From http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/news/special-report/article.html?in_article_id=412999&in_page_id=108

<<
Banks, broadband internet firms and other abusers of expensive 0870 and 0871 phone numbers face a crackdown when a new regulator takes charge next year.

Companies can presently keep customers holding on, racking up profit shared with phone companies.

But these ploys, including endless layers of message menus and long waits to speak to an operator, are banned by Icstis, the premiumrate phone line regulator, which takes over the policing job from Ofcom in 2008.

An Icstis spokesman said: 'No service provider regulated by us is allowed to use unnecessary delays to generate revenues.' Icstis is generally suspicious of any delay longer than 15 seconds, he added.

'We take a dim view of companies keeping people hanging on the line.'

A Mail On Sunday campaign has shown how companies pocket millions of pounds from customers.

Calls to 0870 numbers cost about 7.5p a minute, but that can go up if the call is made from a mobile.
>>

I really have to laugh at the ICSTIS spokesman's statement. This lot are even more ineffective than Ofcom. At least Ofcom staff appear to understand the whole NGN scamming problem even if they do not want to take any action. ICTSIS on the other hand cannot comprehend simple factual evidence regarding PRS and NGN. A wholly useless bunch of idiots in my experience.

It's slightly misleading, as only 0871 numbers will be regulated by ICSTIS (although 0870 numbers will supposedly become non-revenue sharing).

Also, the last time I heard anything, it was uncertain whether ICSTIS's regulation of 0871 would be as strict as for 09 numbers, regarding the ban on queueing, etc. Does anyone have more up-to-date information on this?

jrawle wrote on Sep 26^th, 2006 at 11:12am:

It's slightly misleading, as only 0871 numbers will be regulated by ICSTIS (although 0870 numbers will supposedly become non-revenue sharing). Also, the last time I heard anything, it was uncertain whether ICSTIS's regulation of 0871 would be as strict as for 09 numbers, regarding the ban on queueing, etc. Does anyone have more up-to-date information on this?

Apart from my very recent post here which does seem to indicate a very light regulation on 0871 where their use is call centre related like customer services, tech support, etc.

I suggest we all respond that call centre usage of these numbers is more detrimental than so-called live services so prohibiting call queuing should be a priority.

If not, then these numbers will be no different except that they may (note the use of the word 'may') have to display the cost of the call.  Bear in mind that current ASA non-broadcast guidelines state that all 08 numbers have to display the cost of the call so in most cases there will be no different between 0871 numbers now and when they come under ICSTIS regulation.

bbb_uk wrote on Sep 26^th, 2006 at 11:27am:

If not, then these numbers will be no different except that they may (note the use of the word 'may') have to display the cost of the call.  Bear in mind that current ASA non-broadcast guidelines state that all 08 numbers have to display the cost of the call so in most cases there will be no different between 0871 numbers now and when they come under ICSTIS regulation.

But Ofcom agreeing to the use of 0871 as an official premium rate is itself a massive and despicable con as the public will still see it as like 0870 and continue to think its National Rate.

An equal con is 0844 and 0845 which are also premium rate failing to be brough under ICSTIS's control.

The world Ofcom is very bad for my blood pressue.  Do you think I can sue them for mental cruelty.

Also bbb do you have any evidence that ICSTIS bothers taking any more notice of what the public says in their responses to its consultations than Ofcom ever did?

wrote on Sep 26^th, 2006 at 5:43pm:

But Ofcom agreeing to the use of 0871 as an official premium rate is itself a massive and despicable con as the public will still see it as like 0870 and continue to think its National Rate.

I agree which is why I've mentioned in my draft response here to Q8 that it is even more important that call costs are mentioned due to the common misunderstanding that 087x are 'national rate'.  I've only mentioned this because it seems to me like ICSTIS don't really want to force companies to display the cost everywhere like you have to with 09x numbers.  What the difference is between them (apart from call costs) I've no idea.  There really then is no excuse why ICSTIS can't force companies using 0871 to display the cost of the call as well regardless of medium (tv/radio advert, magazine, etc).


Quote:

Also bbb do you have any evidence that ICSTIS bothers taking any more notice of what the public says in their responses to its consultations than Ofcom ever did?

Nope, I don't and if anything I suspect that they want to take the very light touch (with hardly any regulation) for those using 0871 numbers as that appears what Ofcom want as well.

Basically, Ofcom and ICSTIS put businesses first and consumer detriment last.

bbb_uk wrote on Sep 26^th, 2006 at 6:03pm:

Basically, Ofcom and ICSTIS put businesses first and consumer detriment last.

And don't we know it. >:(

We need to force those who have the power to investigate the total regulatory failure of Ofcom to protect the rights of UK telecoms consumers like the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards to take the necessary action.

wrote on Sep 26^th, 2006 at 6:26pm:

We need to force those who have the power to investigate the total regulatory failure of Ofcom to protect the rights of UK telecoms consumers

Is it possible to take legal action against these kinds of government authorities? After all, they have a legal obligation to protect the legitimate public interest. This from the BBC:


Quote:

Legal challenge plan over GM rice Friends of the Earth has said it will start a legal challenge against the Food Standards Agency (FSA) over the sale of GM rice in UK supermarkets. It claims the agency privately told retailers they did not need to test for contamination of rice by GM products. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5354294.stm

The National Audit Office reports directly to Parliament (not a Ministers) and has quite a powerful influence.  Formal complains about Ofcom’s method of operation and value for money should be made to the National Audit Office - you can send an email.  Free.  No risk.

The appropriate way to challenge government departments or Public Body by court action, is by judicial review to the High Court, that is, the Divisional Court of the Queen’s Bench. Expensive.  You make a formal application (complex) and pay a court fee. If you are not successful you pay the other sides costs.  If you win, they pay your costs.

An alternative method, that has been discussed recently, is to make a formal complaint to the European Commission, either directly or via your MEP, or both.  An email will do.  Free.  No risk.

You can try all or a combination of the above.

Hi kk,

You seem to know your stuff.  :o I like it.

As regards the judicial review route, it looks like they've got that one sewn up. Regular members of the public need not apply. Big money only. That's just about right.

As for the audit office, that sounds very interesting. Only problem is, as I understand it (not very well) the audit office is primariy intended to make sure no-one is running away with the kitty. I don't think anyone's suggesting that of Ofcom. Would the audit office really look at whether Ofcom is fulfilling its statutory obligation? But as you say, no risk.

What about the European angle. Umm, I guess I should look for the discussion on this. Sounds interesting.

I remember hearing an MP on the Today programme talking about the GM rice issue and how the authority was scandalously failing to uphold the law --a serious matter, it was suggested. The interviewer kept asking whether he wasn't making a mountain out of a mole-hill.

It seems to me that in general public authorities are failing to perform the role of protector of the public interest which they were created for. The ASA, Trading Standards, Ofcom, and now the FSA all seem to be operating more as committees for organizing the common affairs of big businessrather than as protectors of the weak and vulnerable. I guess it's all part of making Britain better for business.

Better would be if we could sue the telcos directly for breach of the law. They would fairly sit up and pay attention then. But legislation which legislates and then leaves enforcement in the hands of public authorites leaves ordinary members of the public bereft of any direct means of redress and forces us to eat out of the hands of the relevant body.

I'm not quite sure what we can do, if anything, but surely there must be something, if the body in question simply ignores its statutory obligations. But if the only meaningful measure involves spending huge sums in legal fees with the risk of paying expences, then it seems we are just reduced to minions hoping the great and the good will protect us out of the kindness of their hearts. This adds up to a profound diminishing of our status as equals in this so-called democracy.

Sorry if that sounds a bit high-flown.

As for the nitty gritty, I don't know what would happen if we went through Europe, but my hunch is not very much not any time soon. There ought to be a mechanism whereby public authorities can be slapped if they don't do what we pay them to do.

>:(

kk wrote on Oct 1^st, 2006 at 1:54pm:

The appropriate way to challenge government departments or Public Body by court action, is by judicial review to the High Court, that is, the Divisional Court of the Queen’s Bench. Expensive.  You make a formal application (complex) and pay a court fee. If you are not successful you pay the other sides costs.  If you win, they pay your costs. An alternative method, that has been discussed recently, is to make a formal complaint to the European Commission, either directly or via your MEP, or both.  An email will do.  Free.  No risk. You can try all or a combination of the above.

The National Audit Office is I think a very real prospect because of the scandalous cost of Ofcom and its cynical careerist self serving non consumer focused senior executives.

Ofcom costs as much as the FCC in the USA to run for a country that has less than a quarter of the population.  The remit of the FCC is very similar to Ofcom.  The French communications regulator only costs a tenth of what Ofcom does.  Also you will note that the Office of Fair Trading frequently takes other industries to task for far lesser anti competitive scams (sunglasses for instance) than the £1 billion a year 084/7 ripoff and its huge detrimental impact on the per call cost of the average uk telephone call.  The problem is that the OFT's powers were transferred to Ofcom for telecoms and broadcasting issues and Messrs Carter and Currie seem to consider that competition entails NTL, Sky, BT etc being able to offer a far wider range of high per month ongoing fee products with hideously complex charging features and total non disclosuure in advance of each individual purchase when you make it in the case of phone calls.

The problem is that the owner of this site Daniel appears to have no real interest in bringing all of these scams to an end since as long as they exist he has a profitable site earning many thousands of pounds a week or month from click through banner adverts.  Daniel is in fact an entirely commercial animal who himself is quite happy to exploit good money making opportunities.

However probably if each of us here who feel so passionately on the issue wrote to the Chief Executive of the NAO, OFT and our MEP and our MP expressing our concern at the cost of Ofcom and the fact that it is not achieving competitive markets it might have quite an impact if enough of us wrote.  The problem is that Daniel controls the mailing list on this site and you will note for instance that he did not email everyone encouraging them to write to ICSTIS a few days before its Pre Consultation closed.  If ICSTIS had receive 1,000 responses from consumers on the scam proposals to move 0871 to it and then not have full price disclosure applied to other 09 ICSTIS controlled numbers they might have felt under a lot more pressure.

Our big problem is that the owner of this site is not drumming up an angry and overwhelming public campaign.  It suits him for people to get angry enough to visit his website to potentially bring him more revenue but it does not suit him for the whole disgraceful scam industry to be closed down. ;) >:(