? Question 36:How might early migration to the ‘03’ range be encouraged? Question 37:Is it more important to indicate price per minute or price per call, and does this vary for different types of PRS service? What granularity of PRS tariff information should be given to consumers by the Numbering Plan? Question 38:Should there be any PRS number ranges with no tariff ceiling ? Question 39:What is the typical turnover of 09 numbers, and what does this mean for migration timescales to a new 09 Plan? How could Ofcom structure the 09 range or take other steps to promote voluntary migration of 09 services ? Question 40:Do you agree that that part of the 07 range which is currently unused (071-075) should be reserved for mobile services, with the aim of establishing 07 as a mobile ‘brand’? Question 41:Should Ofcom reserve specific sub-ranges within the 071-075 range for new mobile multimedia services, in the interests of promoting consumer awareness and tariff transparency, and if so how? Question 42:Do you support the use of 100,000-number blocks in allocating mobile numbers to new mobile voice providers? Q 43:Based on the above analysis, if Ofcom were to introduce a charge ceiling on calls to 070 numbers, which of the following levels should be adopted Q 44:Would a requirement to make tariff information clearly available to purchasers of personal numbering services at the point of sale, either in addition to, or instead of a call ceiling, be an effective means of providing tariff transparency on personal numbers? Q 45:If a new sub-range is made available for personal numbering services, how long should the current ‘070’ sub-range remain available for existing providers, in order to minimise migration costs ? Q 46:What issues do you think would need to be resolved before Ofcom makes individual numbers available for direct allocation to end users? Q 47:What do you consider to be the main strengths and weaknesses of the current rules-based system of UK number allocation? Q 48:Do you agree with these principles for number charging? Q 49:What are your views on Ofcom’s assessment of the issues to be considered in setting and reviewing number charges? For example, should other issues be considered in developing charging proposals ? Q 50:Do you agree that charging for numbers could disincentivise economically inefficient behaviour, and incentivise economically efficient utilisation? Q 51:What internal changes would communications providers have to make, and at what cost, to support charging for numbers? Would these changes be preferable to earlier and more widespread use of conservation measures and (limited) changes to increase geographic number supply? Q 52:How might existing number allocation rules be reduced if charging for numbers was introduced ? Q 53:What are your views on this illustrative charging mechanism, and would you suggest any changes or alternatives to it ? Q54:How would charging for number blocks affect consumers ? Q 55:What impact do you think charging for numbers would have on sub-allocation? Should Ofcom encourage or facilitate sub-allocation and, if charging were introduced, would changes be needed to the process of suballocation to facilitate trading? Q 56:Which types of consumer abuse do you think Ofcom should particularly attempt to address through its numbering policy decisions? Q 57:Which number ranges and types of originating communications provider do you think should be covered by an extension of the Numbering Plan’s tariffing provisions? What practical issues are involved, and how would this vary according to the number ranges and service providers involved? Q 58:What do you think of the potential conditions proposed by Ofcom for inclusion in a consumer protection test for number allocation, including the proposals that numbers should not be provided to anyone with a particular track record of persistent and/or serious consumer abuse ? Q 59:Are there any other circumstances in which it may be appropriate for Ofcom to refuse number allocations ? Q 60:Would you support the use of a consumer protection test as a basis for withdrawing number allocations? What kind of considerations should Ofcom apply in any such test, and what would be the practical issues involved in applying such a test? Q 61:What consumer abuses do you think might occur in the future, and what steps might Ofcom take now in its numbering policy in order to reduce the potential for such abuses?

I may well be in the wrong thread here, if so I am sure someone will move it but this whole issue is SO confusing and OFCOM just seems determined to make it more so.  I am awaiting a reply from them to clarify the point about organisations being able to describe 0845s as "local rate" so I don't know how long I will have to wait for that as they seem to be more intent on devising mind-boggling "consultations".
However, one thought comes to mind, it's a very naive one I know but ..couldn't all the problems be resolved to CUSTOMER satisfaction if all the telecoms providers were obliged to include ALL calls (except to 09 which can be barred) within their inclusive packages?   I am sure someone/many people will have thought of this before but it has many advantages, like companies could keep their silly call centre numbers, it just wouldn't cost the customer!  I did put this to OFCOM on a previous occasion but never really got a reply.   I know it would cost the telecoms companies but so what, they make profits, they would just be smaller in the future and they would have more weight to put an end to this ridiculous situation.

Well done Barbara. Simple, clear and concise.  :)
But you have touched on the profit element - and being able to scam the hapless UK citizen-consumer. And that is the problem.  :(

Barbara wrote on Apr 13^th, 2006 at 2:48pm:

However, one thought comes to mind, it's a very naive one I know but ..couldn't all the problems be resolved to CUSTOMER satisfaction if all the telecoms providers were obliged to include ALL calls (except to 09 which can be barred) within their inclusive packages?...

To do this would require significant changes in the framework of these numbers, something that Ofcom's consultation NTS Options for the future, which closed at the beginning of 2005 looked at. You can see that Ofcom has done diddly squat as far as implementing any changes to make it fairer, as far as the consumer is concerned.


Barbara wrote on Apr 13^th, 2006 at 2:48pm:

... I know it would cost the telecoms companies but so what, they make profits, they would just be smaller in the future and they would have more weight to put an end to this ridiculous situation.

In today's telecommunications there are different telcos. Thus, a call may originate and terminate with different telcos, ie, the caller may have one provider and the end party may use another. With 0845/0870 the end telco providing the number requires a payment (under current rules). For telcos to allow these numbers to be called at the same rates as geographical numbers would mean that they are operating at a loss.

Imagine if supermarkets were forced to sell Heinz baked beans at the same price as their own brand 'no frills' range. Heinz still want their usual payment (let's assume that this is more than the retail price charged for the 'no frills' range in this analogy). Thus, the supermarket would be making a loss on Heinz beans.

I'm not trying to justify the situation, but when you say "it would cost the telecoms companies", you are referring to the originating telcos and not those providing the rip-off numbers. They would be subsidising the service that the company/organisation you are calling should be paying for. It's passing the buck, although if it were the industry's expense, rather than the citizen's, as it is at the moment, then it might have more of an incentive to do something.

If this could be done, legally, what would this do in practice? I think that it will just push up the price of geographical calls and make inclusive calls packages all but non-existant. The best you will get will be where they offer a set number of inclusive minutes, like mobile phone providers do.

Tanllan wrote on Apr 13^th, 2006 at 3:16pm:

Well done Barbara. Simple, clear and concise.  :) But you have touched on the profit element - and being able to scam the hapless UK citizen-consumer. And that is the problem.  :(

Tanllan, you put it more succintly than I ever could.  :)

Quote:

From the full consultation document: 5.44 Ofcom recognises that there is an apparent inconsistency between this proposition, which establishes the new ‘03’ range as the natural home for those services which do not require revenue sharing, and the proposals set out in the NTS consultation, which may lead to the end of revenue sharing on the 0870 range, and possibly also on 0845. Ofcom does not rule out the possibility that the 0870 and 0845 ranges could be treated as exceptions to the general rule, in accommodating non-revenue sharing calls within a broader revenue sharing range. Ofcom also considers that the designation of 03 as a new non-revenue sharing number range could mean that this apparent anomaly would become less significant over time if the new 03 range proved popular and resulted in migration of services from the 08 range. Ofcom will return to this issue in its NTS statement, which it expects to publish by April 2006. 5.45 Ofcom also notes that its current proposals for ‘03’ are slightly different in nature to those set out in the NTS consultation for 0870, and potentially for 0845. The NTS consultation proposed to remove the regulatory guarantee of revenue share on certain 08 sub-ranges (the NTS call origination condition). What is proposed here for the ‘03’ range is a complete ban on revenue share, implemented via an additional obligation on all providers who adopt these.

Ofcom can see the inconsistency of its ways, at least !  It also shows that Ofcom believe the geographically charged 0870 could run alongside the '03' range !  And even more optimistically that the '08' numbers could migrate to '03' due to their popularity !!!
Ofcom will "return to this issue in its NTS statement" which we now understand is due out after Easter.  Should be interesting...

gdh82 wrote on Apr 15^th, 2006 at 9:13pm:

It also shows that Ofcom believe the geographically charged 0870 could run alongside the '03' range !  And even more optimistically that the '08' numbers could migrate to '03' due to their popularity !!! Ofcom will "return to this issue in its NTS statement" which we now understand is due out after Easter.  Should be interesting...

What should happen though is that all 084 and 087 are converted to completely non revenue sharing ranges and that 084/7 revenue sharers move to 09 or a new low cost premium rate 06 range.

Whereas this solution merely allows the 0870 scammers to change to 0871 or 0844 and to continue to trade off the confusion caused by the fact that 0870 will still be national rate and that weak as water Ofcom wil do nothing about deliberate scammers like BT who describe 0845 as Lo-Call on their phone bills.

Why should all the 0845 voice providers have to  migrate to 03 while the scammers on 0844 and 0871 can stay untouched?  Surely it is the scammers who should be inconvenienced and forced to change their ways? >:(

wrote on Apr 16^th, 2006 at 7:41pm:

gdh82 wrote on Apr 15th, 2006 at 9:13pm: It also shows that Ofcom believe the geographically charged 0870 could run alongside the '03' range !  And even more optimistically that the '08' numbers could migrate to '03' due to their popularity !!! Ofcom will "return to this issue in its NTS statement" which we now understand is due out after Easter.  Should be interesting... ...Why should all the 0845 voice providers have to  migrate to 03 while the scammers on 0844 and 0871 can stay untouched?  Surely it is the scammers who should be inconvenienced and forced to change their ways? >:(

... Tsk, tsk, NGM, you are applying logic, clarity and fair play again.

Tanllan wrote on Apr 16^th, 2006 at 8:26pm:

Tsk, tsk, NGM, you are applying logic, clarity and fair play again.

When you mean I should be resigned to the work of Ofcom all taking place under Blairite smoke and mirrors Tanllan? ;) ::)

And I'm right with you too, NGM.  (I was merely pointing out Ofcom's position - not supporting it!)

Presumably, therefore, these kinds of points ought to be at the heart of our consultation response, particularly in respect of the following consultation questions:


Quote:

Question 17: Do you agree that Ofcom’s overall proposals for a future Numbering Plan are coherent and comprehensive, and do you have any comments on the timescales in which the changes should be implemented ? Question 8: Do you agree with Ofcom’s proposal to open a new ‘03’ number range for non-geographic, non-revenue sharing services? Question 10:How should the ‘08’ range be structured, in terms of tariffs and services?

For those that haven't got round to reading the 100+ consultation, there is now a summary here including the various methods of replying.

Remember we have just 2 weeks left to go....

Well Ofcom really did mean the week after Easter people on their 084/7 announcement and incredibly they are intent on totally prejudicing the outcome of their current Review of Numbering Consultation by deciding in advance that they will have a geographically priced class of NGNs within the 087 number range (0870) that will totally shaft their plans to structure the rest of their 084/7 number series in line with call costs.  And they really are insisting that every government department and charity and local council in the land using 0845 must introduce an 03 alternative to allow callers to have access to geographic call prices and so that Stephen Carter's chums in the 0845 dialup internet industry can go on ripping off elderly and technically uninformed customers with high call prices for as long as they possibly can.  And people calling 0871 and 0845 will continue to be even more misled that these calls are at national rate as and when 0870 calls are charged that way. >:( >:( >:(

But hang on a moment Ofcom now says the call price changes on 0870 won't happen until 18 months after the "conclusion of the wider numbering review due in summer 2006".  So there won't be any change in 0870 call prices until the start of 2008.  Not Autumn 2006 that Ofcom deliberately and cynically misled journalists into believing last Autumn. So that's only 13 years after the 0990/0345 scam began and it has only taken Ofcom 4 years of deliberate delay to sort this out while most call patterns begin to move over to Voip.  Its clear that Ofcom are a total disgrace.

Read it and weep at www.ofcom.org.uk/media/news/2006/04/nr_20060419

Its also clear that Mr Stephen Carter and his chums are totally in the pocket of the vested interests of the telecoms industry and wouldn't know a principled form of action if it ran them over.

This is yet another example of Ofcom's total lack of any joined up thinking in its approach to regulating telecoms where it attempts to bamboozle and dissuade consumers from even bothering to respond to its consultations by engaging in several hundred consultations a year that most consumers eventually run out of energy to respond to (I know I have) instead of only 3 or 4 annual consultations on a variety of themed and clearly interlinked telecoms issues.

There is clearly no overall joined up thinking at Ofcom at all other than to never do anything that would cause loss of revenue to large and powerful telcos where many former senior Ofcom employees previously worked. :o

Sorry to suggest yet more work but for all those of you who were planning on responding to Ofcom's consultation on its revised National Telephone Number Plan I have been told by a very important source well connected with the internal workings of Ofcom that it is vital that as many of you as possible also provide a response to Ofcom's consultation that is technically closing today Wednesday 19th April (but Ofcom always accepts responses for several days after the closing date so therefore probably until say next Monday) entitled:-

Ofcom's Consumer Policy:-  See www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/ocp/

Basically this is an effort by Ofcom to give itself a jolly big pat on the back by saying that its approach so far in avoiding almost any direct control of and/or regulatory sanctions against most telcos and instead concentrating on de-regulating to promote competition (you know the sort of thing with PostOffice, TalkTalk and BT all in a bidding war to acquire more customers while actually forcing up the minimum cost of line rental for most ordinary phone customers by 50%!) has been a big success and it should carry on with more of the same.  Although they do acknowledge that they may perhaps need to be a teensy weensy bit more efficient and rapid in future in taking action against those companies who consistently and deliberately flout their regulations long term (for instance no action so far against Finarea despite more than two years of not complying with Ofcom's rules sating they must belong to an Alternate Dispute Resolution scheme).

Basically this consultation is a huge opportunity to respond telling Ofcom that you think their approach to Consumer Protection is a complete joke and has totally failed and that their rules are being flouted right, left and centre and that in many cartel and monopoly type areas like phone line rental prices are actually being driven up and not down.  You could also highlight how their non interventionist and market driven approach has totally failed to provide cheaper prices for 084/7 NTS phone calls to date.

In short don't write pages but just a few paragraphs telling Ofcom their whole approach to Consumer Protection is an utter joke that consumers are not getting a better deal as a result of their actions and that due to the composition of their Board and their staff they are widely perceived as being in bed with the telecoms industry.

Don't use their horrid online form with the numerous questions designed to put you off responding and possibly not available after 5pm today and instead send your response to:-  claudio.pollack@ofcom.org.uk and conpolconsult@ofcom.org.uk preferably by the end of this coming weekend.  Based on their previous acceptance of responses up to a week late and this being the Easter week etc I feel sure that they will have to accept and publish any late submissions made.

It is important that as many as possible of us respond to this consultation as I am reliably informed that if we do not tell Ofcom that their approach is wrong that they will just carry on with their current appalling approach of failing to intervene to stop the operation of cartels and/or deliberately misleading and hype based marketing by many of the largest uk telecoms companies such as BT and TalkTalk. >:(

This is important so please respond today but a few paragraphs on a Page or so of A4 will do. Please don't use their questionnaire which is designed to force you to respond on Ofcom's terms and anyhow may not be available after today. ;)

Please tell Ofcom their current approach to considering the best interests of the consumer is abysmal and completely wide of the mark.

Quote:

Regulator cuts cost of 0870 numbers By David Derbyshire, Consumer Affairs Editor (Filed: 20/04/2006) Government departments, charities and businesses will no longer be able to use controversial 0870 telephone numbers to generate income, the industry's regulator announced yesterday. From the start of 2008 an 0870 number should also cost no more to call than a standard national number, Ofcom said. The 0870 prefix is used to generate millions of pounds every year. Although they are sometimes mistakenly described as "national rate numbers", they can cost up to 8p a minute from a standard landline phone - more than twice the cost of calling an 01 or 02 phone number. Calls to 0870 numbers are rarely included in inclusive call packages and are often impossible to dial from abroad. Unlike conventional telephone numbers, owners of 0870 numbers can take a share of the revenue generated by each call. Under the new rules announced yesterday, 0870 numbers will be no more expensive to call than a 01 or 02 "geographic" number. If companies wish to charge more, they will have to make an announcement at the start of each call, Ofcom said. Ofcom believes the changes will reduce the price of many calls to 0870 numbers and mean that 0870 numbers "will generally be included in call packages". It is also ending revenue sharing. However, the regulator is not lowering the cost of 0845 numbers, which typically charge up to 5p a minute during the day. It will also officially designate 0871 numbers as premium rate numbers. In the summer Ofcom is expected to announce a new 03 number range as an alternative to 0870 numbers.

Predictably anodine comment from Mr Derbyshire toeing the official Ofcom line!  What I want to know happened to the contents of my press release which I sent to several papers yesterday (including directly to David Derbyshire) condemning Ofcom's failure to act quickly enough or tackle 0845s and allowing revenue share to continue on 08 alongside 0800 Freephone.  It seems these national newspaper journalists are in fact terrified to publish anything they think doesn't come from an official government source even thouhgh the government source here is lieing through its teeth about what is really going on. :o >:( >:( >:(

wrote on Apr 19^th, 2006 at 3:05pm:

Sorry to suggest yet more work but for all those of you who were planning on responding to Ofcom's consultation on its In short don't write pages but just a few paragraphs telling Ofcom their whole approach to Consumer Protection is an utter joke that consumers are not getting a better deal as a result of their actions and that due to the composition of their Board and their staff they are widely perceived as being in bed with the telecoms industry. Ofcom's Consumer Policy:-  See www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/ocp/

For what its worth I've just emailed my response on Ofcom's Consumer Policy:


Quote:

I would like to respond to this consultation by commenting on what I consider to be Ofcom's utter and complete failure in protecting the consumers' interests.  This is not highlighted any better than by Ofcom’s announcement on 19 April 2006 to further delay for almost another two years its proposal to cut the cost of 0870 calls. In my opinion the whole 0845/0844/0870/0871 situation is a mess which Ofcom has allowed to happen.  In the overwhelming majority of cases there is no justification for these overpriced and misleading numbers to be charged at a higher rate than a geographic number.  Ofcom could not have received a clearer public response against 0870s etc following its consultation, "NTS - The Way Forward",  and yet Ofcom decides to do too little, too slowly and ultimately too late.  Ofcom have missed a huge opportunity to show its credentials in protecting the interests of the consumer. It is incredibly difficult NOT to conclude that Ofcom sides very heavily with the interests of business rather than the consumer, and I believe this perception is widespread.  It seems Ofcom have presided over a excessively complicated telephone numbering system which simultaneously confuses the public on the one hand but on the other provides numerous opportunities for telecom companies to profit from this very confusion.  How this arrangement can “further the interests of citizens in relation to communications matters or further the interests of consumers in relevant markets, where appropriate by promoting competition” is beyond me. Even worse still, Ofcom is now developing an image of incompetence.  It seemingly spurts out consultations with little or no regards for their sequence or co-ordination.  The sequencing of two recent consultations ("NTS - The Way Forward" and the "Review of the UK Telephone Numbering") always seemed ridiculous, and consequently the proposals of the former have had to be shelved due to the inconsistency with those of the  later ‘s.  At least Ofcom admitted this in the latter’s consultation document: “ Ofcom recognises that there is an apparent inconsistency between this proposition, which establishes the new ‘03’ range as the natural home for those services which do not require revenue sharing, and the proposals set out in the NTS consultation, which may lead to the end of revenue sharing on the 0870 range, and possibly also on 0845.”  Surely there ought to be much greater evidence of co-ordination and forward thinking between the excessive numbers of consultations. I find it particularly ironic that given Ofcom is the Office of Communications it should be so poor at communicating itself.  The consultation documents themselves seem unnecessarily long and complicated as are the response documents.  The "Review of the UK Telephone Numbering" response document contains no fewer than 61 questions!  Cynics might say that this only serves to deter a response and judging from the Ofcom’s response web page, there’s evidence to support this!  I know Ofcom provides summary documents but I do not feel that this provides anything like an adequate solution. Sadly I am not at all optimistic about Ofcom’s future plans in protecting consumer interests and regrettably I fear that this response has already been ignored.

I plan on sending in my short response to Ofcom's Consumer Policy review later on today. The main points I will highlight are:

• basic line rental has gone up by 50% the last two years.
  
• this has lead to others, principally CPW's TalkTalk following suit coupled with the fact that customers of Onetel and Tele2 have/are been forcefully migrated onto more expensive packages.
  
• Ofcom has a habit of shutting the door after the horse has bolted. Some examples; premium rate scams, reverse-charged premium rate SMS and the latest, slamming.
  
• whilst charges for calling geographical numbers have undoubtedly fallen, other parts of the telephone service have not and have gone up.
  
• 0845/0870 numbers cost pretty much the same as when there was only BT to choose from. They are anti-competitive and go against what a free market is supposed to stand for. Either that, or they are premium rate; they can't be both, although telco-wordsmiths would like to think that they are.
  
• I believe that there is a distinct lack of understanding by the public of how telecommunications services are charged, brought about by misleading names and brand names like 0870 being 'national rate' and BT's 0845 Lo-call name which still appears on telephone bills to this day.
  
• Couple this with the further lack of interest by the telecommunications industry to clear up any misunderstanding about local and national geographical calls costing the same has resulted in total confusion.
  
• There is no obligation on premium rate service providers (including 0844/0871) to display pricing information, resulting in companies making money unbeknown to the customer.

gdh82 wrote on Apr 20^th, 2006 at 7:49pm:

For what its worth I've just emailed my response on Ofcom's Consumer Policy:

Excellent response gdh82 really taking them to task on their many repeated failures to put the interests of the citizen consumer first including on the 084/7 issue.

Like most Ofcom consultations which are never publicised in any way at all by Ofcom (not even the recent one on allowing more Pay Tv on the Freeview platform which attracted only 30 responses but would have had thousands if Ofcom had paid for an advert about it on a Free Freeview channel) this one will probably only pick up 20 or 30 responses so if even just those at the top of the commitment list in this forum (idb, mc661, bigjohn etc have you responded to this) responded in a very negative fashion to their proposals that all is well with Ofcom's actions it would really put a spoke in their wheel.  Also from an interchange of letters betweeen Colette Bowe, Chairman of the Ofcom Consumer Panel and Stepen Carter CEO of Ofcom found in Page 90 something of the full Consumer Policy consultation its obvious that the Ofcom Consumer Panel think this is an attempt by Ofcom to yet further side with the interests of Stephen Carter's ex telco mates and to ride roughshod over the citizen consumer.

So well done gdh but could 10 other activists in this forum also send their responses by the end of the weekend?

I was thinking of posting my response on here but it ran to 6 typed ages of A4 as I had so many points to make.  Of course I expect Ofcom may not read it but perhaps Colette Bowe will.

Dave wrote on Apr 21^st, 2006 at 8:05am:

I plan on sending in my short response to Ofcom's Consumer Policy review later on today. The main points I will highlight are:

Make sure to date it for 19th April at the top Dave if you do it as an attached Word Document as that should make it easy for Ofcom to accept it without issue.  They accepted a response from their own Ofcom Consumer Panel to NTS Way Forward over a week late although that was backdated to look as though it was only 2 days late (but they still accepted and published a letter that was actually dated after the consultation closed which really sets a huge precedent).  So if they don't accept other late submissions they have a lot of explaining to do.  Anyhow I know that at the moment they believe in accepting all late responses for a week or two, basiclally because so many of their consultations pick up so few responses, no doubt because many of us gradually begin to lose heart.  Something the the well paid Ofcom staff who keep the endless consultation sausage machine turning no doubt rely on. ;)

wrote on Apr 21^st, 2006 at 8:29am:

Excellent response gdh82 really taking them to task on their many repeated failures to put the interests of the citizen consumer first including on the 084/7 issue.

Ditto NGM's comments.

Further to my previous post, I also think that it's worth mentioning the lack of enforcement in ensuring that all telcos are members of an Alternate Dispute Resolution (ADR) scheme (more here). It's good to see that they've done something about those ISPs, but the likes of Finarea appear to be untouchable should a customer be overcharged or have any other complaint for that matter.

Dave wrote on Apr 21^st, 2006 at 8:43am:

It's good to see that they've done something about those ISPs, but the likes of Finarea appear to be untouchable should a customer be overcharged or have any other complaint for that matter.

I'm hoping that Finarea will ne next on Ofcom's lack of an ADR scheme hit list but only time will tell.  Of course perhaps I will be sorry if the 1899 call cost rises to 5p per call although with other more competent and high quality ISPs than TalkTalk bound to launch broadband packages that also include all 01/02 calls and line rental as well fairly soon I think the need for a Finarea type telecoms call routing solution may well diminish.

wrote on Apr 21^st, 2006 at 9:01am:

I'm hoping that Finarea will ne next on Ofcom's lack of an ADR scheme hit list ...

Is it a statutory requirement that a telco must be a member at least 1 ADR scheme?

Dave wrote on Apr 21^st, 2006 at 9:08am:

Is it a statutory requirement that a telco must be a member at least 1 ADR scheme?

Yes.

Mr David Stewart, Ofcom Director of Investigation has already confirmed this.  Its just that Ofcom's approach to taking action is to only prioritise those cases where they have had a lot of complaints about a company and the level of detriment to the consumer is considered serious.

Obviously in general people are fairly happy with Finarea apart from them increasing prices without telling customers (which I notice they have stopped doing lately) and the dodgy voice quality of some calls which have echo back that makes them unusable.

Well we will now have to wait till 2008  at the earliest before ofcom do something about 0870 numbers  news on msn web site uk today   http://news.money.msn.co.uk/article.aspx?as=article&f=uk_-_olgbbus&t=3581&id=2686851&d=20060421&do=http://news.money.msn.co.uk&i=http://news.money.msn.co.uk/mediaexportlive&ks=0&mc=10&ml=ma&lc=en&ae=windows-1252                >:(

dad2711 wrote on Apr 21^st, 2006 at 10:56am:

Well we will now have to wait till 2008  at the earliest before ofcom do something about 0870 numbers  news on msn web site uk today

And on Page 7 of this thread of course............................................................................................ ::)

Don't get your hopes up though as 0870 scammers like the BBC or Government Departments who don't get a kickback directly but get a free switchboard on the back of the extra money received by their telco supplier from the 0870 will still be able to charge more as long as they add a call price announcemnt.

Or they can move to 10p per minute at all times on 0871 or 5p per minute at all times on an 0844 number.  Although that's less in the week its  a lot more than the 1.5p per minute at the weekend charged for 0870s.

And the public will really understand about 0870 being normal rate for only some calls but not others and 0871 being premium rate for all calls not won't they. ::) >:( >:( >:(

wrote on Apr 21^st, 2006 at 11:09am:

And the public will really understand about 0870 being normal rate for only some calls but not others and 0871 being premium rate for all calls not won't they. ::) >:( >:( >:(

yes of course the normal joe public that knows all about the 0870 scam!  " idont think so " will not get caught paying the extra charge on their phone bill  yet again the public pay   >:( :(   :o

~ NGM's quote tidied up by Dave

Re NGM's post (No. 103), I rushed out this response on 19th April.


"My overall impression of Ofcom’s activities is that it acts more like a trade association for the telecom industry, than to further the interests of the consumer citizen.

Ofcom produces consultation after consultation.   The purpose of the consultations appears, not to elicit views and opinions from consumers, but to reinforce opinions already held by Ofcom.  If a consultation does not produce the “correct response” then Ofcom produces another consultation.  The consultations and accompanying consultations questions are framed to produce an ‘Ofcom acceptable outcome’.  A recent example is the consultation on NTS (non-geographical numbers)  followed by a Consultation on Telephone Numbering.  Both consultations relating to widely overlapping topics. The first consultation resulted in an unprecedented massive response, and produced widespread criticism of the scams associated with the use of  non-geographic telephone numbers (087x and 084x), the second consultation appears to be designed to produce a much smaller response, and was far to long with  61 consultation questions.  The second consultation ignored the overwhelming views expressed in the first consultation.

Consultation documents put simple ideas in  convoluted, complex and prolix ways.

Ofcom has failed time after time to protect the consumer and appears to support the telecom industry in the many scams and sharp practices, by its weak and indecisive regulation."

kk wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2006 at 9:00am:

"My overall impression of Ofcom’s activities is that it acts more like a trade association for the telecoms industry, than to further the interests of the consumer citizen. Ofcom produces consultation after consultation.   The purpose of the consultations appears, not to elicit views and opinions from consumers, but to reinforce opinions already held by Ofcom.  If a consultation does not produce the “correct response” then Ofcom produces another consultation.

You have it in one kk except that I used to work for a trade association that represented the unit trust industry that took a considerably stronger line in trying to control ethical standards and selling practices amongst its members than Ofcom as a regulator does.  Basically Stephen Carter seems to have no idea whatsoever what a regulator is supposed to be there for and just seems to think his job is to make life as profitable and freewheeling as possible for the telcos.  And as New Labour is also a party to many telco scams and as Stephen Carter is clearly a New Labour Chrony he just seems to get away with it. >:( >:( >:(

The Non Exec Directors on the Ofcom Board ought to stand up for the consumer but they are the usual bunch of politically correct saps selected for in fact not ever making any waves in the telecoms industry but only for being involved in various boring and irrelevant forms of politically correct activities.

On this last consultation's responses its clear the public also wanted 0845 to become normally priced but Ofcom simply ignored them.  And to allow some 0870 numbers that do not provide a direct revenue share to the call centre but who do give a kickback to the telecoms supplier (who then provides various free items of phone equipment and line rental etc to the call centre) is an even bigger disgrace.

Basically Ofcom seems determine to prove they are in the pocket of the telecoms industry and they are impossible to shame into taking the most appropriate action to protect the rights o the uk citizen consumer. >:( >:( >:(

The whole thing is just so typically British rip-off culture.  Ofcom is just lip service to consumer interests.  In reality, the government whether Tory or New Labour, is wedded to the interests of big business.  Why on earth should we have call fees on premium rate lines being shared at all?  I find it quite hard to phone any business these days without having to use a rip off 0870 number.  Although I have had 0900 series premium rate lines barred from my phone, this doesn't apply to 0845 or 0870 numbers.

It is particularly disgusting when this affects necessary services such as police and government departments, that people have to phone.  I'm glad that people are waking up to just how we've been conned all the time; let's not get fobbed off with complicated schemes that take 2 years to go into effect and anyway just give the profiteers a different way to shaft the public.

(a) tell Ofcom (without bothering with their deliberately offputting questionnaire) that we want the 0845/0870 numbers system scrapped altogether.
(b) meanwhile make sure that everyone knows what a scam the 0870 system is, and that businesses should give us proper geographical numbers if they want our custom.

No wonder foreigners call Britain 'Treasure island'!

John

wrote on Feb 25^th, 2006 at 7:12pm:

Ofcom won't go down that route [of moving 087/084 to the 09 range] because that would totally destroy the businesses of all the 084/7 scam operators. Yes I know we would like that to happen but you have to accept that Ofcom have a different agenda of not interfering in business unless it is to protect the consumer. And the consumer can be protected without making these types of calls move to 09.

In addition to this reluctance by Ofcom, I read in the UK Telephone Numbering Plan consulation about the potential shortage of 084/7 numbers so I wondered, could Ofcom reasonably argue, that it simply wouldn't be possible to move 087/084 to the 09 range because it couldn't accomodate all the numbers needed in addition to the existing 09 numbers ?  Someone who knows the maths of these number range may be able to answer this ?

I've called for such a change in the past but am now not sure if its even possible.  Even though, I'm not happy about it, it might help explain Ofcom's restructing of the the 08 range ?

NGM's suggestion of creating an '06' range to accomodate revenue raising 087/084 numbers would overcome this problem but its hard to see Ofcom taking this route.

Given all of this, and at the risk of sounding extremely naive, perhaps the best hope for those of us who want to see an end to this unjustifiable misleading and overpriced 087/084 rip-off numbers, it that the '03' range numbers do take a foothold, prove to be popular, and by doing so, further highlight the excessively  expensive 087/084 numbers (or whatever the restructured equivalent will be), leading to even greater consumer disatisfaction and ultimately to the begrudging and belated movement by business to the '03' range ???  

Dream on, I hear you say...

Hi gdh82

Each range -  0870, 0871, 0845 and 0844 has a capacity of over 9 million numbers (10,000,000 in theory).

Each range -  090, 091, 092, 093, 094, 095 etc has a capacity of over 90 million numbers. (100,000,000 in theory)
The full "09" range can hold over 900 million numbers. (1,000,000,000 in theory)

kk wrote on May 6^th, 2006 at 2:15pm:

Each range 0870, 0871, 0845 and 0844 has a capacity of over 9 million numbers.

0871 numbers then have 7 digits which contain 10 million number possibilities.  I believe that this is then spilt in to 5 number bands for 6p, 7p, 8p, 9p and 10p per minute 0871 numbers and that the telco industry argument is that there won't be enough 10p per minute 0871 numbers which are the only ones they will actually want to sell (apart from the dial through telecoms services who do use the lower rate 0871 numbers).

Now 1 million existing 10p per minute 0871 numbers still sounds a lot doesn't it (possibly more than all the NTS numbers currently actively in use) but you then have to allow for these 1 million numbers being subdivided in to blocks that belong to each different telco of 10,000 or whatever and due to the size of the blocks there aren't enough blocks to allocate to all the companies who want to sell 10p per minute 0871 numbers, even though in principle there are enough 0871 numbers in total.

What is so disgusting is that the only reason they want to use a 10p per minute 0871 number, rather than a 10p per minute 09 number is (a) that 0871 at the moment won't be regulated by ICSTIS for two more years and that (b) the majority of the public will still think "that's only national rate mate isn't it" based on all the historic lies associated with the selling of numbers in the 0845 and 0870 ranges and these numbers loooking more or less the same.

Basically what should have happened is that 08 was returned to Freephone only use, national 084/7 numbers all had to become 03 Countrwide or alternatively move to 09 Premium Rate ICSTIS regulation for continued revenue share.

But now instead Ofcom has decided that the business of the scammers must continue uninterrupted and that all those running 0845 numbers who want to do the right thing must instead get a new 03 number.

Is this regulation or is this just a charter for scammers? >:( >:( >:(

wrote on May 6^th, 2006 at 2:29pm:

Is this regulation or is this just a charter for scammers?

UK telecom regulation, or rather the lack of it, is a scammers' paradise. The inaction by both Ofcom and ICSTIS is more consistent with what would happen in a 'tin-pot little dictatorship' rather than in a highly developed major economy. Ofcom has shown that it is wholly subservient to the interests of big business and the telecommunication companies that thrive on the fact that they can introduce premium numbers with no sanction from those that are supposed to protect the interest of the consumer. ICSTIS in particular appears to be complicit in the scamming operations of premium reverse-billed SMS operators. There appears to be little redress available to the average UK resident. Ofcom pats itself on the back for doing something about 0870, yet, as predicted by myself and others, there will now be a mass shift to 0844 and 0871 which will cost consumers even more. NEG pre-empted all of this by introducing 0844 for patient rip-off services, and now every other Tom D|ck and Harry will follow. My only conclusion is that there is a massive degree of corruption involved somewhere within the sordid regulatory process. No wonder the UK is the number one choice for telephone scammers when dithering idiots are responsible for regulation. There appears to be nothing the average consumer can do other than to make representations to parliament.

As you may know, 70 to 80% (80% according to the German Government) of our laws now originate from the EU.  To hide the fact that legislation comes from the EU, the founders of the EU ( then the ECC) devised a cunning plan.  The EU bureaucracy  issues a Directive. The (EU parliament has little function in the process, and do not vote for laws as we in the UK know.) Directives then have to be “implemented” by member states by a given date.  The Directive is implemented by each member state, by it enacting  primary legislation (ie Telecommunications Act ) and/or secondary legislation (Statutory Instruments) and putting in place a regulatory framework as necessary (such as Ofcom).

Each member state has no choice and has to fully implemented a EU Directive unless it has been granted a derogation by the EU.  The Directive is then enforced in the normal way through the courts of member states.  The Directive has superiority over any member state law.  If a member state fails to fully implement a Directive, citizens of the member state can force, in effect, their own government (eg Department of Trade) or regulatory body (eg Ofcom) to properly implement a Directive by taking that government department or regulatory body to its own courts - in our case the normal UK civil courts - County Court (including Small Claims, for claims under £5,000) or High Court for claims over £50,000.

I am not in favour of the above undemocratic process, but that is the law, and citizens can use it, if they so wish.

I understand that the EU has issued a Directive, part of which mentions the requirement for “number transparency”.  Ofcom’s own published evidence shows that UK citizens are confused by 087x and 084x telephone numbers and the evidence clearly shows that the current numbering scheme is far from transparent.  Ofcom’s proposals, if implemented, are also far from transparent, and in some cases make the matter worse.  

If Ofcom put in place its proposals, I feel that they will  have failed to properly implement the EU Directive on the matter of number transparency and are susceptible to be taken to the UK civil courts by any person who feels aggrieved and can show that they have suffered a loss. The UK courts can not force Ofcom to properly implement an EU Directive, but can award damages against Ofcom.

If Ofcom do take the fully transparent route of eventually putting all revenue sharing numbers in the designated “09" category, then I would argue that they have then properly implemented the EU Directive.

I've never been a great fan of the EU, but sometimes it can work for us.  I have always felt that the press blame the EU directives, when in fact it's the Whitehall implementation that is the problem.

The British government is the most blatant in the EU in its disregard for its own people and collaborating in their exploitation by big business - good old 'Treasure Island'.  So, if the EU gives us rights against our own corrupt government, we should use them.

nanstallon wrote on May 6^th, 2006 at 6:31pm:

So, if the EU gives us rights against our own corrupt government, we should use them.

Unfortunately I fear that getting anywhere via the suggested EU directive enforcement process given by kk may be considerably more difficult and troublesome than might at first glance seem to be the case. :-/

Thanks kk for providing the number capacity of the various '08' ranges, and thanks to NGM for the further explanation. Sounds like there's plenty of numbers in theory but when it comes to the practice of allocation there plausibly could be shortages, as Ofcom have said.  So it follows that the motivation for creating the '03' range may not in fact be to replace 08x revenue raisers but in fact to sustain their long term future  :o :'(


wrote on May 6^th, 2006 at 2:29pm:

What is so disgusting is that the only reason they want to use a 10p per minute 0871 number, rather than a 10p per minute 09 number is (a) that 0871 at the moment won't be regulated by ICSTIS for two more years and that (b) the majority of the public will still think "that's only national rate mate isn't it" based on all the historic lies associated with the selling of numbers in the 0845 and 0870 ranges and these numbers loooking more or less the same.

Point (b) above was perfectly illustrated recently in Telewest's response to Ofcom's NTS changes when describing the virtues of the 0844 number range:


Quote:

Businesses may want to consider moving their 0870 numbers to 0844. ntl:Telewest Business' 0844 service delivers flexibility with a range of price points from 1 to 5ppm. While calls are capped at 5ppm, there is the opportunity to make revenue share if call volume is high. In addition, as a non premium rate number, 0844 will be more favourably perceived by your customers.

Given what we're up against, It's so hard not to feel disheartened or worse still, 'done over' as firestop puts it:


firestop wrote on May 5^th, 2006 at 5:33am:

So, have WE shot ourselves in the foot and been 'done-over' by Ofcom? I ask because our campaign against 0870 has been circumvented by Ofcom allowing migration to the 'even-more-expensive' 0871 - which is an even worse state of affairs than the one we started complaining about, originally.

Having said that, if ever there is an opportunity to urge change to the 0870/0871/0845/0844 debate then it has to be now when Ofcom is 'consulting' on a  Review of UK Telephone Numbering Plan.  As well as responding to the consultation, how can we focus attention and maybe even some pressure on Ofcom - perhaps some way of making more people aware of their sounds-good-but-will-achieve-very-little smokescreen proposals ?  And, on this point, its encouraging to hear the Martin of MSE sounds like he'll be playing his part to help raise awareness.

The following are my general comments to the consultation.

This is yet another consultation relating to telephone numbering and although wider in scope than previous consultations, it again covers much the same ground.  The previous consultation on NTL numbering had an unprecedented response, but as that consultation produced the “wrong conclusions”, Ofcom have resorted to the device of producing an over complex consultation document, which will deter most from responding. Ofcom generally ignore consultation responses.

The primary aim of a number plan should be to produce telephone number ranges that are readily recognised both in function and cost by the vast majority of callers.  The proposals outlined by Ofcom fail in that aim.  The function of “01”,  “02” and the proposed “03”, appear clear. If  “03” emerges as described (treated in all respects like the current 01/02 numbers), that range should not present any problem to consumers.   Removing “070” (so called personal number) from the rest of the mobile numbers is also to be welcomed.

The remainder of the proposals keep and perpetuate the current problems and make matters worse. The proposals keep the mix of revenue sharing numbers (087x and 084x) together with free-phone numbers. The current “08” range is a fertile ground for scams, deceits and half truths, practiced by telecom companies and organisations.

The only honest and transparent reform is to confine all revenue sharing and “above normal” tariff numbers to one single designated range.  That range is the “09” range which can accommodate 1,000,000,000 number combinations. Prices in a reorganised and reformed “09” range could run from 1p to 150p/minute, so “low cost” revenue sharing numbers can be accommodated as well as more expensive numbers.

We should have a simple and transparent rule:  If the number to be dialed (apart from mobiles) is revenue sharing and/or not included in the normal schemes and tariffs then it must be places in an appropriate sub range of “09”.  The only reason for not adopting that simple coherent solution is to aid organisations and telecom providers that wish to make hidden charges to consumers.

Right on kk !  Your post eloquently says pretty much most of what I intend to say  ;)

In the NTS Way Forward consultation, I too called for 08 revenue sharing numbers to be moved to the 09 premium rate range but given the comments made above about potential shortages, I'm not so sure now  :-/  Even if Ofcom could be persuaded to go this way (and that's a very, very big 'if') there could be other practical problems.  Although, as you point out, the maximum number combinations are massive, it was raised above that given the desire to offer certain price bandings and given that numbers are allocated in blocks, the '09' range may not offer enough practical possibilities.  

Maybe there is a way around this  (perhaps if the '09 range was banded on a 2-digit level and have several bands allocated 10 ppm ?) but you're much better with the figures than me.  I agree its so much more "systematic, accessible and easily understood" (according to the consultation document Ofcom is seeking this) to have all revenue sharing/premium rate numbers in one number range but I only raise this issue because I don't want to be demanding something that isn't going to be workable in practice ?

Hi gdh82

In my response, I have proposed that 08 and 09 be used as shown below and as you can see the “09" has plenty of capacity, even taking into account the vagaries of block allocation.

“08"   free-phone only (084x and 087x migrate to "09" or "03", depending on price structure required)

“09"   any land-line number which cost more than the normal rate and/or is excluded from a consumers call options at 0p/min.
This 11 digit “09" class can be split into 090, 091, 092, 093, 094, 095, 096, 097, 098 and 099 sub-classes,  each sub-class having 99,999,900 different numbers (allowing for, say, 100 unusable combinations).  The total capacity of the full “09" range would be up to 1,000,000,000. number combinations.

For example:
090 all calls at less than the normal rate, but not included in “free” call packages - eg internet dial up and lower cost revenue sharing. (say from 1p to 2p/min)
091 charges above the normal call rate (say from 3p to 10p/min)
092 charges above the normal call rate (say 20p/min)
093 charges above the normal call rate (say 30p/min)
094 charges above the normal call rate (say 40p/min)
095 charges above the normal call rate (say 50p/min to 150p/min)
096 charges above the normal call rate (reserved)
097 for so called “personal numbers” (now on 070).
098 fixed charge per call.
099 for adult lines.

Thanks again KK for your very helpful and detailed response.  It does seem, as you say, that the '09' range when divided in two digit subclasses would provide sufficient capacity.   And if Ofcom so desired there's no reason why more than one subclass could share, say, the 10 ppm rate.  Your suggestion would also accomodate Ofcom's intention to band a range by type so that, for example, adult lines, can be specifically barred whilst maintaing access to other '09' numbers.

So, I'm persuaded on the issue of capacity but how do we persude Ofcom to take this option, especially given they are so reluctant to force companies to change their numbers  (even though we've already witnessed the voluntary migration from 0870 to 0871).  I even wondered if its more realistic to encourage Ofcom to label both '08' and '09' as premium rate as well as ensure the same protection for both number ranges.  I know the 080 freephone doesn't fit very well with this, but it doesn't fit very well with Ofcom's proposals either.  I know this is probably just as unrealistic but any thoughts ?

I also wanted to ask for some explantion of MSE's Martin support for 0844 and 0871 below:


MSE_Martin wrote on May 8^th, 2006 at 5:27pm:

It is a difficult wrestle with 0844 and 0871, on the one hand we dont want migration from 0870s, on the other hand these numbers are valuable in the override market for international calls etc, so the low end premium rate numbers which is what they effectively are, should remain. For me the answer should be a 'we make money when you call' type declaraion for all revenue share lines, however i think we're a long way.

Its just I'm not sure what  the 'override market for international calls' is ?  Could anyone explain please?

gdh82 wrote on May 10^th, 2006 at 10:23am:

Its just I'm not sure what  the 'override market for international calls' is ?  Could anyone explain please?

I have tried to steer Martin away from using that misleading 'override providers' phrase. What he means is what I call 'Dial-Through numbers' - numbers through which you or I can dial to access a cheaper route to call (for example) an international number.

Click on the below link and search for Bahamas - you will see numerous 0844 numbers and one of two 0871 numbers are used.

The MSE International Callchecker

Heinz wrote on May 10^th, 2006 at 10:39am:

I have tried to steer Martin away from using that misleading 'override providers' phrase. What he means is what I call 'Dial-Through numbers' - numbers through which you or I can dial to access a cheaper route to call (for example) an international number. Click on the below link and search for Bahamas - you will see numerous 0844 numbers and one of two 0871 numbers are used. The MSE International Callchecker

But try calling most of these dial through service with Post Office HomePhone and you will find you cannot access them and instead get an unobtainable tone because Cable & Wireless (Post Office HomePhone's underlying call supplier) has not bothered to form an access agreement with them - well at the moment you can access them by dialling the BT 1280 overide code but I suspect it will not be long before the Post Office bars, 1899, 1280 etc codes.

The Post Office tries to blame all this on companies like Callax, Finarea etc not forming access agreements with Cable & Wireless but we all know that in reality Cable & Wireless does not want to form the access agreements as it can make more money from customers paying the higher call rates to the Post Office and then onwards to itself.

See below reply from Ric Francis, Exective Director, Operations at the Post Office.†

This seems to be another example of Wholesale Line Rental being Fit for Purpose only for the needs of the telecoms operators but not the needs of consumers who clearly want access to the same range of services that they enjoyed with BT but at cheaper call prices.

† The discussion NonGeographicalMan started on being unable to dial certain 0844/0871/090 numbers using Post Office Home Phone has been moved here.

Thanks, Heinz, for explaining the meaning of 'override market for international calls' - that makes sense now.  Whilst I appreciate their validity, there doesn't seem any reason why like the rest of 087x/084 numbers they couldn't be moved to a similarly priced '09' band, or else (as mentioned above) let's call a spade a spade and label the '08' range as premium rate too!

NGM has certainly got a issue with Homephone and dial-through services but may I suggest that this post merits its own thread - it would get more attention there and won't detract here  ;)

Another deceitful tactic by the regulator is that it apparently no longer publishes responses to consultations until after the closing date, so that those looking for ideas and advice in preparing their own submissions, come up with bugger all when looking at http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/numberingreview/responses/

This is just so typically Ofcomesque. WHat a bunch of inept and twisted individuals - they will do ANYTHING to maintain the NGN fraud.

Just who is lining whose pockets? Who has their greedy finger in the pot?

idb wrote on May 10^th, 2006 at 9:47pm:

This is just so typically Ofcomesque. WHat a bunch of inept and twisted individuals - they will do ANYTHING to maintain the NGN fraud. Just who is lining whose pockets? Who has their greedy finger in the pot?

I increasingly think of Stephen Carter and Tony Blair in the same moment.

Both completely past their sell by date and knowing they are soon to get the boot so becoming ever more cavalier and arrogant by the month.

We now need not only a procedure for getting rid of Tony Blair but also of Stephen Carter, David Currie and the whole non consumer interest protecting Ofcom board, including all of its particularly weak willed and spineless Non Executive Directors.  It is the direction of Ofcom at the top that is so completely wrong and has been so utterly corrupted as I am sure that those lower down do understand the interest of the consumer and are capable of implementing it if only this was given to them as being their primary mission.

And before anyone tries to blame Ofcom's policy of running an old boys club for the telecoms industy on the contents of the Communications Act 2003 I do not believe that it is the Act that is the problem.  The problem is Ofcom and its senior employees and the way government ministers are allowing them to get away with interpreting the Communciations Act. >:( >:( >:(

I have now decided to respond to this consultation. It will be short, unlike my previous efforts. It will focus on the fact that Ofcom has wholly ignored what was an unprecedented public response to the NTS consultation and allege that Ofcom is complicit in this massive scandal. Lord Cater of Southwark will, one day, have to answer for his agency's incompetence. When the UK has another major 'incident' (plane crash, terrorism, whatever), and the idiots issue what will then be 0871 numbers (of course now regulated by ICSTIS), Carter and his cronies will have to answer to someone.

idb wrote on May 10^th, 2006 at 11:49pm:

Lord Cater of Southwark will, one day, have to answer for his agency's incompetence.

For one awful moment I really did think Carter might have got the peerage from Blair that he so craves but I see that although there is indeed a Lord Carter on the Ofcom Advisory Committee for Disabled People it is fortunately not Mr Stephen Carter.

See www.ofcom.org.uk/about/csg/adv_cmmt_older_disabled/biogs/

Of course after Blair appointed Waheed Ali to the House of Lords I became increasingly aware that New Labour is unfortunately capabale of awarding peerages to almost anyone.  Especially if they do New Labour's bidding or make generous donations to party funds ;)

As far as I'm concerned, gongs, peerages, etc don't mean a thing these days as they are awarded/decided by people who don't command my respect any longer.  Look at Lord Archer, who has enjoyed some of Her Majesty's hospitality lately.  Who'd want to join a club of which the likes of him are members?  I suppose the attendance allowances at the Hopiuse of Lords may be persuasive.  The honours should go to people who have served the community without financial reward, or at least done their jobs conscientiously without creeeping around the likes of Blair etc.

Back to topic, it is probably right to answer the consultation, or Ofcom will say we had our chance and didn't bother.  Even if our contribution makes no difference to the outcome, at least we shall have tried!

John

idb wrote on May 10^th, 2006 at 9:47pm:

Another deceitful tactic by the regulator is that it apparently no longer publishes responses to consultations until after the closing date, so that those looking for ideas and advice in preparing their own submissions, come up with bugger all when looking at http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/numberingreview/responses/

Agree completely, idb, so thought I'd ask Ofcom themselves - you never know I might get a response  ;D


Quote:

Dear Ofcom, I write to query the lack of published responses during the numbering review consultation at the site: http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/numberingreview/responses/ This is very disappointing and seems to run counter to previous Ofcom practice: http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/nts_forward/responses/ On the one hand it seems that Ofcom is proposing a numbering scheme that is open, accessible and easily understood but on the other hand its consultation on the subject is closed, inaccessible and very complicated to understand (e.g an off-puting 61-question response from).  Having a more open consultation would allow for greater debate and for more informed participation - surely this is something that Ofcom could support ? I would be very grateful if you could offer some explanation for this apparent change in policy. Regards

Did you email this to Ofcom's Consultation Champion vikki.nash@ofcom.org.uk and copy it to their consumer policy head claudio.pollack@ofcom.org.uk and to Communications Director matt.peacock@ofcom.org.uk, Chief Executive stephen.carter@ofcom.org.uk and Head of the Ofcom Consumer Panel, colette.bowe@ofcomconsumerpanel.org.uk?

I hadn't but I have now!  ;) Thanks NGM

Within a couple of hours  :o of emailing Ofcom regarding the lack of published responses, I received a reply from Nic Green who I understand is managing the numbering consultation:


Quote:

>From: "Nic Green" <Nicholas.Green@ofcom.org.uk> >Subject: Re: lack of published responses to the numbering review consultation? >Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 11:31:12 +0100 > >Dear > >There has been no general change of policy. Unfortunately the process >has not run as smoothly as I would have liked in this case - for various >reasons - but I expect to be putting responses up on the site in the >next few working days, and aim to have them all posted by the end of >next week. > >On the issue of the consultation document itself, it was structured so >as to cover the issues in a more general way in the main sections >(accompanied by 23 general questions) and then to cover more detail in >the annexes, with the remaining questions being more of a technical >nature, for those specialists and communications industry insiders more >able to comment on those issues. Unfortunately the scope of the document >is wide, and we wanted to gather views on many things, which made it >hard to limit the total number of questions. > >But I take your point, which some others have made, and I'll review the >lessons to learn from this. If nothing else, perhaps it wasn't clear >enough that a) people can completely pick & choose which questions to >reply to, and b) that the questions indicate what we want to know but >people can if they want reply in a different format (which some do). > > >Thanks for your feedback. > > >Regards > >Nic Green > > > >

Some individual members of Ofcom staff are relatively diligent and conscientious.

The main problem is the overall remit that they are working under coming down to them from Stephen Carter, David Currie and other members of the Ofcom board.

This tends to ignore Ofcom's primary duty to uk citizens and consumers under part 3(i) of the Communications Act 2003 and instead spends far more time worrying about the sections of the Communications Act 2003 that talk about avoiding imposing unnecessary regulatory burdens on telecoms companies.  These two things (consumer interests and commercial interests) are often in conflict but when this is the case Ofcom seems to prefer to give priority to the needs of telecoms businesses even though its primary duty under the Communications Act is the needs of uk citizens and consumers.  Ofcom tries to get round this by claiming that all further deregulation stimulates additional competition and so is in the best interests of uk citizen consumers. ::) :o

wrote on May 11^th, 2006 at 1:23pm:

Ofcom tries to get round this by claiming that all further deregulation stimulates additional competition and so is in the best interests of uk citizen consumers. ::) :o

On the point of Ofcom's primary duty (and this is something I raised the other day in another thread) but I wondered if we expect too much of Ofcom given the defintion of how Ofcom protects consumer interests...


gdh82 wrote on May 8^th, 2006 at 4:23pm:

Quote: What's the point in Ofcom having all those powers but decide not to use them in case they upset the teleco's?  Regardless to the fact that we are being robbed/mislead and yet Ofcom's statutory duties:- 3 (1) It shall be the principal duty of Ofcom, in carrying out their functions; (a) to further the interests of citizens in relation to communications matters; and (b) to further the interests of consumers in relevant markets, where appropriate by promoting competition seem to be ignored. I very much agree with you both, bbb_uk and Dave, and feel increasingly dispondent about Ofcom's inaction.  I could be completely wrong about this but looking more closely at the definition of their function maybe we are expecting too much of Ofcom !   It states that  their means of furthering the interests of consumers is by promoting competition.  The phrase 'by promoting competition' sounds pretty toothless to me, and maybe having an '03' range to compete with revenue sharing '08s' could illustrate this ?  Its certainly different to furthering the interests of consumers by applying fines and taking direct action against those that scam the general public. Having said that,  I'm feeling even more depressed, and am very probably talking about matters I know  very little about !  :-/   So treat this a desperate question from a despondent SayNo member !

I realise this is a fundamental question and I'm not sticking up for Ofcom or anything but what do others think ?

Just to let others know, Ofcom have now began posting responses (about 20 so far) to this consultation ... http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/numberingreview/responses/

Now need some time to read them  ;)

Ofcom excelling themselves in the format of this 'Consultation'!
The number of questions and their complexity is enough to put anyone off trying to read the responses, let alone take the time to make a reply.  But this is clearly an obvious tactic to 'kick the matter into the long grass again'.
Game set and match to Ofcom (and their government masters) I reckon - we do get the government we deserve.

omy wrote on May 18^th, 2006 at 6:12am:

The number of questions and their complexity is enough to put anyone off trying to read the responses, let alone take the time to make a reply.

I completely agree Omy but, as put off as we feel, we can't let this beat us so I'm still going to respond and will probably throw in a few paragraphs raising this point as well !  ;)

For my own benefit, and in case this helps anyone else, I've boiled down the original 61 questions to those 'key' questions below which I plan to focus my submission on:


Quote:

Question 1:What are your views on the strategic principles that Ofcom proposes to apply to its numbering policy decisions? Question 2:What do you think are consumers’ key current views on numbering, how do you think those views will change, and how should Ofcom’s current decisions take those changes into account? Question 8: Do you agree with Ofcom’s proposal to open a new ‘03’ number range for non-geographic, non-revenue sharing services? Question 9:How should the ‘03’ range be structured, in terms of tariffs and services ? Question 10:How should the ‘08’ range be structured, in terms of tariffs and services? Question 11:Which broad approach should Ofcom take to structuring the ‘09’ range, and if a re-structured ‘09’ range is preferred how would you arrange the different types of ‘09’ services (e.g., according to price per minute, price per call, inclusion of adult content)? Question 14: Do you agree that personal numbers should have a tariff ceiling (or recorded message) to restore trust in those numbers? If so, what level, and should that ceiling include the cost of recorded messages? Question 15: Do you agree with Ofcom’s proposals to move personal numbers (with the same consumer protection provisions) to the ‘06’ range and to pursue the direct allocation of numbers to end users as proposed at some point in the future? Question 16: Do you have any comments on the use of the 05 number range? Question 17: Do you agree that Ofcom’s overall proposals for a future Numbering Plan are coherent and comprehensive, and do you have any comments on the timescales in which the changes should be implemented ? Question 19: Do you support the proposal to extend the tariffing provisions of the Numbering Plan so that they apply to customers of all providers on all types of network? Question 20:How do you think the new Numbering Plan could be effectively communicated to consumers? Question 34: Do you agree with Ofcom’s assessment of the problems with current 08 and 09 in terms of information clarity and consumer perceptions? Question 35:Which of these options for current 08 services do you think is best in terms of a) increasing consumer transparency and b) minimising the costs of re-structuring the 08 range? Question 36:How might early migration to the ‘03’ range be encouraged?

gdh82 wrote on May 19^th, 2006 at 7:59am:

For my own benefit, and in case this helps anyone else, I've boiled down the original 61 questions to those 'key' questions below which I plan to focus my submission on...

I'm ploughing through the document and I've just come across question 6:

Quote:

Question 6 Do you agree that the use of overlay codes is the best backstop approach in the event that extended conservation measures are not sufficient to meet demand for geographic numbers?

I think that the issues of what is done when an STD area code runs out of numbers is very relevant to all consumers. In short, in all areas the actual percentage of numbers in use is less than 30%. Therefore, IMHO Ofcom needs to spend more time ensuring that those numbers that have been given out to communication providers are used effectively. Why Ofcom gives out 10,000 numbers to VoIP in one area code, Lord knows!  ::) ::)

To have overlay codes where one area will have two codes seems rediculous. What's the point in a code?

I know that this was discussed at length as being the solution implemented in the US here. My personal view is that those few areas in need of extra capacity be migrated to 3 digit codes (excluding leading zero). But at the end of the day, why has this been allowed to happen?

It's interesting that Ofcom is continuing with the local/national rate distinction. It's proposal for the 03 prefixed numbers will allow for local and nationally charged numbers, for tariffs that differentiate. What concerns me, is why would any organisation wish to charge so-called national rate over local rate?

There must be something in it for the receiving party, else it will be a pointless exercise. Will the terminating telcos charge more to terminate national calls? If so, will this force up the cost of calls as a whole? Going back to the days when it cost more to call longer distance, is this going to create an artificial [virtual] distance/cost barrier?

If the terminating (NGN) provider charges the same, then it will be originating telcos (principally BT from people on Light User Scheme) that will pocket.

Dave wrote on May 19^th, 2006 at 4:26pm:

To have overlay codes where one area will have two codes seems rediculous. What's the point in a code?

I wasn't clear on what overlay codes were until I read your post (!) but now I understand I agree compeletely, Dave.  Surely this goes against the grain of Ofcom trying to simplify things as part of the numbering review?


Dave wrote on May 21^st, 2006 at 5:31pm:

It's proposal for the 03 prefixed numbers will allow for local and nationally charged numbers, for tariffs that differentiate.

 

This too is of concern.  It worries me that this '03' range isn't all that we hoped it could be.  With the local/national rate becoming meaningless to many us, it is puzzling why Ofcom wish to continue with it.  From reading between the lines of the consultation document ('Proposals For NTS' p42-47), I wondered if the new '03' range would also provide a kind of overflow for when '087' and '084' become exhausted!!

I fear that the proposal that the cost of '03' will be "closely tied to their provider's geographic rates" will in practice be interpreted very loosely  :-/

gdh82 wrote on May 21^st, 2006 at 6:08pm:

I fear that the proposal that the cost of '03' will be "closely tied to their provider's geographic rates" will in practice be interpreted very loosely  :-/

Yes, I have wondered what are the legal implications. For example, imagine a provider that charges its national rate for national 03 numbers and its local rate for local 03 numbers. Now, what happens if this provider charges local rate for local geographical calls, but also charges local rate for national calls?

Legally can it do this? Or will the 'rules' as set out in the National Telephone Numbering Plan that dictate that the price a telco charges for national calls and the price it charges for 03 national must be the same, unless an announcement is given.

I'm no legal expert, but could a telco go to court and claim that it does charge local and national rates for 03, but chooses, as a concession to its customers to 'sell' national calls for the price of it charges for local calls? It may be described as "commercial discretion" or an "ongoing promotion."

Quote:

Question 10 How should the ‘08’ range be structured, in terms of tariffs and services?

The proposals suggest that 0870, and in time, 0845, should be returned to geographical rates. This would leave them in the middle of the 08 range and identical, price wise, to the new 03 range. SPs would, thus, have little incentive to move to 03. They would be free to promote their services as costing ‘local rate’ or ‘national rate’, just like those prefixed 03. Freephone numbers aside, I believe that this will lead to confusion amongst consumers and businesses alike as to what it costs to call 08 numbers and what they are.

And what happened to Ofcom’s view that 0845 and 0870 numbers provide revenue for ‘value-added’ services? If that’s the case, then surely the majority will be happy to stay where they are. Instead, it appears that Ofcom is seeking to force such services to incur migration costs or face loosing revenue.

Dave wrote on May 21^st, 2006 at 6:27pm:

I'm no legal expert, but could a telco go to court and claim that it does charge local and national rates for 03, but chooses, as a concession to its customers to 'sell' national calls for the price of it charges for local calls? It may be described as "commercial discretion" or an "ongoing promotion." Legally can it do this? Or will the 'rules' as set out in the National Telephone Numbering Plan that dictate that the price a telco charges for national calls and the price it charges for 03 national must be the same, unless an announcement is given.

Another valid point, Dave.  I'm afraid I'm not able to give much of an answer :( but other more experienced members may be better placed.  This wouldn't be an issue, however, if Ofcom agreed to finally do away with this local/national distinction as this is what seems to be happening in practice anyway.  And if it doesn't and the numbering plan doesn't clarify matters then confusion will reign as it does today  :'(

Dave wrote on May 21^st, 2006 at 7:33pm:

The proposals suggest that 0870, and in time, 0845, should be returned to geographical rates. This would leave them in the middle of the 08 range and identical, price wise, to the new 03 range. SPs would, thus, have little incentive to move to 03. They would be free to promote their services as costing ‘local rate’ or ‘national rate’, just like those prefixed 03. Freephone numbers aside, I believe that this will lead to confusion amongst consumers and businesses alike as to what it costs to call 08 numbers and what they are.

I agree this will be confusing.  So on the one hand Ofcom wants a numbering system that is easy to understand but on the other is not prepared to force any changes !  [smiley=huh.gif]

This, unfortunately, seems to be the price we have to pay for Ofcom been afraid of forcing companies to change telephone numbers!  Not that some of these companies aren't already voluntarily changing from 0870 to 0871 to avoid losing out when the cost of 0870 is reduced!

At this late stage it may be of some use to make a few comment about the consultation.  Ofcom evidently did not like the outcome of the previous NTS consultation and aims to bury its outcome with a further obfuscating consultation.  The consultation questions are often loaded and seek to guide you down avenues which I suspect most reader do not wish to travel.  Keep focussed and don’t be sidetracked by some of the questions.  If you don’t like a question, ignore it, or repeat your position on the 084x and 087x travesty.  You may wish to ignore the questions entirely or prefix them with some general comments.  

For what its worth, I have reproduced the first part of my response.

Comments About the Consultation.

This is yet another consultation relating to telephone numbering and although wider in scope than previous consultations, it again covers much the same ground. The previous consultation on NTL numbering had an unprecedented response (well over 1000), but as that consultation produced the “wrong conclusions”, in being critical of Ofcoms failure to properly regulate revenue sharing in the “08" range (084x and 087x). Ofcom have resorted to the device of producing an over complex consultation document, which will deter most from responding. Ofcom generally ignore consultation responses.

The primary aim of a number plan should be to produce telephone number ranges that are readily recognised both in function and cost by the vast majority of callers. The proposals outlined by Ofcom fail in that aim. The function of “01”, “02” and the proposed “03”, appear clear, but time will tell. If  “03” emerges as described (treated in all respects like the current 01/02 numbers and revenue sharing prohibited), that range should not present any problem to consumers. Removing “070” (so called personal numbers) from the rest of the mobile numbers is also to be welcomed.

The remainder of the proposals keep and perpetuate the current problems and make matters worse. The proposals keep the mix of revenue sharing numbers (087x and 084x) together with free-phone numbers. The current “08” range is a fertile ground for scams, deceits and half truths, practiced by telecom companies and organisations.

The only honest and transparent reform is to confine all revenue sharing and “above normal” tariff numbers to one single designated range. That range is the “09” range which can accommodate 1,000,000,000 number combinations. Prices in a reorganised and reformed “09” range could run from 1p to 150p/minute, so “low cost” revenue sharing numbers can be accommodated as well as more expensive numbers.

We should have a simple and transparent rule: If the number to be dialled (apart from mobiles) is revenue sharing and/or not included in the normal schemes and tariffs then it must be places in an appropriate sub range of “09”. The only reason for not adopting that simple coherent solution is to aid organisations and telecom providers that wish to make hidden charges to consumers.


My Response in a Nut Shell.

“01 & 02"   This range should be left as it is.
“03"           It is proposed that this range should be non-geographic and non revenue sharing. This is fine provided 03 is treated in the same was as 01/02 as regards inclusion in various call schemes.  This range should only have one set of tariffs, the idea that “03" could be split into “national” and “local call” rate is nonsense and flies in the face of the reality of call costing in the 01/02 range, which to all intents and purposes has one universal rate.
“04"          Reserved
“05"          No change
“06"         This range should be reserved.  All revenue sharing should be confined to a suitable sub-range of “09".  The proposal to remove the 070 (personal numbers) range is fine, but it should not be moved to the “06" range.  This will provide another fertile ground for various scams. “070" should be moved to an appropriate sub-range in “09".  For example, “097" can hold over 99 million numbers.
“07"        The proposal to confine this range to mobile telephones only, is to be welcomed.

“08"        Should be free-phone only.
084x and 087x should migrate to "09" or "03", depending on price structure required.  Keeping parts of the 08 range for revenue sharing would be to continue and make worse the scope for scams and deceitful practices.  I can not see any logical objection to the number plan being transparent - all land line numbers that cost more than normal or are excluded from the various call packages should be places in an appropriate sub-class of “09" .

“09"      Any land-line number which cost more than the normal rate and/or is excluded from a consumers call options at 0p/min, should be placed into this range. With charges ranging from 1p/min to 150p/min. So that so called “low cost” revenue sharing numbers can be accommodated into the “09" range. A three second, pre announcement as to cost, should be made.

The 11 digit “09" class can be split into 090, 091, 092, 093, 094, 095, 096, 097, 098 and 099 sub-classes, each sub-class having 99,999,900 different numbers (allowing for, say, 100 unusable combinations). The total capacity of the full “09" range would be up to 1,000,000,000. number combinations.

For example:

continued  .........

.......... continued

For example:
090 all calls less than the normal rate, but not included in “free” call packages - internet  dialup and “low cost”  revenue sharing. (say from 1p to 2p/min)
091 charges above the normal call rate (say from 3p to 10p/min)
092 charges above the normal call rate (say 20p/min)
093 charges above the normal call rate (say 30p/min)
094 charges above the normal call rate (say 40p/min)
095 charges above the normal call rate (say 50p/min to 150p/min)
096 charges above the normal call rate (reserved)
097 for so called “personal numbers” (now on 070). (with price cap of 10p/min)
098 fixed charge per call.
099 for adult lines  (with a 150p/min price cap)

Thanks KK.  I'm still working on my submission but it will have much in common with yours  ;).   Personally I find it very helpful when other forum members share their responses like this - cheers  [smiley=thumbsup.gif]

Thanks for posting your response, kk.

An important point that I think needs making (yet again) is that these prices should be all from providers, or at least land line ones. If we were to go to the effort of rearranging all 09 numbers, what would be the point when it only applies to calls from BT lines?

Expect yet another consultation reviewing the 'service definitions' used within the numbering plan.  ::)

Quote:

Improved consumer information 5.86 Prevention of consumer harm is partly to do with equipping consumers to make informed decisions. Ofcom’s plans to do this are covered partly by through the restructuring of the Numbering Plan which is set out at paragraphs 5.4 to 5.76 above. These proposals would, if implemented, make it easier for consumers to understand what services are provided on what numbers, and at what price. 5.87 However, this simpler structure will only deliver real benefits to consumers if the service definitions which apply to each service are precise and well understood. If this is not the case, there will be potential for scams based on consumer misunderstanding of the services provided. Ofcom therefore proposes to review all service definitions which are in use across the Numbering Plan in order to ensure that they adequately protect and inform consumers. For this to be the case service definitions must: • accurately and precisely describe the service being offered; • exclude those services which are not to be offered; and • do so in language which is comprehensible to consumers. 5.88 This review will also ensure that numbering policy encourages competition, by ensuring that service definitions do not inappropriately favour particular types of communications provider, or particular networks and technologies. The review is expected to be carried out during summer 2006. Tight service definitions will make it easier to take enforcement action against communications service providers who allow their number allocations to be used in ways that do not comply with the Numbering Plan.

Might I suggest that any Company employing an 087x number, or similar, be compelled to list their geographic number also. This means that people who have calling plans, like Talktalk, or are mobile phone users can access those Companies at a known cost.

The suggestion of charging for numbers is mentioned, and different methods are put forward for deliberation. Such examples include charging for numbers on allocation and annually. It also suggests that the cost could be varied depending on the service type (i.e. number prefix) or when numbers are more scarce.

As a consumer, I have no idea how this would actually effect the industry. So will it mean higher telephone bills for us?

And by charging more for areas/prefixes with fewer free blocks, I think it will actually serve to drive out competition [does it really exist anyway? ::)] in those areas. Ofcom's first priority should be to make sure that there's a plentiful supply and that they're not wasted.

Sorry to detract from the above but not only are the number of responses to this consultation low, they seem surprisingly static ?  So I thought I'd email Ofcom's Nic Green who is managing this consultation and it seems there's at least another 70 responses in the pipeline:


Quote:

>From: "Nic Green" <Nicholas.Green@ofcom.org.uk> >Subject: RE: RE: lack of published responses to the numbering review consultation? >Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 09:42:17 +0100 > >Mr > >There are about another 50 fully ready from my perspective and I'm told >that these can be worked on today by our Communications team for posting >on the website. I will be prioritising anything I can do to make that >happen. About 20 or so others will also be prepared today to be sent to >them. > >Together, these two sets will have caught up with where we should be at >this stage. Then we should be able to beat our internal processing >target. > >Regards >Nic

Dave wrote on May 23^rd, 2006 at 9:17pm:

The suggestion of charging for numbers is mentioned, and different methods are put forward for deliberation. Such examples include charging for numbers on allocation and annually. It also suggests that the cost could be varied depending on the service type (i.e. number prefix) or when numbers are more scarce. As a consumer, I have no idea how this would actually effect the industry. So will it mean higher telephone bills for us? And by charging more for areas/prefixes with fewer free blocks, I think it will actually serve to drive out competition [does it really exist anyway? ::)] in those areas. Ofcom's first priority should be to make sure that there's a plentiful supply and that they're not wasted.

I believe it will mean higher costs in some areas for landline owners.  It will also impact businesses/gov depts/organisations, etc because chances are their underlying teleco will pass the cost on to the business/gov dept/organisation which will then pass it on to us by higher costs in products, etc.

Ultimately, I believe it will be passed on to us end users/consumers in some way or another.

As for competition? - I also can't see there being any except for businesses that may fight over "gold" type numbers but then they end up using NGN's anyhow!

bbb_uk wrote on May 24^th, 2006 at 1:53pm:

Ultimately, I believe it will be passed on to us end users/consumers in some way or another.

Another stealth tax and another small increase in line rental.  :'(


Quote:

As for competition? - I also can't see there being any except for businesses that may fight over "gold" type numbers but then they end up using NGN's anyhow!

Ofcom seems to live in a cloud cuckoo land where more providers applying for numbers means more competition for the citizen-consumer. With NTL and Telewest becoming one, I think we are at the stage of competition being extinct within cable providers. All the local cable companies like Yorkshire Cable have now been swallowed up and they have become one.  :'(

The only other choice I can see for the general consumer after BT and cable (for those who live in cabled streets) is VoIP.

Just received another of Ofcom's emails about another consultation on the conservation of geographical numbers. It's funny cause this Numbering Review covers that subject. So why not wait for one to end and read the responses first?  ::)

Just filling in my response, and still unsure as to what to put. It's a basic fundamental issue:

Assuming that 03 is brought in and is charged at geographical rates, should 0845/0870 be returned to geographical rates also?

It seems to be a catch 22 situation:

• Yes, 0845/0870 should be charged at geographical rates; in which case, there won't be much incentive to migrate to 03, unless businesses see that consumers see the 08 numbers as bad, even though they are charged the same as 03.
  
• No, 0845/0870 should be left as is; in which case if businesses want to charge no more than a geographical number, they must migrate. If many don't move or adopt the new 03 numbers, then consumer recognition of 03 will be slim.

The other option is that 0845/0870 providers are told that they must migrate to either another 08 number (to continue revenue sharing) or 03 (to charge the same rate as geographical).

This seems to be the crooks of the matter.

I've put that if 0845/0870 do lose their revenue sharing and are consequently charged at geogrpahical rates then there is no need to have an 03x range.  If this may not happen then 03x is a good idea so long as it is charged at geographical rates & included in any inclusive tariffs.

These numbers shouldn't be charged for as proposed by ofcom as then ultimately it will be passed on to us end users/consumers.

As for reasons to migrate to 03x then this is hard simply because it will cost gov dept/companies to have an 03x number whereas it is probably free for them to have an 0845 number.

I've said that it should be well published to companies/gov dept/teleco's, etc that these numbers are not local/national rate and generally cost more and in some cases upto 40p/min and are not included in any inclusive minutes/tariffs we may have.

I have put the same thing as you bbb_uk, although I didn't answer the question of how to encourage SPs to move over to 03 numbers.

Dave wrote on May 25^th, 2006 at 2:16pm:

It's a basic fundamental issue: Assuming that 03 is brought in and is charged at geographical rates, should 0845/0870 be returned to geographical rates also? The other option is that 0845/0870 providers are told that they must migrate to either another 08 number (to continue revenue sharing) or 03 (to charge the same rate as geographical).

I realise this is all a bit idealistic but I've responded to these points like this: the re-structured '08' must be tightened up collectively (as opposed to just cutting the cost of 0870).  This would mean the '08' range  being re-classified as (lower cost) premium rate like its neighbouring '09' range, with the relevant safeguards/protection and include call cost announcements.  This is only way of making it transparent and would make everyone aware of their true costs.  0870/0845 should be forced to migrate because it would confuse the new two digit banding structure and it might also help kick-start migration to '03'.  To further help migration I've suggested that an '03' number should cost no more (to organisations) than an 0845 or equivalent number and have equivalent features otherwise there's a disincentive to migrate?  I can dream, can't I  ;)

Just to add that more responses have been posted by Ofcom (approx 40):
http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/numberingreview/responses/

I expect there's more to come because mine isn't there!  ::)

I agree that we must have more to come, as my consultation response is not yet posted by Ofcom.  

Of the smattering of responses I have looked at,  the one below is direct and to the point. The same answer is given to all the questions.

“Response From Dr R.D Feltham

Question 1:What are your views on the strategic principles that Ofcom proposes
to apply to its numbering policy decisions? :

There is no point whatever in any Citizen Consumer sending you a response to this question, nor to any other concerning your continued condoning and assistance of the escalation of abuses to and within the original UK telephone numbering system, since you have demonstrated continuously that you pay no credence whatsoever to the opinion of Citizen Consumers; this is despite the fact that it is your duty under your remit to place the interest of citizen consumers first. That means FIRST which is not second or third or fourth!

Your principal means of parrying the opinion of Citizen Consumers is to procrastinate and have endless successive consultations all in reality about the same issues, but called by a different newly invented name, to avoid facing up to your responsibilties and primary purpose under the Act, so that instead you can foster and assist the commercial interests of telcos instead.  In reality you already know the opinion of Citizen Consumers on this issue. They have already expressed it in your previous consulations.”

The above is repeated for all 62 questions.

One wonders how many more such publicly available heavily critical responses to its consultations from credible people Ofcom can afford to have published on its website.

In view of the rather forthright comments of Hazel Blears in her own response on the failure of Ofcom to ensure free 101/999 access on Voip one wonders if there is in fact more to the recently announced impending departure of Stephen Carter than first meets the eye.  Has he perhaps been repeatedly asked by the government to mend his ways in always putting the interests of telcos first ahead of citizen consumers and having failed to mend his ways in any form has now been asked to go before he is pushed? ;)

It will be interesting to see who the government agrees to allow Ofcom to appoint as Mr Carter's successor.

I have to admit that, until I read Dr. Feltham's response (thank you kk), I had not bothered with this consultation (probably Ofcom's intention) because of its ridiculous length and convolution.  His 'solution' prompted me to follow suit.

Matt Peacock has now received (and acknowledged receipt of):


Quote:

Ofcom review of UK Telephone Numbering Plan - consultation response Questions 1 to 61 inclusive. I take it from the fact that this ‘consultation’ extends to 61 mainly pointless and convoluted questions – many of which repeat themselves or questions asked in previous ‘consultations’ – that you intend to continue ‘consulting’ until either nobody bothers replying or your planted responses outnumber the others so that you can justify introducing the changes you have clearly already decided upon. I have clearly misunderstand your raison d'etre.  I thought it was to be a champion of the public (whom you are supposed to serve) in the telecommunications field (I believe the term ‘consumer citizen’ is used) but it is abundantly obvious from the manner in which you have ignored responses to previous similar consultations that your sole intention is to champion your own positions as unaccountable regulators and to totally ignore your designated remit. You have not even yet understood the definition of the phrase ‘premium rate’ (it simply means a rate higher than the normal rate charged) and continue to allow the use of premium rate charging in the 084 and 087 range of numbers.  In fact, you even intend to perpetuate this anomaly and to continue to allow the deliberate confusion of the public. I note that your CEO has recently indicated his intention to leave.  I take it he has found another highly rewarded position within the UK telecommunications industry as a consequence of having looked after their interests - and not those of the public - during his period at the trough. Let me be clear.  The continued inclusion of chargeable numbers within the 08 range is an anomaly which needs to be rectified, not proliferated.  Hence, the below should be the revised numbering plan: 01 and 02 - Geographical numbers 03 – Countrywide numbers charged at Geographical rates and included in call plans 04 and 05 – For future use 06 – Personal numbers 07 – Mobile numbers 08 – Freephone numbers 09 – Premium Rate numbers of all sorts (099 reserved for ‘adult lines’) Regards. Member of the general public

Later, I thought that, perhaps, I should have inserted that response in each of the 61 spaces on the response document instead.  So I did!

And copy it to my MP.  So I did.

Congratulations on an excellent response, Heinz; this is much more to the point than “playing the Ofcom game”.

Even more posts now - I've just totted up 148... http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/numberingreview/responses/

gdh82 wrote on Jun 16^th, 2006 at 9:29pm:

Even more posts now - I've just totted up 148... http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/numberingreview/responses/

And mine's still not there even though its receipt was acknowledged over a week ago.

Heinz wrote on Jun 17^th, 2006 at 7:31pm:

And mine's still not there even though its receipt was acknowledged over a week ago.

Same here, although I didn't receive an acknowledgement and sent it in a few hours after the 'deadline', but that hasn't stopped Ofcom publishing others sent in 'late'.

Still, it's good to so many responses, and to hear that there are more to come.  :)

There are alot of responses from individuals. BT's and other big telcos have yet to be posted there. I also notice that throughout these consultations, service providers such as insurance companies and banks that operate large call centres have kept silent. As far as I am concerned, this is much like not voting and then having cause to complain about the way public services are operated.

The Telephone Helplines Association (THA) has responded to these consultations. In its response to this consultation (here) it says:

Quote:

Question 8: Do you agree with Ofcom?s proposal to open a new ?03? number range for non-geographic, non-revenue sharing services? : THA supports the introduction of a new 03- range where revenue share is not permitted and call costs are linked to that of the geographic 01- and 02- numbers. However, confusion may arise during any transition period between one system and another, so it may be useful to consider systems that minimise disruption, such as in Option 3a (e.g. converting existing 0845 numbers to 0345 numbers for services that wish to migrate). Question 9:How should the ?03? range be structured, in terms of tariffs and services ?: Much of the current confusion about 084- and 087- numbers arises because the local and national cost distinctions do not apply to mobile networks and have almost disappeared for the majority of landline users whilst the associated terminology carried on in relation to non-geographic numbers. In the longer term, it would seem sensible to abolish any distinctions between 'local' and 'national' call rates and to encourage providers to set their own standard rate for all numbers in the 01, 02 and 03 ranges. Whilst the 03 range may accommodate both 034- and 037- services migrated from their existing 084- or 087- numbers (Option 3a), these need not be charged differently (Option 3b).

It will be interesting to see what Telewest says. Remember that it has already started advising businesses that they might want to reconsider moving from 0870 to 0844 or 0871 here. The thread discussing this can be found here. This is despite Ofcom saying that they are purely proposals. So Telewest has an ulterior motive as it has already advised its customers on the best cause of action.

Dave wrote on Jun 18^th, 2006 at 5:29pm:

I also notice that throughout these consultations, service providers such as insurance companies and banks that operate large call centres have kept silent.

This could be down to them not being aware of Ofcom's (many) consultations on this.  The only people that most likely know about the (many) consultations are the actual teleco's themselves, forum members of this site and MSE forum members.  As we know, Ofcom don't advise anyone (except maybe their telco chums) of their consultations except for those that subscribe to their consultation announcement emails.

I agree that some service providers such as insurance companies, banks, Sky, etc may be aware of the consultations but have chosen not to respond in which case, as you rightly say, this is basically their own fault.

I wouldn't be surprised if some teleco's don't bother informing their customers in case it results in loss of custom and more importingly revenue the teleco's receive.  This could well be true in the case of 0870 users if they migrate to a 0844 which results in reduction in revenue to both the teleco and their customers.  I also assume that some teleco's only inform their customers of ofcom's intentions as and only when necessary and will of course, like ntl:Telewest, recommend migrating to 0844 or 0871 numbers.

bbb_uk wrote on Jun 18^th, 2006 at 6:33pm:

I wouldn't be surprised if some teleco's don't bother informing their customers in case it results in loss of custom and more importingly revenue the teleco's receive.  This could well be true in the case of 0870 users if they migrate to a 0844 which results in reduction in revenue to both the teleco and their customers.  I also assume that some teleco's only inform their customers of ofcom's intentions as and only when necessary and will of course, like ntl:Telewest, recommend migrating to 0844 or 0871 numbers.

And this is where the citizen-consumer should be put first!

Different parties (members of Ofcom included) appear to and do in fact have their fingers in the pies they are baking. Is that a proper saying or have I just made that up?

Anyway, how can Ofcom possibly ask the telcos what they think is the best way to structure numbers and expect an answer that isn't based around them maximising their profits?

The reality is that convincing the regulator to do A B and C because it "furthers your existance" is just another part of operating a telecommunications company. All that is happening is Ofcom is there to justify its own existance and the telecoms companies do what they please.

The farce with Patientline (discussed here) not complying with 'deadlines' and then being let off only serves to emphasise the fact that Ofcom is as much use as a chocolate fireguard. It may help signal to others who want to make a quick buck that they should enter the telecommunications market because they don't need to know anything about telecoms; just know about spin and telling your customers only what they need to know, i.e. what you want them to know. If you fail, well you won't fail because the 'regulator' won't let you fail...

I took up with my local MP the question of 0870 scams and the Ofcom questionnaire putting people off replying.  She looked into it and sent back a very good reply, and perhaps we should all try this, despite the reservations some may have about our traditional democratic process.  After all, Parliament is where the power to do something about it resides.

Needless to say, she is not one of Conman Blair's placemen/women!

John

It is five weeks since this consultation closed and all responses have yet to be published on the Ofcom website here. To date, the total stands at 168.

I have received an e-mail stating that Ofcom has received a "large volume" of responses to this consultation. Whilst I can understand that responses cannot be published on the website before they have been checked that they don't contain profanaties or libelous statements (at least I assume this), is anything been done with them in the meantime as far as Ofcom coming to a conclusion? Or does this wait until responses have been 'processed' and published online?

It's now six weeks and all responses are still not there. Mine isn't and BT's isn't. I have had confirmation from Andy Montaser that mine is waiting to be processed. Is Ofcom just not cut out to handle large numbers of responses?

Just read Job Centre Plus' response to this consultation.

In particular I liked this:-


Quote:

Although not addressed directly within this consultation, generally customers originating calls via mobile networks who are seeking services offered by Jobcentre Plus are discriminated against due to the mobile tariff transparency and the proportion of calls inflated, on what is intended as a low cost call. A significant proportion of citizens contacting Jobcentre Plus are some of the most vulnerable in our society, who are either in receipt of state benefits or applying for benefits, which makes them some of the least able to pay for inflated call tariffs in order to access basic Government services.

I believe this is only because my FOI to them highlighted this and did therefore discriminate against those that are unemployed and can not afford to have a landline.

Although not their (JobCentre Plus) fault, I also mentioned that mobile networks do not actively inform their customers or in most cases even display on their website that calls to these numbers are not "local" rate, or even charged anywhere near local rate, but are in fact charged upto around 35p/min.

Ofcom have obviously no interest in making the networks that want to charge 35p/min for these numbers inform their customers beforehand.  Instead Ofcom stated it would cost too much for the networks to implement.  So as is the case with Ofcom, the Teleco's come first and somewhere near the bottom of their priorities is us end consumers.

I personally can't see why calls to NGNs can't be priced at upto 15p/min to these numbers (obviously the maximum 15p/min is for when calling 0871 numbers).

Failing that, a call announcement could be implemented as it would/could be paid for by the profit they make from calls to 084/087x NGNs.

Dave wrote on Jul 9^th, 2006 at 8:56pm:

It's now six weeks and all responses are still not there. Mine isn't and BT's isn't. I have had confirmation from Andy Montaser that mine is waiting to be processed. Is Ofcom just not cut out to handle large numbers of responses?

BT's response is now available at

http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/numberingreview/responses/BT.pdf

Others of note are:

COI http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/numberingreview/responses/coi.pdf
CMA http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/numberingreview/responses/cma.pdf
FCS http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/numberingreview/responses/FCS.pdf
Flextel http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/numberingreview/responses/FlextelLimited.pdf
3 http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/numberingreview/responses/H3G.pdf
Job Centre http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/numberingreview/responses/JobCentrePlus.pdf
Magrathea http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/numberingreview/responses/MagratheaTelecom.pdf
MBG http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/numberingreview/responses/mbg.pdf
OCP http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/numberingreview/responses/ocp.pdf
 (why do they bother?)
Orange http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/numberingreview/responses/OrangeWanadoo.pdf
PRA http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/numberingreview/responses/PremiumRateAssociation.pdf
Scottish Exec http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/numberingreview/responses/ScottishExecutive.PDF
Sheffield CC http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/numberingreview/responses/SheffieldCityCouncil.pdf
South Lanarkshire Council
http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/numberingreview/responses/SouthLanarkshireCouncil.pdf
THA http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/numberingreview/responses/THA.pdf
Thus http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/numberingreview/responses/Thus.pdf
Trading Std http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/numberingreview/responses/TradingStandardsInstitue.pdf
UKCTA http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/numberingreview/responses/UKCTA.pdf
Voda$$$phone http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/numberingreview/responses/Vodafone.pdf
Welsh Assy http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/numberingreview/responses/WelshAssemblyGovernment.pdf
RD Feltham http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/numberingreview/responses/FelthamRDDr.pdf

Ofcom's statement has now been published:

http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/numberingreview/statement/statement.pdf

Associated press release:

http://www.ofcom.org.uk/media/news/2006/07/nr_20060727

A very brief mention of 03 numbers made it onto the Radio 4 One O Clock news today.

They didn't have time to cover the other parts though.

Thanks for spotting that idb.

The summary is available here and although I haven't read the whole document (link provided by idb) here is a brief outline of what I read from the summary:-

• 03 - This range will be created and revenue sharing will be forbidden and also Ofcom mentions that that teleco's will be required to include them in any discounts/tariffs, etc they do.  Also; 0300 memorable numbers will be reserved for government departments and not-for-profit organisations.
  
  
• 06 - Personal numbers - migrated from 070 - see below
  
  
• 06 - Individual numbers - these will be allocated directly to end users and not to teleco's as personal numbers are.  Ofcom have admitted this raises issues which will be looked into further.
  
  
• 070 - These personal numbers, or stealth premium rate as they are used by some scammers, will be capped (no firm commitment given on what the price cap will be) and eventually, in upto 3 years, moved to 06x range.  Any teleco charging more than this cap will have to issue free call announcements.
  
  
• 080 - will remain as freephone numbers (well from landlines anyhow)
  
  
• 084/087 - Ofcom plans on introducing greater call transparency on these ranges where many businesses still refer to these ranges as local/national rate.  New number allocations will be become clearer on the call charges as they will follow a pattern (ie the higher the digit after the the '4', the higher the cost of the call - still upto 5p/min for numbers beginning 084x).  Existing numbers in this range appear to be staying the same as they are so we are still none the wiser as to the cost of these calls.
  
  
• Ofcom hopes(!) to raise consumer transparency by developing tariff descriptions that give information on call costs regardless of the type of line a call is made from.  This will likely involve another consultation because costs from mobiles to NGN's currently cost upto 40p/min instead of upto 10p/min from a BT landline.

This is only a brief outline of what Ofcom intends.

In other words these are more or less precisely the proposals Ofcom announced in their consultation document three months ago totally unmodified in the light of any comments received with the possible exception that there is now a firmer commitment to ensure that 03 are numbers priced at the same tariff as 01/02 calls by any telecoms provider and not just that they can be at the same price as geographic calls

But the basic problem is not overcome that those who were scammed into getting 0845s must get a new 03 number to do the right thing while the business of the telco number salesmen scammers will carry on largely untrammeled.  Also due to the widespread forces of inertia, ignorance and deceit associated with the whole NTS industry clearly people like the Inland Revenue will take forever to change from their current 0845s.  Had 0845 numbers been priced at geographic rates imminently there would have been at least some near term solution.

It is an utter disgrace that the totally incompetent overpaid Stephen Carter stays clear of one of Ofcom's most important issues and allows 0845 which were supposed to be Lo-Call for public services to remain premium rate revenue sharing numbers charged at up to 35p per minute or £21 per hour from mobiles.  This is on the excuse that 0845 dial up calls are still very important when over 8 million uk phone lines now have broadband. ::)

The whole of this consultation's outcome was in any case completely prejudged by the fact that Ofcom put out its statement on 084 and 087 numbers before responses on this consultation even closed.  As a result we all knew that Ofcom had already made up its mind to maintain the nonsense of the 08 prefix code containing Freephone numbers, lower cost premium rate revenue sharing numbers including 087 controlled by ICSTIS and and 0870 moving to geographic national rate.  A scheme quite deliberately designed to leave most of the business of the scammers undisturbed while forcing anyone decent to get a new 03 number.

I have also become convinced that the whole deal with making 0870 into national rate on 31st Jan 2008 is in fact a covert way to help the scammers by rendering most of the information in our own database worthless at the start of 2008 and us then having to find out a whole lot of new 0871 numbers that most of the 0870s will migrate over to.

I note how most people have not had the heart to even say anything about this statement by Ofcom because most of us feel so outraged that the regulator can behave this cynically, incompetently and corruptly that it leaves us speechless with indignation and fury.  Also note the 27th July release of this very controversial statement which is clearly designed to ensure that it will get lost in the summer holiday period when most people are busy with other things. ;)

The disgraceful super careerist and quite unprincipled Stephen Carter is paid over £400,000 a year for allowing he and his other overpaid henchmen to kick the public in teeth and to feather bed the interest of Sky, BBC, Capita et al where he no doubt now hopes to get his next million pound job having learned precisely nothing at all about the proper duties of a public sector organisation during his three or so grotesquely overpaid years at Ofcom.

Sorry but this whole thing just leaves me quite speechless with rage.  We ought to do a press  release to express our indignation but most of the press seem to have been got at not to cover this story in any detail and/or Ofcom has left it deliberately impossible for the to understand what is going on by the absurd and illogical complexity of their proposed solution. ;) ::) >:( >:(

Lastly with BT apparently cutting over uk phone exchanges to its 21st Century Network and Voip only traffic from the start of 2008 onwards are we therefore to assume that most phone calls will still be made using telephone numbers rather than the voip equivalent of email addresses?  If so it seems the business of NGN calls will continue unhindered.

I agree NGM.  For your added amusement, Ofcom have incorporated, at page 171, a further consultation!.

Just thought I would add the following from BBC1 Ceefax page 122 which I read this morning (omitted 1st para as only introduction:

"New 03 prefix for phone numbers

The numbers starting with the prefix 03 will be charged at local rate.

Calls will cost the same as a landline with an 01 or 02 code but will not be linked to specific geographic areas.

Regulator Ofcom hopes organisations now using 0870 or 0845 numbers will view the 03 prerfix as a more "appropriate" national point of contact."

Maybe I'm dim but I'm now even more confused as I thought the term "local rate" was no longer acceptable as there is no longer any such tariff other than for a small number of BT customers.  Secondly, how will this affect inclusive packages?   I know there is something about telecos having to include calls to 03 nos but how will this work?   What will happen to the term NGN as it will no longer apply only to chargeable numbers?    This whole muddle will allow unscrupulous users (this covers the vast majority of those using 084x/087x numbers) to tie their customers further in knots!   Lastly, what is the value of Ofcom hopes (please don't explode NGM, I'm being sarcastic!)?  And why did the BBC (or do I mean their masters Capita) decide to put the word appropriate in inverted commas - they don't seem necessary to me.

Can anyone explain what this will really mean for the average customer who may need to make a call, particularly to a public organisation (& I include transport etc) in a hurry and just hasn't got time to research volumes of Ofcom pronouncements first?

The Ofcom Press Release says:

Quote ......

2. New UK-wide 03 number range

Ofcom will introduce new UK-wide 03 numbers from early next year. Calls to 03 numbers will cost the same as calls to geographic numbers, and be included as part of any inclusive call minutes or discount schemes for geographic calls. This will apply to calls from any line. No revenue sharing will be permitted on calls to 03 numbers.
The introduction of 03 numbers will enable organisations to offer consumers a single national point of contact without making additional charges for the service. This should give consumers confidence about calling 03 and Ofcom expects public services and many others to view 03 numbers as more appropriate than chargeable 08 numbers.

End quote.

No mention of “local rate”, so the BBC must have invented the term “local rate”.

Better get ready to set up some more sites - saynoto0871 and saynoto0844. These organisations who are currently using 0870 and getting a revenue stream from this are not going to sit back and watch this dry up and hence they will migrate their traffic to 0844 (5ppm) or 0871 (10ppm). Thus the consumer will probably end up paying more.  :'(

BTW - if you cannot stop the google ads from appearing then surely it might be benefitial to just close down this site as its just another source of obtaining one of these Non-geographic numbers!!

Ohms wrote on Jul 28^th, 2006 at 12:13pm:

Better get ready to set up some more sites - saynoto0871 and saynoto0844. These organisations who are currently using 0870 and getting a revenue stream from this are not going to sit back and watch this dry up and hence they will migrate their traffic to 0844 (5ppm) or 0871 (10ppm). Thus the consumer will probably end up paying more.  :'( BTW - if you cannot stop the google ads from appearing then surely it might be benefitial to just close down this site as its just another source of obtaining one of these Non-geographic numbers!!

Suggest you read carefully the responses to your recent post in this thread.
http://www.saynoto0870.com/cgi-bin/forum/YaBB.cgi?num=1154076658/0#0

kk wrote on Jul 28^th, 2006 at 11:57am:

No mention of “local rate”, so the BBC must have invented the term “local rate”.

But Ofcom do use the terms "local rate" and "national rate" extensively in the full statement. As far as they are concerned, they still exist, although most operators currently charge the same for both types of call. For example, on page 66:


Quote:

Originating communications providers will be able to charge lower amounts for different 03 numbers – for example, some numbers may be considered more suitable to price closer to a ‘local’ rate – but all 03 numbers will have to be charged at no more than a UK national geographic call. Ofcom anticipates that a significant proportion of 03 numbers will be used for services on a national scale, so national geographic rates are a suitable benchmark. This approach sets a limit on 03 charges but is flexible enough to allow lower charges in response to market decisions, and avoids detailed tariff obligations in the 03 part of the Numbering Plan.

Although it mentions a few times that 03 calls will be included in inclusive minutes and discount package, there is no mention of this applying to 0870 numbers. All it says is that the "regulatory support for revenue sharing" willl be removed.

Thanks jrawle for the above (second) quote.

The quote just illustrates how ostrich like Ofcom’s behaviour is.  99.9% of all UK subscribers are on the unified, UK wide, (de facto)standard call rate.  At BT this is 3p/min during “business hours” most other telecom companies charge much less - some 0p/min.
[The cost of 084 being up to 5p/min and 087 up to 10p/min]

Perpetuating the term “local rate” and “national rate” only adds confusion to the tariff structure and assists organisations, when challenged, to make misleading statements.

wrote on Jul 27^th, 2006 at 9:37pm:

...due to the widespread forces of inertia, ignorance and deceit associated with the whole NTS industry clearly people like the Inland Revenue will take forever to change from their current 0845s...

I agree.  They, like most other government departments and companies, will be in no hurry to change as I can imagine it costing them more money to run an 03x than their 0845 numbers.  The exception may be JobCentre Plus/Direct, which according to their response, they will be willing to migrate to this new range as they are fully aware of the costs that this so-called 'local' rate number is from a mobile, etc.  JobCentre's response did seem to indicate that they were one of many that had been bought into 0845 is only lo-call/local rate scam and so expecting everyone who calls to only pay lo-call/local type rates.  Obviously, they are probably totally unaware that these numbers generate revenue for the teleco that owns the number (and sometimes the company/government dept that use this number) and due to this additional cost, including them in existing plans is highly unlikely due to the extra high cost of carrying these calls.


Quote:

Had 0845 numbers been priced at geographic rates imminently there would have been at least some near term solution.

Years ago wasn't this true?  Before the forced migration from Standard to Together 1 and before the inclusive tariffs that are offered now?  From what I'm aware BT were the first to offer inclusive tariffs


Quote:

I have also become convinced that the whole deal with making 0870 into national rate on 31st Jan 2008 is in fact a covert way to help the scammers by rendering most of the information in our own database worthless at the start of 2008 and us then having to find out a whole lot of new 0871 numbers that most of the 0870s will migrate over to.

I agree but expect a lot to move to 5ppm (again only from BT landline) 0844 numbers as the 0871 will be under ICSTIS remit by then.

I appologise in advance for reoppening a dorment issue, but i feel it is worth putting my two-peneth in.

I am rather perplexed by the hostility towards NGNs. Having been on all sides of the argument from consumer, to business, to operator, client and user. It seems that everyone wants to have their cake and eat it as with many issues in life. NGNs have as much validity as any other numbering system.

from a consumer point of view i can understand the arguments about knowing where a number 'originates' from a psudo-security point of view, i can also understand the arguments concerned with the issue of 'why am i being charged for calls that would otherwise be included [i.e. not free!] with my call plan'. these two issues are actuall nonsensical. for the most part in that your telecoms provider only includes calls that it feels it can recover the costs of provision for, hence why 0845/0870, etc are not included. also, the issue of security is poor, at best you have an idea where the line terminates, but it can be redirected anywhere either through the exchange, or by a third party.

from a business point of view NGNs provide an simple way to access local and regional markets without having to have a local presence. freephone services are not free at all, they are only free from the point of view of the customer. businesses spend lots of money aquiring a 'good' number and even more by using it, each call is charged by the telecoms operator at the similar rates to those that you pay on an out going line! local/national rate numbers are charged to the consumer at an equivelent 'standard' rate and are not billed to the business this is seen as a win-win option by the majority of users and operators. you simply cant just include them all in premimum rate services or in an inclusive call allowance without consequence. at best your rental charges will be hiked. at worse you will end up paying sigificantly more for such services. somebody has to pay for the services, your telecoms company will certainly recalculate what they can justify including (i.e. less inclusive calls or lowwer limits). business will not stand carrying the can and will move to low end premium rate services, potentially meaning you pay more (it certainly wont be less!)

from a telecoms operators point of view NGNs allow a good mix of services and prices in a clearly defined manor. business can either chose to take responsibility for all the costs involved (freephone), or choose to allow the telecoms operator to recover the costs from the user (local rate/national rate/premium rate) - in some cases revenue is shared with the company that licences the number from the telecoms operator, which is good for companies providing value-added services, charities, etc. as well as good for the telecoms operator - who always stands to make money out of such services, they are a business after all, they're not just doing this for your benefit!

the same argument will rage on even if ther is a move to 03 and 09 numbers, why? because the issue remains. if a new premium rate number system were introduced that had charge bands at the equivelent of the standard local and national rates (ie. significantly below the current premium rates) then there is no reason to suggest these are any better suited to purpose than the current 08 numbers. The telscoms operator will continue to take its cut, and business will more than likely be offered a cut of the revenue from those nubers charged at the higher rates. The consumer will still pay for the calls and will not have any greater certainty as to where the numbers terminate. business in located localy are the only likely adopters of an 03 number range, as it would allow them to retain their number even if they move within the area, which is not always possible for geographic numbers. the telecoms operators may absorbe some of the costs of such number ranges, but business are likely to have to pay some component, and consumers will still pay only now it will be part of thier rental charges not call charges! local rate/national rate 08/09 numbers will still prevail as it allows companies to quicky relocate without issue.

Now something really positive to say: Ofcom may chose to adopt a new numbering system, not to placate consumers, but to make the industry more effective, with clearer number schemes. I can really understand the Ofcom arguments that there should be clear seperation between the types of call that are being made. I enthusiastically embrace the 04-07 number reallocation, this is definitly a good way of improving the system (clarity if nothing else). however i am not convinced of the significance of the 03 proposals (i can see a lot of wasted capacity in these number ranges, with over crowding elsewhere). I can sort of unnderstand the 08 'freephone only' number range, freeing up greater capacity and making it totaly unambiguous. I also like the idea of banding the 09 number range, but i would like the numbers to more closely resemble the cost of the calls (i.e 09 010 - being charged at 10p per minute, 09 020 at 20ppm, etc) which would restore confidence in the premium rate number system, although it may mean even longer numbers due to over crowding. Such a reinterpretation of the premium rate number system would help all concerned with the transition from 0845 and 0870 numbers.

Hopefully i wont get flamed for a rather ballenced look at the NGN issues - i know this is a heart fealt issue for some.

with regards to the google ads:
it is possible to have the ads 'targeted' and include/exclude certain categories. so there should be no reason to close or suspend the site due to ones preference not to see (let alone follow) on of these ads... you dont have to follow the links they're not compulsory, and hence its its refered to as 'consumer choice'!

xyhfna wrote on Oct 7^th, 2006 at 3:41pm:

I appologise in advance for reoppening a dorment issue, but i feel it is worth putting my two-peneth in. I am rather perplexed by the hostility towards NGNs. Having been on all sides of the argument from consumer, to business, to operator, client and user. It seems that everyone wants to have their cake and eat it as with many issues in life. NGNs have as much validity as any other numbering system. from a consumer point of view i can understand the arguments about knowing where a number 'originates' from a psudo-security point of view, i can also understand the arguments concerned with the issue of 'why am i being charged for calls that would otherwise be included [i.e. not free!] with my call plan'. these two issues are actuall nonsensical. for the most part in that your telecoms provider only includes calls that it feels it can recover the costs of provision for, hence why 0845/0870, etc are not included. also, the issue of security is poor, at best you have an idea where the line terminates, but it can be redirected anywhere either through the exchange, or by a third party. [...]

You're really defending the indefensible! Here in the US, we have millions upon millions of non-geographic numbers - they are designated toll-free. The main differences between the NGN model here and in third-world Britain are:

1 - toll-free generally means toll-free, that is all providers will not charge for calls to such numbers, and this includes cellular (mobile) providers which, generally, treat the call for charging purposes as any other call to a toll number, so if you have 500 inclusive minutes, these can be used to call New York, Los Angeles, Miami or 800, 888, 877 or 866 numbers. Compare and contrast with how the UK mobile operators treat freephone and other NGNs;

2 - our toll-free NGNs can be called from outside the country at the standard rate prevailing for calling standard geographic calls, so a call from London to a 305 Miami number will be charged at exactly the same rate as calling a toll free 800/888/877/866 NGN. Try calling 0844 and 0871 NGNs from outside the UK and see what happens (usually nothing, but where possible, a massive charge);

3 - toll-free NGNs are so widely used that it would be inconceivable that any customer service line, sales, governent agency dealing with public matters and many more entities to use anything other than a toll-free NGN, a local toll rate number, or rarely, a standard long distance number charged at theh prevailing long-distance rate for incoming calls.

How can you justify the fact that, when calling Sky, EasyJet, the NatWest, your insurance company, your GP, the vehicle license agency, the Beeb and many more, often to sort out some mistake or problem, one is expected to queue on a 0871/0870/0844 number for fifty or so minutes at a cost of five quid?

The US has the most sophisticated sales and marketing techniques around. Companies manage to get by with toll-free and local numbering for public and business contact. Why can't that happen in the United Kingdom? Simple - you have a morally bankrupt and ineffective regulator that panders to the profit requirements of the large telecommunication companies.

You're really defending the indefensible! [etc]
Actually the US model suffers in several ways (network topography, and scalability). The US model doesnt scale down so well as it relies on multiple operators with differing reliabiliy factors (from an enginering point of view not a consumer point of view). It also relies heavily on operators having access to much larger numbers of potential customers. I recognise the toll-free status in the us, but was a hard fought issue for the telecoms operators and government/fcc. in the us the same issue applies as in britain/europe with regards who pays. you do not 'see' your charges, but they are still there, except that telecoms providers role it into your subscription and also charge business for their use. Ok, so there are more of them in the us, and so the markup that is charged is less to the individual, but it does still exist! u pay long-distance, we dont (in many cases)... so, the markets are different and they address those differences differently.

1 - toll-free generally means toll-free [yada yada yada]
toll-free (freephone) in the uk is toll-free on all standard landlines, non-incumbent operators such as hotels, mobile networks, etc. are free to charge what they like only because they are presicely that... non-incumbent operators (its entirely your choice and of your own making if you CHOOSE to use them) - this will only change through consumer pressure on THOSE operators. it has nothing to do with regulation and nothing to do with business operators. Most NGNs in the UK and the rest of the world are not toll-free and do not claim to be! There is a case for NGNs that can be uses within the inclusive calls, however as i stated previously 'free' calls means the cost is built in and distributed across ALL users through higher subscription charges - you might get a telecoms operator that is prepared to take a hit on its profits and absorb some of the costs as they do in the good ol' us of a. Telecoms operators in the US are some of the least profitable (per capita usage) telecoms operators in the world. the average us operator makes peanuts on each and every call, in the rest of the world those operators make much higher margins, in the UK those margins have started to come down (but not by much). Mobile operators are regulated very differently from landline operators, and it it the landline regulations are primarily at issue. However there is a case for the regulators to enforce the same regulations on mobile operators as on landline operators in respect of UK number charges (whatever type of number NGN or not), i have never suggested anything to the contrary.

2 - our toll-free NGNs can be called from outside the country ... from outside the UK and see what happens (usually nothing, but where possible, a massive charge);
actually some numbers can be called from outside the UK (it depends on the telecoms operator) some are charged at standard international rates... one my service providers uses an 0845 number which can be accessed outside the UK, but is charged at the international rates just as if i called them on their geographic number. for other NGNs it sometimes doesnt work, but thats because the telecoms operators simply dont want the complications that such calls impose - unlike the us where its par for the course. I can kind of understand it from the toll-free side where there is an international charge to the customer, and then a dilemma... what to charge the business using that number?! I do not defend the telecoms companies for their lack of enthusiasm in this matter, but it impacts little on the NGN issues raised in other parts of this debate.

3 - ... NGNs are so widely used that it would be inconceivable ... to use anything other than a toll-free NGN, a local toll rate number, or a standard long distance number...
this is EXACTLY the situation in the uk and other countries, and is not the issue here. the majority of 'service/enquiry/sales' calls are made on toll-free numbers, lots of companies still only use geographical and charged at the previling rate (local/national/international), the only others that are in common use are 0845/0870 which are local rate and national rate and are charged as such, and therefore do not attract the inclusiveness that sparked this debate.

As i said before there is possibly a case for a includable local rate/national rate (03) but it still wont be free, it will just seem so!
there is no reason to suggest there will ever be a change in the non us approch to toll-free NGN, regardless of their designation 08 or 09.

How can you justify the fact that, when calling [long list of companies] to sort out some mistake or problem, one is expected to queue on a 0871/0870/0844 number for fifty or so minutes at a cost of five quid?
actually no. but there is no good reason that a company is should not be allowed to choose such a number either! Faults are often toll-free, however diagnosis and help are often not, primarily analysis shows that many such 'problems' are infact user error not really faults!

The US has the most sophisticated sales and marketing techniques around...
a hem! most of which do not work outside the US

Why can't that happen in the United Kingdom?
Why should a company pay customers to call [in essence what tol-free, etc do].

ineffective regulator... er... no... actually an extremely even handed and liberal regulator.

xyhfna wrote on Oct 7^th, 2006 at 5:38pm:

ineffective regulator... er... no... actually

That is open to question!  The problem lies that Ofcom conflicts in their duties.  One states they should avoid using regulation if possible and the other states they have to protect us consumers.

Ofcom have made a lot of mistakes by not regulating things and instead leaving it on a voluntary nature.  The latest mistake of Ofcom's is the issue of MAC codes required to move from one ADSL broadband provider to another.  Without this, it would mean consumers would have to go without ADSL broadband for at least two weeks.

Ofcom thought that by using a voluntory code that ADSL broadband providers would stick to it.  This was a completely wrong thing that Ofcom have done as they admit they get nothing from complaints from consumers because ADSL broadband providers refusing to issue MAC codes some providers even tried bribing customers into moving to another provider they chose without having an interruption of broadband or face being without broadband for weeks.  Even when Ofcom asked them they still refused to budge simply because there was no regulation forcing them to do so and Ofcom admitted that they themselves could not do anything.


Quote:

Why can't that happen in the United Kingdom? Why should a company pay customers to call [in essence what tol-free, etc do]

I agree with that in principle as I don't expect companies to operate freephone numbers as here in the UK they're still expensive to have.

However, there is a difference between having a geographical number and having a non-geographical number.  The latter means that companies can earn revenue at the expense of consumers without their knowledge.

Ofcom have admitted in a consultation that NTS numbers are premium rate numbers and also that many consumers are confused over costs.

An NTS number does have advantages over geographicals and offers some cheaper methods for companies to take advantage of features associated with NTS numbers.

You say why should companies pay to receive calls?  Well did you know that they did pay to receive calls when 0845 was first out?  The only reason they don't pay for them now is because competition has brought down the price of geographicals but obviously because of all the extra teleco's involved in NTS numbers these haven't really been reduced.

NTS aren't subject to competiton to keep prices down simply because of how they work.  Basically, no one can beat BT when it comes to the prices of these numbers and if they do, then they probably do so at a slight loss which they off-set from the profit made on geographicals calls.

OCP's are using NTS numbers to earn revenue without consumer knowledge as many don't openly publish the rates to these numbers and if they do then they hide it away in hard-to-find places on their website.  Why?  Simply because they don't want consumers to know the actual costs of these numbers.  

If you read Ofcom's numbering review statement they said that any companies wanting to use features that NTS numbers bring then they should expect to pay for it and not get it for free.

I personally, for call centres, can understand why they use 0845 to take advantage of the features available at a greatly reduced cost compared to having expensive telephony equipment installed.  I avoid, where possible, ringing such numbers but I can understand the reason for them.  On the other hand, 087x numbers are used primary to get revenue from the call without the callers knowledge (ie a stealth premium rate number).

It is my believe that any consumer ringing any number that is a premium rate number (I'm not specifically talking about 09x numbers) should be made aware of the costs so when calling they are aware that they will have huge bills and so can make a full and informed decision on whether to ring the company/gov dept, etc.

I also realise that some companies and government departments were missold their NGNs by them being so-called 'local' and 'national' rate which of course they're not.

Basically, many companies are using these NTS numbers primary to earn revenue without consumer knowledge which is deceitful.

Any company that needs the revenue share for their 'value-added service' should use a number that was designed for that purpose ie an 09x number.

The only reason why they don't is because with 09x numbers consumers are aware they are premium rate numbers and consumers are protected against being charged for being in a queue for over 30mins in some cases.  Whereas, an NTS number has the same advantages as 09x numbers albeit smaller revenue share but many consumers aren't aware they're calling a premium rate number when calling an NTS number.


Continued.......

... continued

For example, say you have two companies in direct competition with each other and both offer same services at same prices, etc with the exception of the contact number.  One uses a 09x number costing 10p/min and the other using a 0871 also costing 10p/min.

Now despite both companies having a contact number costing 10p/min which one is likely to attract more business?  Simple, the company having the 0871 because many consumers aren't aware that they are ringing a premium rate number when they ring an NTS number.

I must say that i almost certainly agree with most of what has been said in the last two posts, with only a slight difference of opinion.
1) OfComs Role:
MAC ids (although this is probably something being disucssed elsewhere - its still a good example to illustrate OfComs dilemma)
I mostly agree this is a poorly though through issue. MAC ids should not be and should not ever have been mandatory (another unpopular opinion i would imagine), however OfCom should have mandated that it be made clear and highly visible whether a provider, product or service uses/supports MAC ids. It is grossly unfair to consider mandating the use of such things. It should be consumer demand not regulation that determins if companies adopt them, but at the same time consumers should be made plainly aware of their adoption or otherwise.

2) NGNs:
My main criteria for my assertions are that there needs to be much more flexibility in the 'premium' rate number ranges; ideally there would be a 'fixed rate' number scheme and a 'fixed charge' number scheme, both of which would refelct the actual charges incured... no guessing. I.E. 0845 xxx xxxx would represent a 4.5ppm charge, 0870 xxx xxxx would perhaps charge 7.0ppm, and 09070 xxx xxxx would represent a fixed charge of 70p (regardless of the length of the call) within such a scheme 0800 would retain its 'freephone' status. and confidence would be restored to the whole number range, of both 08 and 09 number schemes - with no complicated open publication of charges required, and probably more importantly no confusion.

I do agree that NGNs can be used (and doubtless are - i have used them myself for such purposes) to generate revenues - however i would say that this factor alone was mostly responsible for and certainly enabled the cost of internet acess to plumet (anyone remember the days of subscription, timelimits AND phone charges! i've been in this game a long time and remember them well.)
I also concur that these are in all real senses 'low-cost' premium rate services. I dislike the use of the term 'premium' rate as it has negative conetations, perhaps OfCom should rebrand them 'uniform' rate or some such desegnation, whilst at the same time opening up the system to much lower charging options.

NTS numbers are still charged for by some, others have simply become more competative resulting in much lower costs (even 'free'). but it is the user end call charge premiums that are the most contentious part of them and open to abuse (knowingly or unknowingly).
But the lack of transparency is not a matter over which OfCom should be allowed to abuse its powers. As a regulator it should only regulate what is necessary, without impinging on either consumer or business. It needs to enforce clarity, not restict charging or calling options. There is no doubt many who will disagree, however we ARE all in agreement that smething has to be done. I would urge caution and certainly a liberal approach to the matter.

The issue of local/national can for most intents an purposes be forgotten, and this is an issue over which OfCom could mandate and find little opposition. I do feel that the 03 number proposal is still an etremely wastefull scheme, and imagine it to be only moderatly successful, but certainly not a highly demanded number range (no matter how idealistic some people are in their beliefs).

If OfCom does decide to change the 08/09 number scheme, then it would have to mandate the change (a no doubt grossly unpopular desision in the telecoms industry from both business operators and telecoms providers) but such a mandate would be required to aleviate the problem that was illustrated in the last post.


There is a slight concern with any number scheme that keeps reoccuring who pays for queueing on the line? if a consumer is trying to resolve an issue with a faulty product/service then it would seem that in most cases it would be reasonable for the company at fault to shoulder the cost, however if a customer is waiting to say they have changed their mind (about an appointment, a product, a service, etc) or for a problem they have caused themselves, then surely they should shoulder the costs. Unfortunatly there is no system that would allow the responsibility to change throuought a call. As many 'faults' reported to help desks are actually user error then a company is likely to take the view that it is the consumer that should shoulder the cost, and hance the growing use of premium rate services for just that purpose (and i accept that this is not a popular move, the reasoning is sound and perfectly legitimate), i know that many companys use NGNs for another reason... deterant... if you (the consumer) are paying for something you usually make sure you have good reason to use it. in the case of help/complaint desks this is a real issue and it has been shown again and again that customers abuse there numbers they have access to, especially if they are 'free'. departments on 0800 numbers receive many multiple more calls than those on other number schemes, the higher the call costs the lower the number (to a point) of calls. It is also a common experience for advisors/operators/representatives (what whatever else they wish to be called) on lower cost numbers to receive abuse and harasment because customer wont pay any more for the calls to the correct department. Customers have to take some responsibility, its not all someone elses fault!

xyhfna wrote on Oct 7^th, 2006 at 8:22pm:

MAC ids should not be and should not ever have been mandatory (another unpopular opinion i would imagine), however OfCom should have mandated that it be made clear and highly visible whether a provider, product or service uses/supports MAC ids. It is grossly unfair to consider mandating the use of such things. It should be consumer demand not regulation that determins if companies adopt them, but at the same time consumers should be made plainly aware of their adoption or otherwise.

Why should broadband be any different to any other utility (I'm going to use that term as I already find it more important than a phoneline, although I'm not going to claim it's as vital as electricity, for example). It's possible to change electricity, gas or PSTN line rental provider with no interruption to service and no cost. However, changing ADSL supplier without a MAC means being without a connection for two weeks or more, and paying £50 or so for reconnection. That means providers can refuse to issue MACs to deter people from switching providers, even if the case of intermittent/slow connection and poor customer service. With the other utilities, there might be the equivalent of MACs or whatever, but it's all done behind the scenes so that the customer doesn't have to worry about it. If switching meant being without electricity for two weeks, no-one would switch supplier.


Quote:

I also concur that these are in all real senses 'low-cost' premium rate services. I dislike the use of the term 'premium' rate as it has negative conetations, perhaps OfCom should rebrand them 'uniform' rate or some such desegnation, whilst at the same time opening up the system to much lower charging options.

Calls to these numbers, including 084/087, cost more than calls to ordinary geographical numbers. Some of that difference goes to the company using the number. That extra cost is a "premium" in my book. Any revenue-generating numbers should be called "premium rate" and ultimately moved to the 09 range. I quite agree that the tariffs need to be far simper. If shouldn't be necessary to poke around for ages on the BT website then look up a number to the 8th digit to find the cost of an 0844 call.


Quote:

The issue of local/national can for most intents an purposes be forgotten, and this is an issue over which OfCom could mandate and find little opposition. I do feel that the 03 number proposal is still an etremely wastefull scheme, and imagine it to be only moderatly successful, but certainly not a highly demanded number range (no matter how idealistic some people are in their beliefs).

I agree. 03 is wasteful and introduces unnecessary complexity into the system, particularly if companies won't be forced to move from 0870. There are issues with numbers "running out" in some areas, though, and this is supposed to relieve pressure on geographical numbers, and remove the need for everyone to change their phone number again.


Quote:

There is a slight concern with any number scheme that keeps reoccuring who pays for queueing on the line? if a consumer is trying to resolve an issue with a faulty product/service then it would seem that in most cases it would be reasonable for the company at fault to shoulder the cost, however if a customer is waiting to say they have changed their mind (about an appointment, a product, a service, etc) or for a problem they have caused themselves, then surely they should shoulder the costs.

I currently have a dispute with a company as they sent me a duplicate order, and debited my account twice. It isn't that I clicked "buy" twice as I only received one confirmation, and their online account system only shows one order. I returned the goods, yet I haven't received the correct refund. This is entirely the company's fault not mine. Yet I had to call an 0870 number because the alternatives given here were simply incorrect. So a 10 minute call cost me 80p. I'm now on the second letter to the company, and I've asked them to refund the cost of the call plus the postage. But do you really expect that to happen? Anyway, this is a prime example of why I'm opposed to 0870 numbers.

However, I have to say that I agree with you in a way. Some people will just phone up without trying to find information for themselves first, or to ask the most trivial of questions. But for me, phoning a company is an absolute last resort. Maybe the answer is two numbers: customer services on freephone or geographical; and technical support on a premium rate number. This is how some ISPs already operate. Then if people have a genuine concern that is the fault of the company, they won't be wrongly penalised. And if someone phones the 0800 number to ask a silly question, they can be directed to the correct support line.

xyhfna wrote on Oct 7^th, 2006 at 8:22pm:

... MAC ids should not be and should not ever have been mandatory (another unpopular opinion i would imagine), however OfCom should have mandated that it be made clear and highly visible whether a provider, product or service uses/supports MAC ids. It is grossly unfair to consider mandating the use of such things. It should be consumer demand not regulation that determins if companies adopt them, but at the same time consumers should be made plainly aware of their adoption or otherwise.

I see where you're coming from, but information and openess isn't a forte that Ofcom and the telecommunications industry excels at.


Quote:

NTS numbers are still charged for by some, others have simply become more competative resulting in much lower costs (even 'free'). ...

I think 'free' is taking it too far. Just which provider allows you to call an NTS number for no additional cost? Also, as more and more people make their 0870 calls through 18185, do you think that the current rate will be maintained?


Quote:

... But the lack of transparency is not a matter over which OfCom should be allowed to abuse its powers. As a regulator it should only regulate what is necessary, without impinging on either consumer or business. ...

This is the sort of waffle statement that Ofcom itself would come out with.


Quote:

... It needs to enforce clarity, not restict charging or calling options. ...

Who said anything about restricting charging? The point having promoted 0845 and 0870 numbers as being local and national rate (terms which you seem to be clinging to), the industry can't come out and say that's not the case and everything will be made OK. Consumers have been mislead into thinking that these are just normal rate numbers. Only now geographical rates have fallen is it becoming clear for all to see that the framework that they work does indeed carry a premium.

So the use of these numbers is based on the consumer thinking that they are standard rate numbers. Increasing pricing information after lies have been spun is like trying to shut the stable door after the horse has bolted.


Quote:

... I would urge caution and certainly a liberal approach to the matter.

Well the time it is taking these poorly paid staff at Riverside Palace to do anything, I think that to say that they are exercising "caution" is quite an understatement!

They relaxed the retail price controls on BT within 6 months of publishing the consultation and BT has been quick to exercise it's new 'freedom' by making yet more changes that push up calls prices whilst portraying the changes as a breath of fresh air to consumers.


Quote:

... The issue of local/national can for most intents an purposes be forgotten, and this is an issue over which OfCom could mandate and find little opposition. ...

In business this sort of thing is known as branding. Companies change their names because names seem to be so important these days. But a company with a bad reputation for ripping off its customers is still the same company even with a different name.


Quote:

... I do feel that the 03 number proposal is still an etremely wastefull scheme, and imagine it to be only moderatly successful, but certainly not a highly demanded number range (no matter how idealistic some people are in their beliefs).

But it comes down to why consumers object to these numbers.

All UK landlines have a 01/02 geographical number, the price for which has fallen due to competition. Similarly, so to have international calls. So we pay different rates to different destinations, as set by market forces. Now, the destination of a typcial 0845/0870 number is a UK landline which has a 01/02 number. By forcing me to call it via an 0845/0870 number the telco and service provider forces me to pay, to all intents and purposes, what was BT's local/national rates before the market was opened up. Hence there is no real competition in the origination charges of these numbers. The only competition is in the services that the telcos provide to the terminating party. These services should be paid for by the receiver at rates set by market forces.

There is nothing wrong in the principal of 084 and 087 prefixes, apart from their misleading descriptions. By the dictionary definition, they are premium numbers.

Looking it algebraically:

x = c - g

where:

x is the amount above the geographical rate (the premium)
c is charge rate for a particular number
g is the geographical call rate

When x > 0, a premium is being charged.

I don't believe


Quote:

... If OfCom does decide to change the 08/09 number scheme, then it would have to mandate the change (a no doubt grossly unpopular desision in the telecoms industry from both business operators and telecoms providers) but such a mandate would be required to aleviate the problem that was illustrated in the last post.

But telecoms companies have had a blank chequebook for years. They have used an all manner of tactics to sell these numbers, usually by means of local and national rate rubbish. Why, because they make loads of money from the unsuspecting consumer who is unaware of x.

Continued...

...Continued


Quote:

There is a slight concern with any number scheme that keeps reoccuring who pays for queueing on the line? if a consumer is trying to resolve an issue with a faulty product/service then it would seem that in most cases it would be reasonable for the company at fault to shoulder the cost, however if a customer is waiting to say they have changed their mind (about an appointment, a product, a service, etc) or for a problem they have caused themselves, then surely they should shoulder the costs. ...

But what are "the costs"? By definition, a telephone call queue is not a value-added service, thus it should cost no more than the price of a telephone call to that destination. That is the caller should be paying for a telecommunications connection from A to B only. Instead, companies seem to think that they have carte blanche to 'over-rule' market forces within the telecommunications industry on calls to UK geographical numbers, and set the telephone charges themselves.


Quote:

... Unfortunatly there is no system that would allow the responsibility to change throuought a call. ...

And with profit orientated telcos we're hardly likely to them implement such a system, no are we?

The simplest solution would be to ban call queuing, like we have on 09 numbers.


Quote:

... As many 'faults' reported to help desks are actually user error then a company is likely to take the view that it is the consumer that should shoulder the cost, and hance the growing use of premium rate services for just that purpose (and i accept that this is not a popular move, the reasoning is sound and perfectly legitimate), ...

You must hold your customer with a certain amount of contempt then?

Granted, frequently asked questions (FAQs) are everywhere. With the invention of the internet, there are FAQs on every website and if people would read them it would cut down on many calls to companies. But it is the company's responsibility to present these FAQs to the customer and to encourage them to help themselves.


Quote:

... i know that many companys use NGNs for another reason... deterant... if you (the consumer) are paying for something you usually make sure you have good reason to use it. in the case of help/complaint desks this is a real issue and it has been shown again and again that customers abuse there numbers they have access to, especially if they are 'free'. ...

Yet more contempt for your customers.


Quote:

... It is also a common experience for advisors/operators/representatives (what whatever else they wish to be called) on lower cost numbers to receive abuse and harasment because customer wont pay any more for the calls to the correct department. ...

Ah right, it's the customers' fault that they feel that they are being ripped off and 'choose' to call free sales lines for after sales enquiries rather than have more cash extorted from themselves for services for which they have already paid for.


Quote:

... Customers have to take some responsibility, its not all someone elses fault!

Or to paraphrase "Customers are a nuisance and just get in the way of our money making".

There is also the question of how much it costs companies to call it's customers. xyhfna, I've no doubt that your company's office(s) will have calling packages where rates to geographical numbers and mobiles are as low as possible. But what rate does your company pay to call NTS numbers?

Now, I for one have my own 0870 number that routes to my home phone. I also have an 070 personal number which routes to my mobile. This is charged at 35p/min at all times on a non-discounted BT package.

Companies providing me with NGNs get my 0870 and/or 070 number. It is probably lost on the company concerned; that it is needlessly throwing money down the drain phoning me on these numbers.

Take my car insurance which was with UK Insurance. I received my renewal and what did I have to do, yes phone 0870.... So I wrote to them and said that I would not be ringing them on any 0870 number and that if they wanted my business they would have to phone me on 0870 .... which they did. IIRC the call lasted in the region of 10 minutes. I estimate that's roughly 65p it cost the company. How much would it have cost if it had called my landline directly?

All landline telephone number that are not charged or treated in the same way (included in call options etc) as 01/02 prefix numbers should be placed in an appropriate charge band in the “09" range.  The charge bands for “09" could range from 1p to 150p/min. This would be clear and transparent to consumers.

What I object to, is numbers such as: 0871, 0870, 0845 and 0844 which are clandestine premium numbers and are clearly used to extract money from consumers, in an underhand way, to either organisations that use them or telecom companies or both.

Last Thursday my bank (HSBC) made repeated statement that 0845 "was only a local call". Yesterday I was told by my car insurer (Auto Net) that 0871 "was only a national rate call, so calling them on a normal geographical number would cost the same".

Ok, Dave, i'll keep this short.
I have neather treat my customers with contempt no allow them to run roughshod over my company. I have no intention of discussing in detail my company's (or indeed those that i have worked for or with) service/function or anything else. I will however try (and have tried) to show that things are not quite as black and white as many seem to think. Just a small point, you clearly misread my stance on local/national number, i quite clearly am in favor of loosing the distinction and is certainly not something i 'cling to'. this would however require action from OfCom. I also agree that many parts of the telcom industry are slow to respond or are indiferent to customers concerns, but not all of them!

I sympathise with all those customers in queues/on hold and are paying for the 'privelidge'. However, as you yourself agreed there are those who will use the numbers they have for things that they have no good reason to. Now i am not saying all people who call these numbers do so for such trivial reasons, but the fact of the matter is that the cheaper the call the more 'trivial' calls received. Society is generally apathetic and lazy, preferiCustomer A phones Company A, through their Telecoms Carrier A, on a 'premium' rate 087xx number provided by a Minor Telecoms Operator A.ng someone else to do the work/take the responsibility, so that is why i chose to participate in such a hot and rigorous debate on such a contentious issue.

There is a case for looking at queuing and holding within the remit of OfCom, however this is a different debate to the one of charging. Assuming queuing and holding remain permissable, the problem then becomes who pays for what? (this in the hypothetical total asence of call purpose and the baggage it brings). I can only agree that a customer, if made to queue or hold, should only be charged for the cost of carrying the call - with the advent of IP telephony this is likely to become trivial, but is still some way off. However, a company should not be FORCED to use an includable number (although depending on the number function it may be quite appropriate). The issue is complicated by the miriad of telecoms companies and service provider, all of whome have different models and revenue schemes. Telecoms companies get and set different interconnect charges (usually by volume), they discount services which they offset against others, the problem occurs due to the fact that everyone (customers, business, carriers and operators) have different motives - not all of them profit.

Just a really simplified illustration:
a customer pays a call carrage paid to a telecom carrier
the telecoms carrier agrees with a minor telecoms operator specific interconnect charges
a company may or may not be charged for the use of the premium rate number, and may or may not recieve a revenue from the minor telecoms operator depending on their agreement.

either the telecoms carrier, the minor telecoms operator or possibly even the company may determine the cost of the premium rate call which the customer pays. dependent on who makes that determination is exactly who take what cut from the call charges.

its hard to argue that a minor operator or company shouldnt make money out of a call because a major carrier decides to offer certain calls at a certain rate. conversely it is hard to argue that a minor operator or company should force a major carier to make certain charges to their customers. and this is why there is such tension with numbers other than geographical numbers (which have their own issues - but they are for another debate).

The only way OfCom could ensure all parties got a level playing field would be to fix the goal posts. It would be much more 'obvious', but certainly more complicated if numbers were required to be billed in component parts. We could simplify this to a scheme similar to how mobile phone services are set up, i.e. calls to xxxx cost 1.5ppm above your prevailing carrage charge. This is simpler to understand and probably a better overall solution, there would be no descrepency as to the telecoms carriers charges and motivations, if a telecoms operator offered the calls 'free' of carrage, the whole of the call funds would be given to the minor telecoms operator. the customer knows they are paying a premium, and they know it not their telecoms operator that is making those charges. the minor operator isnt impinged by the major carriers policies. and the company is free to agree whatever revenue share scheme with the minor operator they like. If the major carrier wanted to offer all calls to certain numbers to be 'free', etc. then it would fall to the major operator (not the customer directly) to settle the bill with the minor operator, it would also be upto the major carrier to inform their customers of such 'offers'. this would be a much more satisfactory system than has been proposed.
It would also be different to the premium rate 09 numbers which have a predetermined cost and are not determined by the major carrier.

I would propose a number scheme as below:

01 & 02 - Geographical Number Range
freed from the exchanges to which they are currently tied, and charged at the prevailing geographical rate and available for inclusion within call allowance

03 - Geographical Business Number Range
similar to the current 0800/0845 numbers, having NTS features such as rollover, etc, but charged at the prevailing geographical rate and available for inclusion within call allowance. Similar to the US 1-800/1-888 numbers and are automatically available from overseas at the prevailing international rate.

04 - reserved
05 - reserved - (earmarked for further Uplifted Rate Number Ranges if demand requires and possibly broken down in the 09 style)
06 - reserved

07 - Mobile Number Range
including mobile numbers and personal numbers. these numbers are not ties to any geography or 'line', but retain the same rates no matter where called from. numbers would not be permitted to generate shared revenue and would be determined by the carrier. It is irrelevant as to whether the number is attached to a cellular phone, wifi phone, voip or redirected landline. the idea is the number is portable (but is linked to a number services operator, which may or maynot be a network carrier)

08 - Uplifted Rate Number Range
as current 08 number range with some minor modifications. the call rate is in addition to the carrage. the 2 digits following the initial 08 would determin an uplift rate in 10ths of a penny. i.e. 0845 would now represent 4.5ppm uplift above the carrage. these numbers would also be available to be called from abroad paying the uplift in addition to the international carrage. 0800 would be reserved for its current use and not an uplift number range.

09 - Fixed Rate and Fixed Charge Number Ranges (formerly Premium Rate)
this would work similarly to the current 09 number range, but with minor 'corrections'.
firstly the range would be split.
090-094 and 095-099.

090-094 representing Fixed Rate Numbers charged at a predetermined (not an uplift!) rate where the 3 digits following the 09 represent the charge in pennies. i.e. 09050 would be 50ppm, 09150 would be £1.50pm. 09000 would be reserved possibly as a replacement for the 0800 number range?!

095-099 rould represent the Fixed Charge Numbers, which would be a predetermined Fixed Charge (not a per minute charge), the charge would be represented in pennies by the 2 digits following the initial 09x. i.e. 09690 would be a fixed charge of 90p regardless of the length of call, 097150 would represent a fixed charge of £1.50. There would be 5 sub-ranges, each with a decimal shift upwards. i.e. 09545 would represent a charge of 4.5 pence, 09645 45p, 09745 £4.5, 09945 £45 (although 099 numbers would be restricted until justification for such a number range is obtained.)

I would like to hear coments about this proposal as i feel this probably addresses many of the concerns currently expressed about charge knowledge and would be acceptable to most in the telecoms industry as it is both conservative with the necessary changes, and  liberal with the amount of regulation/interfearence required.

If anyone has a better proposal (and not just better for consumers!) then i would also like to see those too. Currently Ofcoms proposal is a halfway house which satisfies no-one.

xyhfna wrote on Oct 7^th, 2006 at 5:38pm:

You're really defending the indefensible! [etc] Actually the US model suffers in several ways (network topography, and scalability). The US model doesnt scale down so well as it relies on multiple operators with differing reliabiliy factors (from an enginering point of view not a consumer point of view). It also relies heavily on operators having access to much larger numbers of potential customers. [...]

The NANP is far from perfect, however I'll take it over Ofcom's NTNP any day. If you're happy to pay a couple of quid each and every time you use basic customer service, then that is your prerogative and is fine by me. I'm happier when the cost of providing the service is factored into the total cost of the product/service and that works for over 300m people in this region, from Nunavut to Florida and beyond.


xyhfna wrote on Oct 7^th, 2006 at 5:38pm:

1 - toll-free generally means toll-free [yada yada yada] toll-free (freephone) in the uk is toll-free on all standard landlines, non-incumbent operators such as hotels, mobile networks, etc. are free to charge what they like only because they are presicely that... non-incumbent operators (its entirely your choice and of your own making if you CHOOSE to use them) - this will only change through consumer pressure on THOSE operators. it has nothing to do with regulation and nothing to do with business operators. Most NGNs in the UK and the rest of the world are not toll-free and do not claim to be! [...]

Most UK cellular providers used to either not charge for 800 or offset against inclusive minutes. Cynically, when they discovered Ofcom would do bugger all about it, they started charging. Vodafone called this 'simplification' - I call this downright greedy.  


xyhfna wrote on Oct 7^th, 2006 at 5:38pm:

2 - our toll-free NGNs can be called from outside the country ... from outside the UK and see what happens (usually nothing, but where possible, a massive charge); actually some numbers can be called from outside the UK (it depends on the telecoms operator) some are charged at standard international rates... one my service providers uses an 0845 number which can be accessed outside the UK, but is charged at the international rates just as if i called them on their geographic number. for other NGNs it sometimes doesnt work, but thats because the telecoms operators simply dont want the complications that such calls impose - unlike the us where its par for the course. I can kind of understand it from the toll-free side where there is an international charge to the customer, and then a dilemma... what to charge the business using that number?! I do not defend the telecoms companies for their lack of enthusiasm in this matter, but it impacts little on the NGN issues raised in other parts of this debate.

The key work is 'some'. There is absolutely no guarantee that these numbers can be called from outside the UK howver they are being used where there is a reasonable expectation that calls from overseas wil take place. If any given business is going to use numbers that need to be accessible from ex-UK, for example insurance, travel, health, government functions, then they MUST use geographic numbering. Ofcom knows this but does nothing. The latest cynical exploitation is with university halls of residence using inappropriate numbering that precludes families of overseas students from being able to call. A disgrace.

As I said - if you're happy with the 0870/0845 scam and happy to pay even more to a company which 'screws up', then that's fine with me. In the last couple of days, I've had to call a couple of airlines, my insurance company, my bank, the cable company and the federal government. This has cost me precisely nothing on my phone bill. Any cost has been assigned to the cost of providing these services which is exactly how it should be in the UK (and indeed it was prior to these wretched numbers being introduced by the hopeless Ofcom which has to have its greedy finder in the pie somewhere along the line).

Ok so the NANP/NTNP issue is not going to be won (or perhaps even should be) here, and is subject to a lot of personal preference.

I agree with you on the issue of 800 numbers from mobiles, and is perhaps something OfCom SHOULD look at more carfully, there is simply no justification for mobile phones to be different to landlines with respect to NGNs.l

re: some
well that was exactly my point some do others dont. Perhaps this is a case of should they be obliged to all be accessible overseas? but i rather suspect that case/argument would get swamped by the clammor to compel business/telecoms companies/carriers to drop the use on 0845/0870/etc altogether?!

I also experienced the case of unis using inapproprate number systems and although most unis operate private exchanges, i cant really see the benefit of such restrictive thinking.

On your continued claim that 'that fine with me', i would say one thing; if such pressure is brought to bear that the use of number shemes like 0870/0845 are scraped and the costs included in the cost of provision, this is discriminatory against all users. The cost of providing the services would be automatically included by both your telecoms supplier and the service provider, whether or not the ADDED benefit is required. I would far rather pay for something if and when i need it, and not be forced to pay for someone ellses benefit. The only way both of us to be happy is for me to have whatever numbers the company thinks they need to cover the cost of operating an added service, and the same company to offer you an 'upgraded' inclusive service, where you get a different set of numbers to call, and the company could screen call based on various account detail as is presently done under the current system anyway. You win because you get calls (which you evidently use a lot) included, I win because i pay for such calls (which i almost never have cause to use) as and when i need them, the company wins because it can account for for its costs easily and has much happier customer all round! Theres no restrictive red-tape, no costly and confusing messing with the number schemes (some of which do need an overhaul other than for the reasons that people give when objecting to the 0870/0845 numbers).

Just to clarify, my personal interactions with companies and telecoms services are conducted mostly through the internet, or perhaps when necessary face to face, rarely do is resort to dialing numbers of any sort. which is perhaps why i look at the problem from a quite drestically different point of view that yourself (my politics perhaps also has a role too)

xyhfna wrote on Oct 7^th, 2006 at 5:38pm:

the majority of 'service/enquiry/sales' calls are made on toll-free numbers, lots of companies still only use geographical and charged at the previling rate (local/national/international), the only others that are in common use are 0845/0870 which are local rate and national rate and are charged as such, and therefore do not attract the inclusiveness that sparked this debate.

I would urge my fellow forum members not to waste any more of their time talking to this unpleasant piece of detritus from the management ranks of the 084/7 call centre world.  He would appear to be the same person who has made various other similar provocative posts of this kind under other names such as redtreble previously.

We all know perfectly well that 0845 and 0870 calls are not Local and National rate as this sharlatan incredibly still tries to say but are either Special Rate Services or according to an Ofcom consultation paper on Premium Rate numbers are Uncontrolled Premium Rate (that is they still revenue share but without being subject to ICSTIS's price disclosure regime).  What is so outraegous about 0845 and 0870 numbers and 0844 and 0871 for that matter is that the people running them do not disclose to their customers that they are now charging them extra and gaining revenue share from calls but try to do this in secrecy whilst peddling the lie that these numbers are only "local rate" and "national rate" as our friend here has just tried to do.  And all this because the unspeakably cretinous OFTEL and then Ofcom allowed the waters to be unbelievably muddied about what are and are not premium rate calls.

There are two debates to be had here:-

(a) whether it is right to charge at all for accessing by phone services like customer call centres and sales lines that do not add value but merely provide a means of communication with the company you are a customer or potential customer of.  Certainly in my view these organisations should not be able to charge extra for this privilege where they are a monopoly supplier, howeverI do not believe they should be allowed at all because their existence allows companies to charge an artificially low price for its products which is not representative of its true cost which is hidden and then also involves making regular contact with its scam 084/7 call centres (one of the worst examples of this being a BT home burglar alarm system sold at a cheap price a few months ago and but where every activation and deactivation notification to the control centre was sent using an 0870 number which the product booklet claimed was National Rate).  And to make matters worse if these companies sell you an especially shoddy or unreliable product or deliver you bad service rather than you being compensated for their misdeeds they actually charge you penal telephone fees for correcting their error.  They are even allowed to make you queue for 30 minutes to your huge discomfort and their huge financial benefit.

(b) Whether any service at all and even one that is value added like a professional lawyers advice line or a sex chat line should be allowed to bill customers via the insecure method of a phone call where this is no Pin protection on accessing the service and where many people making such calls are putting the calls on someone else's bill.  What I am talking about here are current 09 numbers and my contention would be that in their current form these are again totally immoral as accessing the numbers is not PIN protected automatically and does not require a phone line owner to give each member of his household that he wants to access the services their own unique PIN number from which they could later be traced as the caller if the householder disputed the contents of their phone bill.

So in summary all NGN services that involve hidden revenue sharing are immoral and in my view anticompetitive and/or illegal because their either involve trying to hide from the caller that they are making a payment for the service in the phone call altogether or they often involve someone stealing from the phone line owner to make a call for which they do not pay the bill.

We should not waste any more of our time here discussing this issue with evil call centre mafiosa like this gentleman and should instead put all our efforts into going to our MPs and our MEPs and having the matter of Ofcom's lack of diligence in ensuring proper price disclosure and proper price competition in telecoms investigated by the Parliamentary Ombudsman and/or the European Commission.  We all spend far too much time posting here our anger to not any great outcome but instead we should be expressing our anger in those quarters where the scam industries and cosy careers of this overpaid gentleman and his overpaid friends at Ofcom can hopefully soon be brought to a swift end.

xyhfna wrote on Oct 8^th, 2006 at 2:06pm:

Just to clarify, my personal interactions with companies and telecoms services are conducted mostly through the internet, or perhaps when necessary face to face, rarely do is resort to dialing numbers of any sort. which is perhaps why i look at the problem from a quite drestically different point of view that yourself (my politics perhaps also has a role too)

So what do you do about companies where you have pursued the internet form or email based method of contact and had that contact ignored and not replied to after a week as is so often the case.  Or what do you do if the matter is urgent and the form or email based method of contact does not elecicit action in the required period of time.

Also what do you do about an organisation like Sky where you can only amend or alter the services you take from them by an 0870 phone call and they deliberately withhold any web based or other non phone based mechanism for ordering the service.

I would strongly suspect that you are an overpaid call centre company director who has an under utilised non working wife who makes these 084/7 calls without you even being aware of them and that because you are so filfthy rich you never both looking at your phone bill and checking the individual calls that make it up.  Or perhaps your wife checks it.

Also I resent your insinuation that one has to be a socialist to oppose these rip off numbers as I can assure you that I was until recent a Conservative district councillor and I despise these numbers precisely because they are anti competitive (especially all 084/7 numbers other than those to access ISPs which should always have been on a different number code) as most people using them do not realise they are making an additional payment to the companies concerned for using the services.

All of 084/7 is structured in a way that it always presents an opportunity to scam due to a spinelessly weak regulator infiltrated from stem to stern by senior telecoms industry interest.  For instance mobile phone companies find these numbers do cost them more to connect to than 01/02 numbers but they totally hide the fact that the numbers are excluded from inclusive calling plans and worse still charge extortionate call fees which are many times more than the additional cost to them of connecting these calls.  But the extra cost is not stated upfront and a company like Vodafone totally hides from their Pay As You Go customers what these calls did cost them as they do not offer any form of itemised billing, even online and/or even if you are willing to pay extra for it.

As your overpaid career clearly depends on this scam industry and you clearly had no morals whatsoever to take a job in the scam industry no doubt you will defend it till the cows come home.  But I would urge other forum members to simply ignore you and put their efforts into closing down your scam industry in the hope you will soon lose your overpaid job and know what it is like for those on the lowest incomes in scoiety to be charged further additional hidden charges they cannot afford for making contact with essential services like their local council or utility companies.  And yes my council would have started using 0845 numbers for various services and had already done so on one of them till I got a resolution unanimously passed by all parties banning their further use.  As ever the sharp ripoff telecoms salesman had conned our energetic but not very bright working class kid made good head of IT that 0845 really was only charged to local residents at local rate guv.  The whole of your industry is based on simple confidence trickery which is precisely why I so despise it.

wrote on Oct 8^th, 2006 at 3:06pm:

xyhfna wrote on Oct 7th, 2006 at 5:38pm: the majority of 'service/enquiry/sales' calls are made on toll-free numbers, lots of companies still only use geographical and charged at the previling rate (local/national/international), the only others that are in common use are 0845/0870 which are local rate and national rate and are charged as such, and therefore do not attract the inclusiveness that sparked this debate. I would urge my fellow forum members not to waste any more of their time...

I have to agree.

Anyone who still thinks that 0845/0870 are still local rate/national rate is living in denial.  Ofcom agree that NTS numbers being described as local/national rate is misleading and so does the ASA (Advertising Standards Authority).

With the exception of most consumers, it's really only teleco's and companies/gov depts using these numbers that still describe them as local/national rate.  Original Communications Providers (OCP) and Communication Providers (CP) are fully aware that they're not but they are able to sell more of these NTS numbers because they purposely describe them as local/national rate and therefore mislead companies into thinking that their 'fantastic' new 084x/087x is only charged at 'local' / 'national' rates so therefore their own customers don't really pay more for calling them despite the fact they do.

The only reason why most consumers still think they're local/national rate is because OCP, CP and most companies misleadingly state they are.

Ofcom admit this hence why there is no transparency on these numbers but is unwilling to do anything to stop it.  Anyone making a complaint that a OCP and/or CP is misleadingly advertising these numbers as local/national rate is basically told by Ofcom that it has nothing to do with them and its a matter for Trading Standards.

Now in principle I would agree with Ofcom if there was only a small proportion of OCP and CP who are selling these numbers on false pretences to their customers (ie businesses, gov departments, etc).  The problem is that most (if not all) OCP's and CP's misleadingly still sell these numbers as apparently only costing local/national rate so due to sheer amount, the task is outside the remit of Trading Standards.  Instead either DTI or Ofcom, etc should do something about but the DTI and Ofcom pass the 'buck' (so-to-speak) to other departments so as to try to avoid dealing with it.

bbb_uk wrote on Oct 8^th, 2006 at 3:42pm:

Ofcom admit this hence why there is no transparency on these numbers but is unwilling to do anything to stop it.  Anyone making a complaint that a OCP and/or CP is misleadingly advertising these numbers as local/national rate is basically told by Ofcom that it has nothing to do with them and its a matter for Trading Standards. Now in principle I would agree with Ofcom if there was only a small proportion of OCP and CP who are selling these numbers on false pretences to their customers (ie businesses, gov departments, etc).  The problem is that most (if not all) OCP's and CP's misleadingly still sell these numbers as apparently only costing local/national rate so due to sheer amount, the task is outside the remit of Trading Standards.  Instead either DTI or Ofcom, etc should do something about but the DTI and Ofcom pass the 'buck' (so-to-speak) to other departments so as to try to avoid dealing with it.

Actually its not a matter for Trading Standards at all who are only there to deal with individual instances of poor commercial practice by certain merchants and not with a nationwide problem of organised cartel like anti competitive behaviour.  The Office of Fair Trading and/or the Competition Commission are there to deal with those issues depending on their scale but unfortunately in the telecoms and broadcasting industries the normal powers of the Competition Commission have been delegated to Ofcom and Ofcom so far as I am concerned is not using those powers either correctly and/or at all.

This is why the matter needs to be taken to our MPs and our MEPs to have the Parliamentary Ombudsman and the EU Commission investigate the failure of Ofcom to ensure proper price disclosure and properly price competitive markets in the UK NGN telecoms sector.  It seems by now perfectly clear that various senior employees at Ofcom have not an ounce of consumer zeal, integrity or principle in their bodies and that their only priority is to draw their large salaries and fat pension contributions without rocking the great 084/7 call scam boat in which so many important New Labour friends in commerce are now so intimately involved.

wrote on Oct 8^th, 2006 at 3:06pm:

I would urge my fellow forum members not to waste any more of their time talking to this unpleasant piece of detritus from the management ranks of the 084/7 call centre world.  He would appear to be the same person who has made various other similar provocative posts of this kind under other names such as redtreble previously. We all know perfectly well that 0845 and 0870 calls are not Local and National rate as this sharlatan incredibly still tries to say but are either Special Rate Services ... So in summary all NGN services that involve hidden revenue sharing are immoral and in my view anticompetitive and/or illegal because their either involve trying to hide from the caller that they are making a payment for the service in the phone call altogether or they often involve someone stealing from the phone line owner to make a call for which they do not pay the bill. We should not waste any more of our time here discussing this issue with evil call centre mafiosa like this gentleman

i sense some terible vengence... but poorly expressed.

To set the record straight i am not either in the employ of OfCom or the 'evil' Telecom Companies. I do not work in or for a call center, and could hardly be called' mafiosa'. I have never posted to this site (in fact i wasnt aware of it until i googled one of the indirect access codes!) prior to my registration just a day or so ago. It strikes me as a a little odd that you cannot comprehend someone might want to engage in an inteligent debate, without any back biting, and have a difference of opinion. Read the composition of my arguments to see that they are not the work of any other contributer. I would urge you to be tolerant of other peoples opinions, even if they are in conflict with your own.

The references i make to Local and National rates are not a pretence that they refelct any particular telecoms providers charges, but that that is what these services ar curretnly known as.

As to the issue of certain NGNs being immoral, i dont agree, what i can agree with is they may be unpopular, their use may even be deceitful, but certainly not immoral. There is no evidence that they are anti-competative and are certainly not illegal. Lines are owned by the providers not the customers, customers lease the lines.

If you really read my posts i neither defend nor accuse any section of the parties concerned of anything. I mearly suggest perhaps there is some common ground (see my recommendation table for changes to the number system). We are all aware that SOME companies blatantly scam callers, SOME others blatantly rip customer off, SOME dont see any revenue from the calls, SOME use any revenue to give those that need it better service, SOME respond to customer opinion positivly some dont. SOME customers prefer to pay when they need a service, others feel entitles, others still are happy to pay extra for security knowing everything is already covered. Blanket bans like you seam to favor are ill concieved, and certainly not liberal or egalitarian in their aproach. Something we all agree on is that clarity is most certainly overdue in the telecoms market, and the numbering scheme is an ideal starting point.

because i rarely use 'included' services i am constantly urging companies to unbundle their services (presicely the oposite to what you ar trying to do), i see no use in inclusive features i dont use (insurance, call-time, 24-7 freephone help). i also object to subsidising other peoples usage, why should i pay extra because 'the average user' makes x use of y product or service. I couldnt abide subsidising someone elses telephone usage by paying even a penny more for my line rental (which i am forced to by BT and any other incumbent). Its about choice, OfCom should be enforcing choice and clarity, not messing around. If OfCom regulate the market as I have described, then it would be upto pressure groups like this to lobby companies to change policy in light of customer opinion rather than tie telecoms operators up in red tape. After all its your choice which companies you use, vote with your feet, move to a company that responds or is proacvtive in their aproach to customers.

It does you campaign no god to exclude those who have differences of opinion from your 'debates'. If there is a debate to be hade it should be open and even handed, not biased by ones opinions.

wrote on Oct 8^th, 2006 at 3:57pm:

Actually its not a matter for Trading Standards at all

That's why I said because the problem is too wide and most if not all OCP & CPs mislead their customers with the local rate and national rate lies.  I was talking in principle if there was only a few OCP & CPs that did this then I'd have said it was for Trading Standards to deal with but like you, I think the problem/lies are that big and used by so many OCP & CP's that it needs looking into by Ofcom or someone as a whole.

xyhfna wrote on Oct 8^th, 2006 at 5:32pm:

The references i make to Local and National rates are not a pretence that they refelct any particular telecoms providers charges, but that that is what these services are currently known as.

You are totally wrong in your claim that these 0845 and 0870 numbers are "local rate" and "national rate".  Even the very latest BT phone bills show that they are "0845 rate" and "0870 rate".  The BT phone book makes clear they are "Special Rate" services.  Even for BT Option 1 customers they ceased to be "local rate" and "national rate" on 1st July 2004 when the cost of a "national rate" call changed to 3p per minute peak rate and "local rate" calls and "national rate" calls started costing 5.5p for 1 hour off-peak - yet 0845 and 0870 continued to charge different prices.  You show either your ignorance or your commercial cynicism on this subject by making these statements.  Non BT customers have had to pay extra 0845 and 0870 calls compared to their other uk 01 and 02 calls for at least 7 years!

With regards to you objecting for paying extra for people who call these numbers my experience is that companies who use these numbers in fact have the most expensive and over priced services for all their customers.  Also your concept that customers who call companies are a drain is a bizarre one since many happy customers who are not scammed for calling a company buy more services from the company and remain loyal to it.  I cannot understand the logic of Admiral car insurance running its sales line on an 0800 number but its renewals line on an 0870 number when renewing customers involve no advertising and acquisition cost and are far more profitable.

You also claim these numbers are not anti competitive.  But how can that be so when most mobile phone customers are lied to by deliberately mistrained customer service staff that these calls are "local" and "national" only for the company to exclude them from bundled minutes for national calls and by charging an undisclosed premium rate for calling them from overseas.

If these NGN numbers are to remain at all I demand their total exposure in terms of cost so that consumers make correct choices about calling them.  I demand compulsory call price announcements where it is stated for 084 and 087 and 09 and 118 calls that x pence per minute is being paid to the company called and their intermediaries as service charges for the unbearable burden you as a customer are imposing by calling them and have nothing to do with the cost of maintaining or paying the staff of the telecoms networks that were responsible for physically conveying the call.  I also demand that all phone bills show the service fee elements of NGN calls separately from the phone call conveyance element and I particularly demand that clueless regulators who are complicit in the scam like Ofcom do not allow it to continue for over 2 years after 0845 and 0870 stopped being local and national rate for their customers other than BT Light User Scheme customers by BT still misleadingly describing them on phone bills in this way.

I have never met anyone who did not derive an income stream from 084/7 calls who was in favour of the extra charges made for usually a much worse delayed call centre services than honest companies who do not scam and do not use these numbers.  I cannot imagine why someone who did not have a vested interest in the profits of the call centre industry sector would hold such a view.

How you can call the market in these calls competitive when all call conveying companies other than BT charge more for them than BT is beyond me.  And the reason they call all get away with this is because customers making 084/7 calls wrongly think these calls are charged at the BT Local or National Rate.  This is not a competitive market where customers make normal informed rational purchase decisions.

If you still find it so difficult to understand why these calls are a scam can I point you to the following:-


The view of a county council trading standards department

Para 1.3 Page 1 of www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/oftel_0845/responses/leicester_cc.pdf

and

the view of the CEO of BT Retail, Ian Livingston

http://business.scotsman.com/banking.cfm?id=764772005

and

two recent guidances from the Advertising Standards Authority

www.asa.org.uk/cap/news_events/news/2005/Hanging+on+the+telephone+on+and+on+and+on.htm

www.asa.org.uk/cap/news_events/news/2005/Stop+the+call+confusion.htm

and

the current Parliamentary Early Day motion deploring the use of 0870 telephone numbers by government departments

http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetails.aspx?EDMID=28872%09%09%09%09%09%09%09&SESSION=875

and

Another guidance from the Committee of Advertising Practice of the Advertising Standards Authority

www.cap.org.uk/cap/news_events/news/2005/CAP+rings+the+changes+for+telecoms+providers.htm

and Pages 5 and 6 of the below minutes from my own district council where we agreed policy to stop the future use of 0845 and 0870 numbers.

www.molevalley.gov.uk/media/pdf/1/s/Council_Minutes_190705.pdf

While I don't expect special treatment or anything, my post has been ignored... I would quite like xyhfna to comment on why I should pay a premium to contact a company who have wrongly taken money from my account through no fault of my own.

I agree with xyhfna that it's unacceptable to be forced by BT and others to pay for inclusive calls. I was happy with standard BT line rental, and it was when I was forced to move to "Option 1" (and lost £2/month inclusive call allowance) that ended up finding this site. What I most resent to is when a sales rep for a phone company tries to tell me they give me good deals, when I make few calls so inclusive calls are useless to me! What I would like is for the occasional calls I am forced to make to incompetent companies to be included, but no-one can offer that because of the anti-competitive way that 084/087 calls are set up.


Thanks for the link to the Scotsman, NGM, I didn't realise BT was also calling for abolition of these numbers too! Having said that, some of his claims such as "the prices charged by rival operators for dialling the numbers can be six times more than the regulated prices charged by BT" seem to be rather exaggerated.

jrawle wrote on Oct 8^th, 2006 at 10:03pm:

Thanks for the link to the Scotsman, NGM, I didn't realise BT was also calling for abolition of these numbers too! Having said that, some of his claims such as "the prices charged by rival operators for dialling the numbers can be six times more than the regulated prices charged by BT" seem to be rather exaggerated.

I can only think that Mr Livingston was referring to the charges made by Pay As You Go mobile phone operators for calling 0845 and 0870 compared to what BT charges but in that case I think one can get up to about 15 times the BT rate for calling say 0870 at the weekend.

Unless of course he was thinking of TalkTalk who regularly charge for fixed line calls that a customer dials but that never connect! :o

Personally I prefer the Post Office way which is never to charge for many calls to NGN and overseas numbers that you have actually dialled. ;)

wrote on Oct 8^th, 2006 at 6:11pm:

You are totally wrong in your claim that these 0845 and 0870 numbers are "local rate" and "national rate".

Actually i merely refer to them in such a manor because this is what they are predominantly known as, i was unaware that they had been redesegnated 0845 and 0870 rated numbers, all references to local an national rate in my posts should be construed as a 0845 and 0870 rated, and not meant to imply a charge of local or national rate. This may be the source of some antaganism, but does not alter any of the point that have ben made previously.


wrote on Oct 8^th, 2006 at 6:11pm:

0845 and 0870 continued to charge different prices.

my point relates not to the fact they are charge differently to geographic calls, but that clarity should be enforced, ensuring customers are aware of the charges involved with these calls. I find it perfectly reasonable that any number be chargable at any rate provided the rate is clear to the users of such a number - and is precisely what i have been arguing for.


wrote on Oct 8^th, 2006 at 6:11pm:

You show either your ignorance or your commercial cynicism on this subject by making these statements.

and a great number of you fail to recognise the validity of rationalised statements that are inconflict with your own principals or beliefs.


wrote on Oct 8^th, 2006 at 6:11pm:

Also your concept that customers who call companies are a drain

I have not suggested that all customers that call a company are a drain. the concept i present suggests that SOME customers are an unacceptable drain, MOST customers are not, but a company has to factor in the cost of running a telephone service somewhere, and that is ALWAYS going to be passed on to the end user, that is a fundamental reality of economic theory. The only question is whether it is better to factor it into the provision of products and/or services, or supliment or offset it with call revenue (regardless of whether any revenue is actually received by the company or retained by the telecom operator)


wrote on Oct 8^th, 2006 at 6:11pm:

I cannot understand the logic of Admiral car insurance running its sales line on an 0800 number but its renewals line on an 0870 number when renewing customers involve no advertising and acquisition cost and are far more profitable.

this perplexes me also, and seems rather stupid, but NOT illegal. but again it comes down to consumer choice, if you feel this is unjust then switch insurers, and send a letter to the CEO with detailed, but not prejudicial (which does your case no justice), reasoning. If enough customers switch the company WILL change its attitude.


wrote on Oct 8^th, 2006 at 6:11pm:

... how can that be so when most mobile phone customers are lied to ... and by charging an undisclosed premium rate for calling them from overseas.

The issue of calls from mobile phones and calls from overseas are different to whether or not 0845/0870 numbers are legitimate in essence. My stance is and always has been that these numbers are legitimate, but that clarity in charges should be mandated. The issue of mobile phone charges is an issue all of its own and should be dealt with by OfCom in a gerneral review of how mobile phone companies operate. Overseas calling to these numbers should also be clarified but is related to how overseas numbers in general are treated.


wrote on Oct 8^th, 2006 at 6:11pm:

If these NGN numbers are to remain at all I demand their total exposure... I also demand that all phone bills show the service fee elements of NGN calls separately from the phone call conveyance element...

I have already suggested their exposure, but it is the method of exposure that we disagree on - not that there should be disclosure.
I have also suggested that conveyance and and extra carrier (i.e. those set by the intemerdiary telecoms operator) premiums be clearly seperated (i went further in suggesting that this clarity be mandated not at the billing stage, but at the promotion stage)

customer service (good, bad or indifferent) will not change on the basis of the numbers customers dial, only market forces and loss of custom will change this.

jrawle wrote on Oct 8^th, 2006 at 10:03pm:

While I don't expect special treatment or anything, my post has been ignored... I would quite like xyhfna to comment on why I should pay a premium to contact a company who have wrongly taken money from my account through no fault of my own.

I apologise for missing anyones post, but with so much hostility to differing points of view it is easy for me to miss the odd thing.
In answer, you shouldnt have to pay any premium for such a scenario. However, it is my preference for operator assisted redirects, in which an real person evaluates the callers purpose, and transfers to the appropriate number/department. This should be facilitated in the same way that some mobile phone companies operate some services, i.e. "transfering you to x number will cost you y, do you wish to be transfered?" in circumstances where a legitimate charge could be brought, and "transfering you to z number is free of any additional charges, please hold tha line". This is not possible with the current system, and would require OfCom to look at how transfers are handled and regulated.


jrawle wrote on Oct 8^th, 2006 at 10:03pm:

I agree with xyhfna that it's unacceptable to be forced by BT and others to pay for inclusive calls.

again some common ground! good to see some of my arguments are considered justifiable.


jrawle wrote on Oct 8^th, 2006 at 10:03pm:

What I would like is for the occasional calls I am forced to make to incompetent companies to be included...

hmmm... this seems to be a bit of a mixed consept, either calls ARE included or they are NOT. It is absolutly impossible to include some and not others without paying extra charges somewhere. I believe that for people like yourself (and myself included) would benefit more from paying at the per call level than paying extra telecom service charges. For others, as i have explained, it would probably make sense to pay extra telecom service charges for inclusive calls to be used rather than paying for each call.

Not aimed at jrawle: I too have asked for feedback on some of my questions (namely my proposal for an OfCom review of the numbering system) so dont feel left out, it seems to be endemic in this forum. Theres nothing like a good bit of bear bating, especiall when there is a legitimate point behind it!

[edit]The following posts were split off from the Doctors' Surgeries thread here and merged with this thread.[/edit]


Hi NGMsG,

We have in fact discussed these issues previously hereon. I have had lengthy discourse with my MP, who has himself written to The Secretary of State and Ofcom several times. All of his efforts achieved precisely nothing and in the end he gave up. He did not feel it was an issue worth taking to the PO so that became difficult.

I have also done the similar process with my MEP with somewhat similar results. In the end they all just close ranks and follow the party line.

dorf wrote on Dec 14^th, 2006 at 1:00pm:

The abuse of 0870 will still be allowed with call queuing providing that an announcement of the call cost per minute proceeds the call. The abuse of 0871 will still be allowed with call queuing, but ICSTIS will be responsible for control of those numbers. (It is not, as far as I am aware, totally clear yet exactly how this will be administered since it will become a complete anomaly - a premium line under the auspices of ICSTIS with call queuing allowed, when all Premium numbers have call queuing prohibited!)

dorf,

After 1st Feb 2008 all revenue share on 0870 will be impossible for the call centre recipient and their TCP telecoms supplier but for reasons that Ofcom has persistently refused to explain (even when I attended a meeting there) or make clear your OCP (your telecoms supplier) will be allowed to charge you more than their 01/02 call rate if they provide a pre-announcement of the call cost.  The only reason for this seems to be to allow important companies like Vodafone with friends at Ofcom to continue to scam consumers for extra on 084/7 calls and in particular so that 0845/7 calls can still be excluded from deals like Vodafone Passport and Vodafone Stop the Clock.  But why is Ofcom doing this.  All the people who receive 0870 calls will still need to move to 0844, 0845 or 0871 or 09 if they want to go on taking revenue share from the consumer.  0870 Advice has made it clear neither he or his clients will any longer get revenue share on 0870 calls after 1st Feb 2008.

I take it you have not read the ICSTIS Pre-Consultation on 0871 regulation (you did not respond to it).  If you have it will leave your blood boiling as it is a totally outrageous attempt to have 0871 regulated by ICSTIS but then not called Premium Rate and not even using the main ICSTIS symbol.  The proposed scam by Ofcom is now apparently to allow these calls to be called Business Rate.  That would encourage every business in the land to move to 10p per minute revenue share 0871 numbers and abandon normal 01/02 numbers.

It is clear Ofcom are not enforcing their competition duties to lower the cost of phone calls and now exist only to prop up the profitability of major telecoms businesses like BT, TalkTalk, Sky and Vodafone who have very powerful friends inside Ofcom.  Ofcom are a total disgrace who should be stripped of their Fair Trading and Competition regulation powers with these being returned to the OFT and the Competition Commission who are not hijacked regulators like Ofcom is.

New Labour clone Ed Richard is in charge of Ofcom now.  Things can only go from bad to worse.

Hi NGmsG,

I do not find it clear what you are claiming here. You seem to state that call centres alone will not be able to receive any revenue share with 0870 after that date even with a verbal announcement of cost? You single out call centres; but you do not appear to exclude any other terminating subscribers? I understood that Ofocm's position was that all terminating subscribers, whether call centres or not would be able to continue with revenue sharing and call queuing on 0870 if and only if they provided a verbal announcement stating the call cost per minute. I did not believe there was any distinction made between call centres and other terminating subscribers. After all how could the telephone system detect the difference? As things stand I do not believe there is any rational, foolproof way to do this?

With 0870 you seem to omit the fact that as I understand it unlike any other Premium number under the auspices of ICSTIS call queuing will still be allowed with 0871? This is really the key issue since this is the salient feature of these scams!

Has any other expert on these things here got a view on the realities of the current Ofcom statement of intent with regard to revenue sharing, call queuing and verbal announcements on 0870 and 0871 after 1st Feb 2008, since I am not entirely convinced that what NGMsG is claiming here is correct according to Ofcom's statements.


~Edited by bbb_uk: Amended title

Hi Dorf,

I believe what NGM is trying to say is that revenue sharing will stop which means all companies/organisations/government departments like Sky, TalkTalk, DVLA, BBC and any other company/organisation/government departments using an 0870 will not receive revenue from their number(s) like they do now.

All revenue sharing will effectively end except for some unknown reason, OfcoN have said that if an Originating Communication Provider like BT, TalkTalk, NTL/TW, Euphony, Sky and all other teleco's that are originating communications providers (ie bill us customers for calls made via their network for which we are a customer of) then they can do so only if they play a free announcement before the beginning of the call.

As revenue sharing will end then in theory (at least), OCP's will have no reason to charge more than a geographical call (or exclude from inclusive minutes).  However, if they want to specifically continue to charge more for calls to 0870 then they can do so providing they warn us first.

Further still, it's entirely possible that those companies/organisations/government departments using 0870 may have to pay an incoming call fee of x amount per minute.  This, in most cases, will more than likely force them to migrate back to geographicals (unlikely) or move to other revenue share numbers like 0844/0845/0871.

Personally, I can't see the reason why an Originating Communication Provider (OCP) would continue to charge more than a geographical call to 0870 numbers simply because revenue sharing will end.  This is especially true because they will have to play a free announcement at the beginning of such a call if they wanted to charge more than a geographical number or exclude it from inclusive minutes.

The one thing all OCP's stated in their consultation responses is that they (the OCPs) think it would cost them way too much money to upgrade their systems so that we, the consumers, are provided with free call announcements.  If this is actually true like they try to claim then no OCP will (in theory at least) charge more than the going rate of a geographical call or exclude them from inclusive minutes.

Dorf,

As for what (little) ICSTIS want to do with 0871 numbers then have a scan through this thread.  You will be surprised because they basically don't want to do anything.

dorf wrote on Dec 14^th, 2006 at 9:08pm:

I do not find it clear what you are claiming here. You seem to state that call centres alone will not be able to receive any revenue share with 0870 after that date even with a verbal announcement of cost? You single out call centres; but you do not appear to exclude any other terminating subscribers? I understood that Ofocm's position was that all terminating subscribers, whether call centres or not would be able to continue with revenue sharing and call queuing on 0870 if and only if they provided a verbal announcement stating the call cost per minute.

Dorf,

You are mistaken in your understanding of what is going to happen on Feb 1st 2008 for 0870 numbers hence why you do not understand my comments.

All the telcos were lieing and Ofcom were lieing when they said it was too expensive to provide call price announcements,  the reality is that they and OfCoN do not want consumers to know what they are paying for these covert premium rate calls.

In my view because the average stupid punter still think 0870 has not changed status plenty of scammers at the originating telco end (especially mobiles) will try and go on charging the extra old price even though the party receiving the call and their telecoms operator will not get the revenue share. Since they the originating call provider will get all the extra call price if they keep things at the old 0870 rate they have every incentive to try it on and steal this money.  The question is why has Ofcom made provision for this - apparently only in the hope of letting its telco chums have even more profitable scam opportunities.  Chances are at the last moment OfCon will say the extra call price announcement for companies who do not charge 01/02 prices for 0870 is not technically feasible after all.

To be quite honest I'm entirely prepared to believe that OfCoN and ICSTIS will suddenly decide 1st Feb 2008 is a date they can't meet this coming summer and will postpone the whole ending of 0870 revenue share by 18 months.  The scammers may also bring major legal cases to stop 0870 revenue share ending that could drag on through the courts for years.

But as things stand scammers like Sky and their ilk need to work on the basis of moving to more expensive 10p per minute at all times 0871 nunbers to carry on with the scam.  And because 0871 sounds like 0870 most of the stupid punters call it without knowing its 10p per minute and is not now and never has been a national call.

And while Ofcom lied to us in NTS Way Forward document by suggesting 0871 was going to come under full ICSTIS control the reality now is a completely watered down special 0871 ICSTIS regime with call charges in small print, no ban on call queuing and no use of the word Premium Rate required.   They probably won't even be subject to 09 premium call barring (why do you think Ofcom refused to move them on to the 09 prefix ;)

In other words another clear example that Ed Richards, Matt Peacock and their chums at Ofcom have totally sold us and the general public down the river in line with the instructions they have secretly receive from their New Labour masters.  Total loyalty to those orders is required if the Ofcom gravy train is to be allowed to continue at its present exorbitant levels of staff remuneration.



~Edited by bbb_uk: Amended title

Well, all I can suggest is that you read what you have just posted again. It seems to me to be mainly based on possibilities and a pre-consultation. I was not attempting to surmise or predict. I was asking whether there is any contributor to this forum who actually knows with any certainty what Ofcom has stated that it will implement. It seems to me that what has been posted here as purporting to be fact is not full fact but part conjecture.

First we have the claim that only call-centres will be severely affected by future restrictions with 0870, then we have some confused "statements" about the intent with 0871 and call queuing. Frankly the impression given is that no none else is 100% sure about these things yet either! this is hardly surprising in my view since Ofcom is all about muddle and bamboozle to cover their tracks and avoid reality.  

I repeat is there any contributor to this forum who actually knows and can state in clear and definitive terms exactly what Ofcom is going to implement for 0870 and 0871?

dorf wrote on Dec 15^th, 2006 at 12:07am:

I repeat is there any contributor to this forum who actually knows and can state in clear and definitive terms exactly what Ofcom is going to implement for 0870 and 0871?

The revenue sharing on 0870 will end.  No one at all will get any revenue.  However, Original Communications Providers like BT/cable that have control over how much they want to charge for calls made from their network can charge whatever they want for calls to 0870 so long as a free announcement is made if they charge more than the geographical rate or exclude them from inclusive minutes.  Regardless of how much the likes of BT may charge for calls to 0870, the end company/government department using the 0870 will NOT receive any revenue from it at all.

Ofcom has always allowed Original Communications Providers like BT, cable, etc to charge what they want for a call and they are still allowing this for 0870 numbers come 2008 even though no revenue share will take place at all.  In other words, if BT did want to charge more than the cost of a geographical call for calls to 0870 from their network then BT keep ALL the extra money and none of it is passed on (ie shared).

As for 0871, at this time it's uncertain because ICSTIS is yet to decide.  They released a pre-consultation a few months ago and this pretty much said they didn't want to do anything.  However, a final consultation on 0871 will be released around February next year and the results of this final consultation will be known towards the end of 2007.

dorf wrote on Dec 15^th, 2006 at 12:07am:

I was asking whether there is any contributor to this forum who actually knows with any certainty what Ofcom has stated that it will implement.

dorf,

I fear you have not kept yourself up to date on Ofcom's numerous further several hundred page publications such as their statement on 084 and 087 numbers earlier on this year and their consultation - Safeguarding the Future of Numbers.

Had you read those then it would be clear to you where things will stand on 0870 numbers on 1st Feb 2008 under the proposed Ofcom regulatory regime.

Thank you for your replies. Now that we have some definite statements that pretty much concurs with what I understand to be the position.

However, I feel you are still perhaps missing the potential for 0870 continuing to be abused in the same way as 070 PNS has been, due to the latitude which Ofcom have allowed in call charging with a verbal announcement. That was what I meant originally. I believe Ofcom have made these decisions for 0870 deliberately and calculatingly, after discussion with their "buddies", on the basis that these will then be able to continue with the scam in a modified form, as they did with 070 PNS. Ofcom are not intending call queuing on 0870 to be prohibited. If you put the two together you have a perfect recipe for the likes of BT to generate a scenario for continuing the abuses in a modified form. You will no doubt recall that Oftel prohibited revenue sharing with the registered terminating subscriber for 070 PNS (but only temporarily!) and only with the registered terminating subscriber. In this case (for 0870) it seems also revenue sharing is to be prohibited only to the registered terminating subscriber. We shall see in due course whether my suspicions are correct.  

With 0871 it seems you now entirely agree with me that no definitive statement has been made by Ofcom yet as to the exact changes, if any, which they will finally implement.

It is important that these things are stated clearly and concisely, since those who are not any longer deferentially following the nauseous details of Ofcom's time-wasting endless verbiage, prevarication and refusal to undertake their statutory duties may not otherwise be absolutely certain what the exact position now is with their intent

dorf wrote on Dec 15^th, 2006 at 1:52pm:

With 0871 it seems you now entirely agree with me that no definitive statement has been made by Ofcom yet as to the exact changes, if any, which they will finally implement.

That is because Ofcom has now passed the buck on 0870 regulation to ICSTIS  And Ofcom have made a definitive statement to that effect.  It is merely ICSTIS's definitive statement on how they will deal with 0871 numbers that we are still waiting for. ;) ::)

For the record, I still believe that come February 2008 when 0870 loses its revenue share that BT will start charging the same as their geographical numbers.

If BT do it, then there is a chance that the other main landline competitors will follow.

However, I'm unsure about mobiles.