ICSTIS have launched another site called Phonebrain.org.uk.

This new site is a child's guide to premium rate services but also briefly mentions 08x numbers.

Not very surprisingly, even ICSTIS describes 084x/087x numbers as either 'local' or 'national' rate.  See this page, and from it I quote:-


Quote:

What does the code mean to you and your money? Most expensive = 090 Name = premium rate Cost = 10p - £1.50 per minute Next expensive = 087 Name = National rate Cost = up to 10p per minute Then = 0845 Name = Local rate Cost = up to 4.5p per minute Cheapest = 080 Name = Freephone Cost = free 0800REVERSE This starts 080 and is free to dial but the person getting your call will have to pay. It costs £3.48 for the connection and then it will cost 50p per minute from a landline or 60p per minute from a mobile. If you can't get through and leave a message, this will cost £2.34. BUT with all codes (even 080) network charges may apply and call costs can vary depending on network

I have just sent an email to the Director and Deputy Director, along with a copy to the PA to the Director and webmaster.

0800REVERSE
This starts 080 and is free to dial but the person getting your call will have to pay. It costs £3.48 for the connection and then it will cost 50p per minute from a landline or 60p per minute from a mobile. If you can't get through and leave a message, this will cost £2.34.

So that means anyone with a landline can receive a call, and if the person can't get through then we can get charged £2.34 for allowing people to leave a message.

I always thought that receiving a reverse charge call was optional.  You have to speak to the person who answers the phone, and he/she accepts.  If the answerphone, or 1571 kicks in, or the person refuses to accept the call, then surely we shouldn't be charged.

Shiggaddi wrote on Dec 6^th, 2006 at 5:27pm:

0800REVERSE This starts 080 and is free to dial but the person getting your call will have to pay. It costs £3.48 for the connection and then it will cost 50p per minute from a landline or 60p per minute from a mobile. If you can't get through and leave a message, this will cost £2.34. So that means anyone with a landline can receive a call, and if the person can't get through then we can get charged £2.34 for allowing people to leave a message. I always thought that receiving a reverse charge call was optional.  You have to speak to the person who answers the phone, and he/she accepts.  If the answerphone, or 1571 kicks in, or the person refuses to accept the call, then surely we shouldn't be charged.

That's the way it used to be before (I assume) de-regulation.

I'm under the impression you can contact 0800Reverse and specifically ask them to block/stop any calls via them so as to avoid this excessive fee for basically not being in to answer the phone.

bbb_uk wrote on Dec 6^th, 2006 at 5:37pm:

I'm under the impression you can contact 0800Reverse and specifically ask them to block/stop any calls via them so as to avoid this excessive fee for basically not being in to answer the phone.

This is obviously a huge ripoff compared to getting an 0800 package from www.call08.com if you need such a facility.

Still it would in theory be quite a good emergency facility for your kids etc if only the call charges weren't such a scam and if only all mobile phones no longer conveyed any calls to an 0800 number free of charge.   Imagine your kids calling you on their mobile phone using the 0800 number thinking it was a free call and then being hit with these charges for receiving them even though they still also paid 30p per minute or whatever for the call. :o :'( :'( :'(

I have come to the conclusion that Ofcom is now nothing more than a legalised charter for every telco scammer and cheat in the United Kingdom to come up with ever more devious schemes to ripoff and fleece UK telecoms consumers.

As Bobby Boy has suggested before this all needs tackling at high level either through the EU and the Misleading Advertising Directive or through the Parliamentary Ombudsman and by complaining to the Director Generals of the OFT and the Competition Commission that Ofcom isn't enforcing effectively functions that they would normally carry out in other UK industries.

How can we have a government that on the one hand bans smoking at the pub to protect our health and has CCTV and speed cameras almost everywhere to track our every move on the road but has then opens us up to being assaulted by every devious telco scammer known to mankind? :-? :-/ :( :'( :'( :'(

bbb_uk wrote on Dec 6^th, 2006 at 4:56pm:

ICSTIS have launched another site called Phonebrain.org.uk. This new site is a child's guide to premium rate services but also briefly mentions 08x numbers. Not very surprisingly, even ICSTIS describes 084x/087x numbers as either 'local' or 'national' rate.  See this page, and from it I quote:- Quote: What does the code mean to you and your money? Most expensive = 090 Name = premium rate Cost = 10p - £1.50 per minute

Even that's wrong.

There are at least 7 types of 090 calls which cost 5p/minute to call!

090000 and 090877 are a couple.

Off topic replies discussing 0800 Reverse expensive charges have been moved to This Thread.

I have emailed ICSTIS about their description of 0845/0870

bbb,

I really think the title of this thread ought to be "Now ICSTIS claim 0845 and 0870 are Local/National Rate" as the PhoneBrain title is really a bit of a red herring to be honest.

NGMsGhost wrote on Dec 7^th, 2006 at 9:52am:

I really think the title of this thread ought to be "Now ICSTIS claim 0845 and 0870 are Local/National Rate" as the PhoneBrain title is really a bit of a red herring to be honest.

I agree and have just changed the title.

bbb_uk wrote on Dec 6^th, 2006 at 5:25pm:

I have just sent an email to the Director and Deputy Director, along with a copy to the PA to the Director and webmaster.

I have just done the same, also copied to all the committee members and the complaint e-mail on their "contact us" page.

It is scandalous that a telco regulator can get it so wrong, even Ofcon now admit they are not "local/national rates".

[smiley=embarassed.gif]Sorry to do this!! But am aged old crone of 73 who wishes to thank whoever posted alternative number for Aldi Stores! It worked a treat!! Many thanks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

derrick wrote on Dec 7^th, 2006 at 10:58am:

I have just done the same, also copied to all the committee members and the complaint e-mail on their "contact us" page. It is scandalous that a telco regulator can get it so wrong, even Ofcon now admit they are not "local/national rates".

But did you also copy in your email to the CEO (Ed Richards) and board directors (exec and non exec all of whom have Ofcom email addreses) of Ofcom highlighting that this is a prime example of Ofcom's total failure to adequately deal with the 084/7 problem and the fact these calls are not local/national rate and that thus Ofcom is in dereliction of its duties under the EU Misleading Advertising Directive which have been delegated to it to enforce by the government in place of the usual OFT and Competition Commission who do this work for most other UK industries.

Ofcom email addreses are firstname.lastname@ofcom.org.uk

The Ofcom Board and its members can be found at www.ofcom.org.uk/about/csg/ofcom_board/biogs/

bbb_uk wrote on Dec 7^th, 2006 at 10:06am:

I agree and have just changed the title.

Thanks bbb.

This is kind of a relevant topic when of course we have also learned from their Pre-Consultation that ICSTIS also don't seem to think 0871 numbers are in fact Premium Rate, even though is the supposed reason the regulation of these numbers is being put under their control.

Now we learn that that they don't even understand 084/7 numbers are "uncontrolled premium rate" either. :( :o :'(

Just received the following:-

Dear Derrick,

Thank you for your interest in our website, www.phonebrain.org.uk.

The wording ‘local rate’ and ‘national rate’ will be removed.

Regards,

Luis da Silva
Website Co-ordinator
020 7940 7467
ldasilva@icstis.org.uk

ICSTIS
Clove Building
4 Maguire Street
London SE1 2NQ
www.icstis.org.uk

NGMsGhost wrote on Dec 7^th, 2006 at 11:10am:

derrick wrote on Dec 7th, 2006 at 10:58am: I have just done the same, also copied to all the committee members and the complaint e-mail on their "contact us" page. It is scandalous that a telco regulator can get it so wrong, even Ofcon now admit they are not "local/national rates". But did you also copy in your email to the CEO (Ed Richards) and board directors (exec and non exec all of whom have Ofcom email addreses) of Ofcom highlighting that this is a prime example of Ofcom's total failure to adequately deal with the 084/7 problem and the fact these calls are not local/national rate and that thus Ofcom is in dereliction of its duties under the EU Misleading Advertising Directive which have been delegated to it to enforce by the government in place of the usual OFT and Competition Commission who do this work for most other UK industries. Ofcom email addreses are firstname.lastname@ofcom.org.uk The Ofcom Board and its members can be found at www.ofcom.org.uk/about/csg/ofcom_board/biogs/

Have done that also, then received the reply in my post above

derrick wrote on Dec 7^th, 2006 at 11:29am:

The wording ‘local rate’ and ‘national rate’ will be removed. Regards, Luis da Silva Website Co-ordinator 020 7940 7467 ldasilva@icstis.org.uk

Yes Mr da Silva,

That's all very well and good but how did a supposedly responsible regulator like ICSTIS ever allow such misleading statements to be published in the first place and what breakdown occurred in the management chain of control that failed to prevent such misleading statements from appearing on the ICSTIS website?  What were Mr Whiteing and Mr ICSTIS doing while all this was going on and how long has the misleading information been published on the ICSTIS website for? ;) :o >:(

Here is my quick email I sent to the Director, etc.


Quote:

Upon visiting your new website, www.PhoneBrain.org.uk, I noticed that you are giving out misleading information. In your landline section of your new website, http://www.phonebrain.org.uk/landline/ , I noticed that you state that calls to 084x are known as 'Local rate' and calls to 087x are known as 'National rate'. I feel obliged to inform you that with your technical expertise/knowledge of the telecom industry (obviously 09x more than anything), you should be fully aware that the ASA, Trading Standards and Ofcom themselves have agreed that describing 084x/087x numbers as either 'Local' or 'National' rate is misleading because they actually cost more than a local/national rate geographical call. Although it shouldn't be needed, below are links to the ASA which confirm that describing such numbers as 'local' or 'national' is misleading and should be avoided.  As you are aware, the ASA is funded by Ofcom and most policies adopted are with Ofcom permission.  I'm sure a phonecall from yourselves to Ofcom will confirm that Ofcom themselves agree that such statements are misleading. As a regulator of the telecom industry, I was very surprised to see that you still think 084x numbers are local rate and 087x numbers are national rate and worse still misleadingly describe them as such. I also note in your 'landline' section that you state 080x calls are freephone.  Whilst this is true from a landline, I feel you should point out that 080x calls are not free from mobiles.  I note you briefly mention that call costs from networks may vary but under the circumstances and the fact that 080x are charged upto 35p/min from a mobile, I believe you should at the very least mention under the '080x calls are freephone' statement, mention that call charges WILL apply from mobile networks simply because most (if not all) mobile networks charge for freephone calls from mobiles. Additionally, under your 'mobile' section ( http://www.phonebrain.org.uk/mobile/ ), you state that calls to 09x numbers cost between 10p/min to £1.50.  Whilst this is true from landlines, it isn't true from mobiles.  I therefore believe that because it is under the 'mobile' section and you state that calls will cost upto £1.50, that you are misleading visitors into thinking the maximum charge from a mobile to a 09x number is £1.50.  I therefore believe that you should someway make it clear that costs can be more from mobiles or specifically mention the maximum charge that could be incurred from a mobile (whatever that maybe) because visitors (and children in particular) are not likely to be aware that costs are actually more from a mobile. I look forward to your reply.

I today, received the following reply from the Director himself:

Quote:

We'll look at the points you make. I have most sympathy with your point that 09 calls from mobiles carry a premium - although the fact is every network (landline or mobile) now applies some additional network charging. The issue is the magnitude. I must emphasise this is a site for 10-14 year olds - give or take. It is not a code, handbook or definitive presentation of a numbering regime which is fraught with confusion. For one group of people it is a way of getting helpful simple messages across. I think your description of ASA and their funding from Ofcom is incorrect but do not propose we go down that path. With thanks

... and here is my reply back to him:


Quote:

Thank you for your email. I totally agree it's very difficult to have any kind of pricing accuracy as every network does apply some additional charging.  I've found that most of the time, landline charges vary only slightly whereas calls to mobiles can (and often do) vary a lot depending on number called. My point about 084x/087x being described as local/national is misleading even from a landline (even more so from a mobile network) which is why I mentioned it.  I believe in one of Ofcom's consultations they were thinking of calling those numbers "Business Rate Services", etc to stop the confusion over them being referred to as local/national rate which under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 (Part III) this is misleading as confirmed by Trading Standards. As you state the issue is the magnitude of the additional charging and this is where mobile networks come into a league of their own with their additional charge.  Again, I agree that you can't give any pricing information unique to mobile networks simply because they vary from mobile network to mobile network.  I note in one point on the 'landline' section you mention, "BUT with all codes (even 080) network charges may apply and call costs can vary depending on network." On the above point, I think the use of the word "codes" to describe a telephone call/number for your intended audience of this website maybe confusing.  How about replacing "codes" with "calls" so it reads, "BUT with all calls (even 080) network charges may apply and call costs can vary depending on network."  At the end of this you could possibly make it clear that costs from mobiles networks can vary a lot like adding a sentence like, "Calls to these numbers from mobile networks cost a lot more."  This sentence is true so I can't see any legal trouble happening over it especially as you're trying to highlight to kids that NTS & PRS numbers vary a lot - especially from mobiles. In fact, Ofcom in their quest for clearer consumer transparency on calls to these type of numbers have already changed regulation to force networks to be more upfront about the costs to these numbers however only a few networks have complied the rest haven't so far (probably because it's not in their interests to do so).  Due to this Ofcom have launched an investigation into it. As to my point on ASA funding, I thought that Ofcom funds (maybe to a limited degree like yourselves) the ASA otherwise I'm at a loss to explain how ASA funds itself.  Whereas you are part-funded by Ofcom and the premium rate industry, as far as I was aware ASA doesn't charge for its services so therefore funding is obtained from somewhere and I thought it was Ofcom. Anyhow thanks for your quick response and I do realise you are just trying to make it a little more clearer the actual costs of these calls, etc which I'm afraid in this current state of affairs, is a very difficult thing to do - at least accurately anyhow.

Quote:

I must emphasise this is a site for 10-14 year olds - give or take. It is not a code, handbook or definitive presentation of a numbering regime which is fraught with confusion. For one group of people it is a way of getting helpful simple messages across. I think your description of ASA and their funding from Ofcom is incorrect but do not propose we go down that path.

Surely the very fact that it is vulnerable teen and pre-teen children that are being miseducated about the cost of these 084/7 calls and that this false impression that they are local/national rate calls may then stay with them all their lives makes this misdescription all the more scandalous and deplorable.

Mr Kidd gives the impression they are only children so it doesn't really mater. :o [smiley=thumbdown.gif] [smiley=thumbdown.gif] [smiley=thumbdown.gif]

The wording has now been changed

# Next expensive = 087
Cost = up to 10p per minute
# Then = 0845
Cost = up to 4.5p per minute

derrick wrote on Dec 7^th, 2006 at 1:31pm:

# Then = 0845 Cost = up to 4.5p per minute

Isn't it up to 5p per minute over at NTL? ::)

Please find below the reply I rec'd (positive other than repeating that it is just for kids!), together with my follow up thank you email (haven't posted my original email)


Dear Mr xxxxx,  

Thank you for your recent email providing feedback on our new phonebrain
website.

I must emphasise that this is a site for 10-14 year olds - give or take. It is not a
code, handbook or definitive presentation of a numbering regime which is fraught
with confusion. For one group of people it is a way of getting helpful simple
messages across which is the reason why we originally used the terms "local" and
"national" rate. 

As you are aware the website was only launched this week, it will be an evolving
site and we are taking all feedback onboard. We have already updated the landline section to exclude the use of local and national rate wording and on receiving your email it has been recognised that we need also to update the jargon buster section. This will be updated shortly. 

We appreciate the time you have taken to view and comment on the phonebrain
website. 

Regards 

Karen 

Karen Kingdom

Evening Team Leader

020 7940 7455

kkingdom@icstis.org.uk 

ICSTIS



Karen,

Thanks for making the changes so quickly - it is appreciated.

If you asked most people they would say 0845 is local and 0870 is national rate so
it is going to take a long time to get the message across so not putting this
message into children's minds is very important. I have lost count how many times I have been told that 0845 is a local number by people who honestly believe it.

So it was depressing to see it on your site of all sites!

Now of course we are getting lots of scams using the 0870 number as it is a
revenue generator. I have certainly had numerous calls where I am asked to phone back for my free holiday, or to pick up a message, or the call rings once and hangs up so you call back to see who it is. This is even though I am TPS registered, after all scammers don't care about that. And off course 0870 and 0845 numbers don't come under your scrutiny so it is safer for them than an 09 number (for which I have absolutely no objection).

FYI I first became involved in this campaign when the government used an 0870
number as the help line for the London Bomb victims. A disgrace that they have
promised never to repeat.

Thanks again for your prompt action and it is good to see you use a Geographic
number.

Keith.

The bottom line is that Ofcom has done no national newspaper advertising or publicity that 0845 and 0870 are not Local/National Rate.  Whereas they took National Newspaper adverts when they deregulated BT prices saying it would make things better even though it led to a 20% price rise.

Ofcom are serial liars and incompetents  It is all the fault of various current and former cynical senior Ofcom staff and New Labour cronies who are trying to featherbed their old telco chums at NTL and elsewhere. >:( >:( >:(

Unfortunately, they haven't changed the error in the pricing of 090 calls and, worse still, their JargonBuster page shows:


Quote:

084 – this is the start of a local rate number.  Local rate numbers cost up to 4.5p per minute from a land line (fixed line phone) but if you call from your mobile call costs vary and you may be charged more. 087 – this is the start of a national rate number. National rate numbers cost up to 10p per minute from a land line (fixed line phone) but if you call from your mobile call costs vary and you may be charged more. 09 – this is the start of a premium rate number. Premium rate is the most expensive rate with services costing between 10p and £1.50 a minute/message (plus any other network charges).

Re Jargon Buster Page: If you see my previous post they say they are going to now change this also following my email.

Keith wrote on Dec 7^th, 2006 at 3:45pm:

Re Jargon Buster Page: If you see my previous post they say they are going to now change this also following my email.

Thanks, I missed that bit.

UPDATE 09:05 8/12/06.

The Jargon Buster page has been updated and now reads:


Quote:

084 – numbers starting 084 cost up to 4.5p per minute from a land line (fixed line phone) but if you call from your mobile call costs vary and you may be charged more. 087 – numbers starting 087 cost up to 10p per minute from a land line (fixed line phone) but if you call from your mobile call costs vary and you may be charged more. 09 – this is the start of a premium rate number. Premium rate is the most expensive rate with services costing between 10p and £1.50 a minute/message (plus any other network charges).

They've still got the price of 084 numbers wrong because they've overlooked 5p/miinute 0844 numbers.

They have also failed to correct the misinformation about the cost of some 090 numbers (still overlooking the 5p/minute numbers they authorise).

Then again, it's probably the best we can hope for from Ofcon!

You have to realise their CE was only paid £414,463 in 2004/5 (heaven only knows what that's risen to now).

bbb_uk wrote on Dec 6^th, 2006 at 4:56pm:

ICSTIS have launched another site called Phonebrain.org.uk. This new site is a child's guide to premium rate services but also briefly mentions 08x numbers. Not very surprisingly, even ICSTIS describes 084x/087x numbers as either 'local' or 'national' rate.  See this

It is a sad and dam-ning indictment of the whole sordid UK telecommunication industry that a so-called regulator, presiding over a three billion dollar per year PRS 'industry' cannot even get its facts right relating to the cost of 084 and 087 numbers. Furthermore it is about to assume responsibility for regulation of one subset of these numbers, namely 0871. If the regulator is so utterly clueless then it should not have such a remit. It is useful to compare the idiotic and incompetent ICSTIS and its so-called consumer-protection measures with the US regulator, the FCC, which deals with telephone scams in a professional, serious and consumer-driven manner. The UK, it seems, has to suffer from blithering idiots at ICSTIS and Ofcom propping up an industry reliant upon scams and deception. What a joke.

Having just visited the UK for the first time in two years, it was staggering to see just how common these numbers are.

The glowing tribute to ICSTIS, in a foreward to ICSTIS' 20 year anniversary publication, by the Rt Hon Margaret Hodge MP, shows just how high it is regarded by the Minister for Industry. For those of us who have suffered from telephone scams, aided by ICSTIS ineptitude, our comments would be somewhat different.

http://www.icstis.org.uk/pdfs_news/20anniversary.pdf

<<
Congratulations to ICSTIS on its 20th anniversary.

It is indeed an impressive achievement that
consumers and businesses now enjoy the benefits
that flow from a successful premium rate services
industry worth over £1.6 billion a year.

Telecommunications are crucial to the modern, global
economy. Premium rate services have moved from a niche
market to mainstream media. In ICSTIS’ lifetime we have seen
the birth of television text voting, the use of premium rate
for charitable donations and an explosion of personal digital
content, such as ringtones and music downloads.

This success is a credit to the pioneers of this new technology
and their marketeers but is also a huge credit to ICSTIS
which has ensured that every innovation and development has
been monitored and regulated to the highest possible standard.

Without ICSTIS, consumer protection would be at risk,
consumer confidence would be lower and the market would
not be the one we see before us today.

During ICSTIS’ 20 years the industry has evolved dramatic
ally. ICSTIS has risen to the challenge of ensuring a good
customer service to consumers using premium rate services
who have complaints or enquiries about services.

There have been problems, yes, but, in this anniversary year,
ICSTIS can report that nine out of every 10 calls to its Contact
Centre are answered within 30 seconds, as well as now providing
a comprehensive public-facing website. I am also very glad
to learn about the launch of a children’s website this autumn
to inform and protect young consumers.

As ICSTIS looks forward to the future in a converging
digital world, it can also look back with a great deal of pride on
what it has achieved.
>>

Fairly typical (meaningless) New Labour rhetoric!

Asked a question?  Smile (show teeth if you've got some) and answer the question with the words you rehearsed beforehand even if they've nothing to do with the question and, whatever you do, keep talking continuously so the questioner cannot interrupt to tell you you're not answering the question which was asked.

Heinz wrote on Dec 9^th, 2006 at 8:20pm:

Fairly typical (meaningless) New Labour rhetoric! Asked a question?  Smile (show teeth if you've got some) and answer the question with the words you rehearsed beforehand even if they've nothing to do with the question and, whatever you do, keep talking continuously so the questioner cannot interrupt to tell you you're not answering the question which was asked.

I couldn't agree more.  The only problem is that the Tory party is now led by someone specialising in precisely the same vacuous techniques.

I arrived home tonight to find a mailing saying that the Tory Party will be having a new weekly national lottery and that the jackpot will be a stunning £1,000 :o ::)

But incredibly they have managed to spin themselves into believing that their party members are all just going to be falling over themselves to buy tickets in the same way as the real National Lottery.  Even if the £1,000 rather than £20,000,000 prize were not enough of a deterrent you would think they might have figured out that crusty church going Tory party members are on the whole precisely the kind of people who do not in the main buy tickets in the National Lottery. ;)

Don't know if anyone managed to get a response from these people re the emails being sent to them, i eventually got this one after just getting auto response but continued to request a reply:-

Ofcom reference: 1-330****

Dear Sir,

Thank you for you e-mail to Ofcom regarding you concerns with non geographic numbers. (0845 & 0870). I have been asked to respond to you directly regarding this matter.

Your e-mail refers to ICSTIS’ information site Phonebrain and the misleading information on the particular page http://www.phonebrain.org.uk/landline/. I have looked into the matter and would like to advise you that it appears the incorrect terms have now been removed.

I would like to thank you for bringing this matter to the attention of ourselves and ICSTIS.

Yours sincerely

Katy Emadi.

Icstis are still claiming that 0845 numbers are local rate on their website.  A few examples

The Office of Fair Trading (OFT)
0845 050 1614 (Local rate)

Office of the Telecocommunications Ombudsum (OTEB)
0845 050 1614  (Local rate)

Telephone Preference Service (TPS)
0845 070 0707 (Local rate)

It beggers belief that the people in charge have no idea. >:(

jimjim wrote on Jan 26^th, 2007 at 5:45pm:

Icstis are still claiming that 0845 numbers are local rate on their website.  A few examples The Office of Fair Trading (OFT) 0845 050 1614 (Local rate) Office of the Telecocommunications Ombudsum (OTEB) 0845 050 1614  (Local rate) Telephone Preference Service (TPS) 0845 070 0707 (Local rate) It beggers belief that the people in charge have no idea. >:(

I suggest emailing ICSTIS's CEO and directors (www.icstis.org.uk/about/icstis/executive/directors.asp) and also cc to all board directors of Ofcom (www.ofcom.org.uk/about/csg/ofcom_board/biogs/) who are firtname.lastname@ofcom.org.uk and also colette.bowe@ofcomconsumerpanel.org.uk who is Chairman of the Ofcom Consumer Panel.

Using www.writetothem.com I would also write to your MP and MEP expressing your concern over Ofcom's regulatory failure to ensure compliance with UK trading standards law on price disclosure and the EU misleading advertising directive.  Ideally reach deadlock with ICSTIS over the issue then go to your MP and ask your MP to get the Parliamentary Ombudsman to investigate the issue.

Well just noticed that ICSTIS state that 084 is local and 087 is national rate in their pdf brochure here which comes under the heading, 'Consumer Guide to protecting yourself against Premium rate scams'.

I found it in on their Consumer Publications webpage.

Look at last page (bottom left hand side) - it reads:


Quote:

Unless they refer you to a premium rate number, we can’t deal with complaints about: geographical numbers (beginning ‘01’ or ‘02’) freephone numbers (beginning ’080’) local rate numbers (beginning ’0845’) national rate numbers (beginning ‘087’) ...

We really do not stand a chance do we? with morons like this "regulating"  >:(

derrick wrote on Apr 25^th, 2007 at 3:27pm:

We really do not stand a chance do we? with morons like this "regulating"  >:(

The phrase "its like putting the kids in charge of the sweet shop" springs to mind for some strange reason.

Just look at Ofcom's new "Communications Director".  He joins them hotfoot from a job at principal 0870 scammer boys BSkyB......... ;) ::) >:( :'(

Not only is ICSTIS sill "misleading" (i.e. lying to) the public over this (see http://www.icstis.org.uk/pdfs_news/prs_protection_factsheet.pdf bottom of page 3) it actually has the audacity to give other people a hard time when they describe 0871 numbers as "premium rate" (see http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=39783).

I phrase with the words "pot", "kettle", and "black" in it springs to mind.  ;)

PremiumRateFighter wrote on May 23^rd, 2007 at 9:24am:

Not only is ICSTIS sill "misleading" (i.e. lying to) the public over this (see http://www.icstis.org.uk/pdfs_news/prs_protection_factsheet.pdf bottom of page 3) it actually has the audacity to give other people a hard time when they describe 0871 numbers as "premium rate" (see http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=39783). I phrase with the words "pot", "kettle", and "black" in it springs to mind.  ;)

ICSTIS is merely a body for legalising the existing of as many of these scamming lines as possible and only takes action against the behaviour of its most extreme and out of control members.

I hope you will be responding to their current consultation on their future regulation of 0871 numbers saying it is outrageous they propose no maximum queuing time on hold.  Also that it is outrageous that the number range is to be allowe to remain as 0871 and not forced to change to an 09 prefixed code.

ICSTIS have now fixed this  (see http://www.icstis.org.uk/pdfs_news/prs_protection_factsheet.pdf bottom of page 3) following my complaint.

So complaining sometimes works!

PremiumRateFighter wrote on May 24^th, 2007 at 5:04pm:

ICSTIS have now fixed this  (see http://www.icstis.org.uk/pdfs_news/prs_protection_factsheet.pdf bottom of page 3) following my complaint. So complaining sometimes works!

Complaining quite often works with those who have made a genuine error throught stupidity and ignorance (undoubtedly the case with the ICSTIS person who wrote this and is clearly working in the wrong job if they aren't interested in telecoms prices) but as fast as we correct one set of sp called "errors" new "errors" emerge because the whole 084/7 system is inherently crooked and designed to stop people realising easily and automatically that these are are Premium Rate numbers.

The only thing that would stop this would be forcing all revenue share numbers to move to 09, all normal rate non geographic numbers to 03 and then 08 would then be returned to Freephone only.  There would then be no further confusion as to what is Premium Rate.

NGMsGhost wrote on May 24^th, 2007 at 5:44pm:

The only thing that would stop this would be forcing all revenue share numbers to move to 09, all normal rate non geographic numbers to 03 and then 08 would then be returned to Freephone only.  There would then be no further confusion as to what is Premium Rate.

Which is EXACTLY what many of us suggested in our responses to the Ofcom 'consultation' on the subject - which was, now I must put this tactfully, IGNORED.

I now bar all 070, 0845, 087 and 09 numbers using my Orchid.  I also bar 'CLI withheld' incoming calls so any firm calling me has to reveal a number to make my phone ring (I then view the CLI and ignore any which start 070, 0845, 0870 and 09).

Heinz wrote on May 24^th, 2007 at 6:31pm:

I now bar all 070, 0845, 087 and 09 numbers using my Orchid.  I also bar 'CLI withheld' incoming calls so any firm calling me has to reveal a number to make my phone ring (I then view the CLI and ignore any which start 070, 0845, 0870 and 09).

I bet you don't bar Number Unavailable numbers or otherwise you would hardly hear from any UK businesses at all. ;) :P

While admiring your principled stand it strikes me that you are rather cutting off your nose to spite your face here.

I certainly minimise 084 and 087 calls and always try to find the alternatives (including emailing if I  think there is any chance they may reply to the email) but if its an organisation I still need to deal with for other practical reasons then I do on rare occasions call them while always making sure to complain about the number and usually firing off an email pointing out the error of their ways to their Chief Executive.

NGMsGhost wrote on May 24^th, 2007 at 7:15pm:

I bet you don't bar Number Unavailable numbers or otherwise you would hardly hear from any UK businesses at all.

Oh yes I do - so they either have to release a CLI (my bank rang on a mobile number the other day) or write to me.

Heinz wrote on May 24^th, 2007 at 8:03pm:

Oh yes I do - so they either have to release a CLI (my bank rang on a mobile number the other day) or write to me.

Heinz,

Even though I consider myself something of an extremist on the question of 084/7 numbers you carry the fight against these numbers to heights of extremism that I could not even begin to contemplate.

ACR would be no good to me since even calls from my mother using 1899 would be barred.  And to be honest about 75% of my daytime calls have no caller id so I know that taking your extreme position would mean that people I want to contact me simply could not.  Also it is usually not the fault of the person calling me that their company has number withheld or unavailable displayed.

Finaly ACR is a chargeable service so would render it out of the question from my point of view.

NGMsGhost wrote on May 24^th, 2007 at 9:06pm:

ACR would be no good to me since even calls from my mother using 1899 would be barred.

Sorry, I should've explained.  My landline number is the one F&F have and use.  I have one corded phone and 3 DECT handsets connected to that.

My BT Broadband Talk (geographical) number is the one with the (free) ACR permanently on (and 1571 permanently off).  I have one DECT phone connected to that.

Guess which one the banks, credit card companies, utilities etc. are given?

Heinz wrote on May 24^th, 2007 at 9:13pm:

Sorry, I should've explained.  My landline number is the one F&F have and use.  I have one corded phone and 3 DECT handsets connected to that. My BT Broadband Talk (geographical) number is the one with the (free) ACR permanently on (and 1571 permanently off).  I have one DECT phone connected to that. Guess which one the banks, credit card companies, utilities etc. are given?

I still don't understand your strategy.

I have the one normal phone line on BT equipment but with the Post Office.  I haven't left the Post Office because they paid me £65 in cash incentives to join them, they don't have a minimum call charge but per second billing and they do let me use 18185 with impunity and they even let me dial any number at all by dialling the 1280 BT over-ride, albeit that it then seems to be the BT rate for that call with some kind of 10% handling fee.

I am in the phone directory (I loathe with a pashion the stupid 50% of people who are not) but I am also registered with the TPS.

Despite my registration with the TPS suddenly ast Autumn a small band of hardened cold call abusers like Bracken Bay Kitchens and Data Preference Solutions called me every so often trying to sell me things.  On each occasion I filed a formal complaint with the Information Commissioner and copied the complaint to the Chief Executive of the Direct Marketing Association (DMA) who run the TPS.

This year I have not received any of these manned sales calls at all and my presumption is either that the fact that Ofcom has shown it is finally to going get serious with the main scammers like BrackenBay Kitchens has put them off or that the DMA's CEO has added me to some kind of emergency "protect yourselves from this blighter" list to his members as my being someone to erase from all their databases at all costs due to my fondness for filing complaints with the ICO.

I hear back each day from businesses that I have called and want to hear from and on about 3 occasions out of 4 no CLI is displayed.  This is because the telecoms manager of their business has taken this stupid decision wo withhold CLI and not the people I am dealing with.  If I had ACR although some businesses would manage to call me another way with a CLI plenty of them would just give up on the basis that I was unreasonably difficult to call.  In fact I don't even see why ACR exists as a service when such a high percentage of phone calls are still Number Unavailable.  I do see why Choose to Refuse exists but I imagine that can be easily circumvented by the use by the caller of an overseas Voip carrier that does not provide any UK CLI information.

I think my strategy still avoids most unwanted calls but without stopping people I actually want to hear from calling me. ;)  ::)

NGMsGhost wrote on May 25^th, 2007 at 5:01am:

I still don't understand your strategy. I think my strategy still avoids most unwanted calls but without stopping people I actually want to hear from calling me. ;)  ::)

We must agree to disagree then.  

If I give a firm or organisation my phone number so that they can contact me but their attempt to do so is rejected because they withhold their number, that is not because I am making myself "unreasonably difficult to call" as you put it;  it is because they are unreasonably concealing their identity.  

I really don't care if it's because some IT bod within the firm or organisation has made a stupid decision, it's the firm's fault.  Equally, I would blame the CEO if a member of his staff was rude to me.

Heinz wrote on May 25^th, 2007 at 11:16am:

We must agree to disagree then.   If I give a firm or organisation my phone number so that they can contact me but their attempt to do so is rejected because they withhold their number, that is not because I am making myself "unreasonably difficult to call" as you put it;  it is because they are unreasonably concealing their identity.   I really don't care if it's because some IT bod within the firm or organisation has made a stupid decision, it's the firm's fault.  Equally, I would blame the CEO if a member of his staff was rude to me.

Yes but some of us actually have lives to lead too whereas it seems you may allow the demonstation of your principles to get in the way of some aspects of living yours.

Clearly some companies that you may need to urgently speak to just won't be able to call you, however much you protest to the contrary.