[edit]Some of the following posts were split off from the NEG Propaganda thread.[/edit]


For many, many years now there has been a fight to prevent 08x numbers being used as stealth premium rate numbers.

Over the years, Ofcom released many, many consultations and then finally gave in and decided to stop the use of revenue sharing on 0870 numbers only but allowed a further two years nearly (could be extended by Ofcom as well) in which companies/government departments using 0870 could decide to stay on 0870 or migrate to other number ranges.

At the same time, Ofcom announced it would put 0871 numbers under the remit of ICSTIS (premium rate regulator) and it appears that all ICSTIS wants to do with 0871 numbers is to ensure clearer price transparency on call costs but has no plans at this time on doing anything to prevent us consumers being charged whilst stuck in a queue for which it has been reported that we consumers can be waiting longer than 20minutes for the called party to answer.

This leads me to doing this poll because some forum members quite rightly believe that all 084x/087x numbers should be migrated to 09x and that existing 09x safeguards like being charged whilst stuck in a queue is applied.

Now I would really love for this to happen but given that after so long nothing much has happened as would have liked and the pressure from companies to keep 08x numbers as they are (and some government departments) then this is why I ask the following question:-

(due to field length limitations in creating a poll, the full question and poll options are below)

Do other forum members realistically believe that Ofcom will...

• Option 1: Force migrate ALL users of 084x/087x numbers to the 09x range and ensure existing 09x safeguards are applied?
  
• Option 2: Accept a compromise and make it well known the costs involved in 08x numbers and the fact that revenue sharing does exist and these numbers are just a mini-premium rate number and therefore prevent the use of the terms lo-call, local, national, etc?

I use the word compromise and realistically because IMHO I can't actually see Ofcom giving in to option 1 and I believe we stand more of a chance with option 2.

As most of us will know there have been articles highlighting the fact that 0870 is a premium rate and some articles have highlighted the costs involved (although some have incorrectly highlighted the costs involved) and to some limited way this has led to a bit of public outrage and some companies have moved back to geographical numbers or gone for lower costing numbers instead of 087x numbers.

Therefore it could be said that option 2 is in effect (although limited) with regards to 0870 numbers and lately 0844 numbers used by surgeries.

Once you have voted, you have 1 day in which to change your mind.

Dave wrote on Aug 14^th, 2007 at 5:06pm:

he is really on our side.

I am in sympathy with the general objectives of the Sayno campaign, but have a number of qualifications. I am not prepared to "take sides" on every occasion when invited to do so. I will however do so whenever this serves some good or necessary purpose.

Whilst I understand how some could come to believe that the NHS should offer both "choice" and "value for money" to "consumers", I am NOT on their side if invited to support this position in argument. A large part of my earlier posting was intended to cause them to give careful consideration to the implications of applying and pressing this principle.


NGMsGhost wrote on Aug 14^th, 2007 at 5:22pm:

I wish he would say what he actually meant

The well-tempered nature of my position on these issues may make it difficult to ascertain, because I do not see society as comprising goodies and baddies. I believe that the points I make are themselves perfectly clear.

I post to forums when I see some potential benefit in contributing points for discussion. I find it regrettable that much of the discussion (in this thread and in all forums) consists of open personal exchanges, exploring the character of the individuals who post, rather than discussion of the points they try to make. This must be seen as intimidating for many readers who would otherwise be keen to contribute.

I repeat my invitation to conduct an extended exchange of views on off-topic matters such as campaign tactics, Ofcom and the significance of the difference between citizens and consumers. Much of the dialogue that has arisen here, including possible responses to this posting, would be better conducted off-line.

David

SilentCallsVictim,

I will only say that if several of us had told you that we felt some Silent Calls were perfectly acceptable in a variety of circumstances as long as the calls were not malicious in nature or frequently repeated then you would have been disappointed in our views.

This campaign opposes the use of ALL 084 and 087 covert premium rate numbers and the ones run by NEG doctors surgeries are clearly covert in their nature.

I also noted in passing that an earlier post in this thread that you said a certain amount of dishonesty was to be expected in marketing.  Again I do not agree with you.  It happens but regulators should always try to penalise and prosecute those who use blatant dishonesty to sell goods.

The reason you are encountering flack here, which you are not comfortable with, is because your views are clearly not fully supportive of our campaign and instead you only seem to support us selectively as and when it suits you.

As you appear to find use of 0844 covert premium rate doctors numbers acceptable perhaps you would care to indicate which 084 and 087 numbers you do not find acceptable and on which you therefore look up the geographic alternatives on this website? :-? :-/

I remain unhappy about having to communicate in this way.



NGMsGhost wrote on Aug 15^th, 2007 at 9:03am:

if several of us had told you that we felt some Silent Calls were perfectly acceptable … you would have been disappointed in our views.

True, my response would have been nothing more than disappointment, given that the line drawn around what was acceptable was reasonably clear. If not, I would have challenged the views expressed.

I accept that Ofcom cannot be expected to take action in anything but relatively serious cases, and have not asked it to do so. I could therefore be accused of sharing this disappointing view.



NGMsGhost wrote on Aug 15^th, 2007 at 9:03am:

a certain amount of dishonesty … in marketing.

I see it as foolish to pretend that every piece of marketing material that should not cause its author to be prosecuted must be entirely honest and truthful.

When in the role of a potential purchaser, we must expect hype and misrepresentation and deal with it accordingly. We should also expect those who have a duty to us to do the same.

A GP cannot excuse their decision to levy charges on their patients by citing misinformation from NEG.



NGMsGhost wrote on Aug 15^th, 2007 at 9:03am:

your views are clearly not fully supportive of our campaign you only seem to support us selectively when it suits you

It would be dishonest of anyone to misrepresent their views as being fully aligned with those of others.

We will each effectively determine where our opinions are to coincide as we form them. I aim not to form mine with particular reference to those of any other person or group, and certainly not for the sake of convenience.

I could equally accuse our campaign of not being fully supportive of my views, but I cannot see how that would help anyone.



NGMsGhost wrote on Aug 15^th, 2007 at 9:03am:

you are encountering flack here, which you are not comfortable with

I recall expressing my distaste for ad hominem argument. This distaste applies both to what I do myself and what may be done to me.


Reply continues /…

…/ Do we really want this in the forum?


NGMsGhost wrote on Aug 15^th, 2007 at 9:03am:

look up the geographic alternatives on this website

This is a tricky one for me. I hope not to cause too much offence to those who host this posting.

If the normally published NGNs were best for most callers, whereas geographic alternatives were best only for some particular group (e.g. mobile users or those based overseas), then I would see the publication of such a list as a fully appropriate solution. I understand that this is not the case, as few or none benefit by calling an NGN rather than a geographic alternative under present tariffs.

Insofar as the list helps some to avoid being deceived, it is doing good.

If the list were not part of a vigorous and effective campaign aimed at removing deceit, then I would oppose it outright. Simply offering a choice that some may access does nothing to right the wrong being perpetrated on others. It may even be seen to diminish their grounds for complaint. The Sayno campaign does not however rely solely on this simple approach.

Attempting to compel users of 084 and 087 numbers to reveal geographic alternatives so that they may be published on this website is a different matter. I oppose this tactic. If action is to be taken against harm being done to the public interest by soliciting calls to NGNs, then this must be for the sole purpose of causing the harm to be ceased. I cannot support the idea that a limited opportunity for some to get cheaper phone calls is an appropriate way of addressing the public interest issue.

The website is open to all, it is widely publicised and I am sure that the Sayno campaign would be delighted if everyone used it regularly. There is no intention to limit its use to a select group. The sad fact of life is that it cannot be a proper solution to those cases where use of NGNs presents a problem.



NGMsGhost wrote on Aug 15^th, 2007 at 9:03am:

As you appear to find use of 0844 covert premium rate doctors numbers acceptable, perhaps you would care to indicate which 084 and 087 numbers you do not find acceptable

Whilst some complain about the number of digits, this does not cause me to find them unacceptable, and so I would raise no issue with the numbers themselves. I am not able to provide a list of the particular numbers that I would find unacceptable if used in such a manner, as covered below.


I find it unacceptable to sell a service without declaring the price, or by pretending that it is “free”. I find the degree of distinction presently drawn between revenue sharing numbers and premium rate numbers unacceptable. Furthermore, I find it unacceptable that the revenue split between the provider of the service and the carrier(s) is treated as an issue of commercial confidentiality. Given that telecommunications service providers are regulated in the interests of their consumers, their share should be known in all cases.


Most public sector bodies may charge for some services, or make them difficult or expensive to access on account of factors such as location, hours of operation or use of special (e.g., 0845) telephone numbers. Direct charges and notable external costs are actually two quite separate issues, although similar effects are created, enabling obfuscation.

I do not find either to be wholly unacceptable in principle, but find many particular cases to be so. I would find it unacceptable for there not to be appropriate guidance covering exceptional cost paid to third parties, in any case where this is likely to be incurred by a service user. I find it totally unacceptable for there to be any deviation from the principle that all direct charges (not matter how the money is collected) must be explicitly detailed and declared in advance in every case. (The fee collected by a public body from a revenue sharing number cannot be covered by the commercial confidentiality referred to above.)


The NHS is a special case in respect of charges. Dental services and prescriptions are subject to charge. With some difficulty, I find it acceptable for someone in my present position to be required to make a contribution in this way when using those services. I justify this because there are many exemptions (based very loosely around need and ability to pay) and they are capped and controlled.

There are however very many grey areas in respect of these and also with others, such as charging patients for parking on NHS land, which I find unacceptable in principle although I am open to persuasion in particular cases if pragmatic considerations may be sufficiently relevant.

Depending on how the issue of NHS GPs using 0844 numbers may be moved towards a resolution, I may shortly be required to apply this pragmatic approach to some individual cases of this unacceptable practice.

The principle that NHS costs are met through taxation rather than by charging for the use of services remains in force, and I would find it unacceptable if a particular opportunity to reinforce this were not to be taken.

I find it totally unacceptable for GPs to use revenue sharing numbers.

I believe that a sufficient number of others, including those in a position to do something about it, share this view so that this will start to be corrected in the near future. I hope that the Sayno campaign will take credit for its role in such action.

David

SilentCallsVictim,

Although some forum members would like to see 08x numbers moved to 09x and in a perfect world then I'd like that as well but I personally think this will never happen.

However, because 08x do have some legitimate uses like network features, etc and I like to believe that big companies/gov departments using 0845 are doing so because they operate multiple call centres and it's easier/cheaper for them to operate a 0845.  I've found that in a lot of the cases, 0845 doesn't provide revenue for the company/gov dept using them - mostly it's just the communication company that owns the number that gets the revenue and it can be argued that this is used to pay for the advanced features the 0845 provides (assuming, of course, the company/gov dept is making use of advanced features and not simple features like simple call forwarding).

I do draw the line on 0844 (especially those costing 4p or higher) and 087x because in most cases, companies/gov depts using these numbers are doing so for the revenue share.

As a compromise, I'd be happy for 08x numbers to stay as they are EXCEPT (and providing) that Ofcom makes it widely known that 08x numbers are not lo-call, local or national and actual pricing information for these numbers is published along with the fact that revenue sharing does take place - ie these numbers are a STEALTH premium rate.

I use the word stealth because many, many consumers have no idea of the costs of these numbers and even less have any idea that the company/gov department using them may be (and is most likely) receiving revenue from the call.

All this information is known on 09x numbers but not 08x numbers even though they are essentially the same except one is lower premium rate but the other is higher premium rate.

I believe that if it was widely known that 08x numbers are charged extra than normal geographical calls and that revenue sharing is taking place then consumer outrage would force companies/gov depts to use lower costing ranges, etc.

However right now, this isn't the case and many companies/gov departments may have even been missold their number as costing local/national rate for their customers whilst at same time providing revenue to them.  For any company, this type of thing is too good to be true and would naturally be hard to say no to.

The problem does lie with Ofcom and its failure to actually stop Communication Providers and their misleading websites/advertising, etc that these numbers are lo-call, local and/or national rate.  This is just one of many areas Ofcom has failed in and continue to fail in.

Barbara wrote on Aug 16^th, 2007 at 1:56pm:

… I pay for a calls package, I expect that to include all my phone calls, I do not expect to have to pay an additional cost to the recipient of my call. …

The point here is that they are revenue sharing calls. They cannot be included in packages because (roughly speaking) they are above the price of a geographical 'normal' call. Thus, if you call a 50p/min 09 number, it is obvious that your call provider cannot stand to this. These types of numbers should be classed as such and that includes all current 084/087 numbers.

The issue is one of transparency and lack thereof. If prices were clear, then it wouldn't be commonplace for companies to revenue sharing numbers as it is now.

As SCV quite rightly identifies, the database is no fix to the underlying problem. He also says that the database is good as it helps us avoid being "deceived". Or to look at it another way, if it were there purely to avoid call charge premiums (revenue sharing) where it's justified, then this would be wrong. Acceptable uses of premium numbers are generally most 09 numbers, cheap call providers, dial-up internet and paying for ringtones. In such circumstances SCV views it as wrong to provide alternatives. These are obviously ones where the caller has a choice and should be able to avoid dialling such numbers all together if they so chose to.

I find that completely astounding, bb_uk, that you should in your own words "be happy for 08x numbers to stay as they are EXCEPT (and providing) that Ofcom makes it widely known that 08x numbers are not lo-call, local or national and actual pricing information for these numbers is published along with the fact that revenue sharing does take place". This implies profoundly that you have no fundamental objection to call queuing with revenue-generating calls, nor do you object to the scam term "revenue sharing" which was specifically coined as part of this whole rip-off to try to deceive citizen consumers, and conceal that this usage was in reality Premium calls in disguise with call queuing.

This suggests that you do not begin to understand that the origin and intent of this whole scam of "revenue sharing" with ngns was to deliberately find a way to circumvent the specific prohibition of call queuing with Premium (revenue generating) numbers in the original New Telephone Numbering Plan. The proponents well knew that there was much more revenue to be made if a way of circumventing this prohibition could be devised, than could be extracted legitimately with Premium numbers. (It was because even the regulator at that time, Oftel, understood that if call queuing were allowed with Premium numbers there would always be a propensity for unscrupulous operators to use every possible trick to protract call durations to generate more revenue, that they thus prohibited call queuing.)  I am really surprised that you do not seem to fully appreciate this issue, clearly by your statement here. [GoNGM please note]

dorf wrote on Aug 16^th, 2007 at 8:39pm:

I find that completely astounding, bb_uk, that you should in your own words "be happy for 08x numbers to stay as they are EXCEPT (and providing) that Ofcom makes it widely known that 08x numbers are not lo-call, local or national and actual pricing information for these numbers is published along with the fact that revenue sharing does take place". This implies profoundly that you have no fundamental objection to call queuing with revenue-generating calls, nor do you object to the scam term "revenue sharing" …

dorf, I think this is a compromise. Perhaps if we fight tooth and nail to get all current "revenue sharing" prefixes moved to 09, then we may fail because of the resistance from the private companies who have their snouts firmly in the trough. But if we accept a compromise we will achieve more.

dorf wrote on Aug 16^th, 2007 at 8:39pm:

I find that completely astounding, bb_uk, that you should in your own words "be happy for 08x numbers to stay as they are EXCEPT (and providing) that Ofcom makes it widely known that 08x numbers are not lo-call, local or national and actual pricing information for these numbers is published along with the fact that revenue sharing does take place". This implies profoundly that you have no fundamental objection to call queuing with revenue-generating calls, nor do you object to the scam term "revenue sharing" which was specifically coined as part of this whole rip-off to try to deceive citizen consumers, and conceal that this usage was in reality Premium calls in disguise with call queuing....

Anyone thinking realistically that Ofcom will actually move these numbers to 09x is unfortunately living in a dream world.  I said in a perfect world I'd like that but I have to accept a compromise but more importingly something more realistic that Ofcom would be willing to do.

For example, and personally speaking, I don't think Ofcom is going to do anything about 0845 even though they said they'd look at it again in the future.

I think its obvious that ICSTIS doesn't want to treat 0871 same as 09x and apply same or similar regulations (like preventing call queuing) so expecting them to do the same to other number ranges would be unrealistic and Ofcom didn't want to do anything about 0870 because it would cost companies money to change numbers (if required), etc.  When Ofcom reluctantely took the route it took for 0870, they gave companies nearly two years to decide what to do (either migrate or stay on 0870) so expecting Ofcom to announce that all 084x/087x numbers will cease and everyone will be migrated onto 09x is, you have to accept this, unrealistic.

The compromise I mentioned could actually be done without any financial impact on companies with regards to migration costs and at the same time consumers would be fully aware the costs involved in these calls and the fact that revenue sharing is (or most likely) does exist hence they are a lower priced premium rate (currently stealth premium rate).

The articles on 0870 and its costs and revenue sharing has made a small dent and some companies have realised that they risk losing customers by using these lower priced premium rate numbers which until recently they've all enjoyed without, in most cases, their customers being aware of it.

This leaves us with two choices:

1. Insist that all 084x/087x numbers are forced migrated to 09x and regulation applied same as other 09x numbers.
2. Insist Ofcom makes all consumers, etc fully aware of the costs involved with these numbers and just as important that revenue sharing does take place and they are known as mini-premium rate numbers or something similar rather than lo-call, local/national, etc.

IMHO and realistically, we have more of a chance with option 2 than option 1 simply because Ofcom can't use the excuse that it would cost billions (or whatever figure) for companies to migrate to 09x.

You could say that to a certain limited way, option 2 is happening now with regards to 0870 and I'm sure everyone on here has noticed a small change because some companies have reluctantly (obviously) changed back to geographical, or at the very least decided on 0845 instead of 0870 which was the 'standard' number most companies took.

bbb_uk, I know, roughly, the costs of calls to ngns (ie more than the zero if included in my call package), I accept that many people do not and that is an issue.   My point of view is that knowing it costs me more is no help at all if I have no choice but to phone the ngn in question!   This is the case if it is an organisation with which I have dealt and which has failed me in some way or if it is a state-backed monopoly (eg DVLA, govt depts, local authorities etc).  Knowing the cost of the call still means I have to pay it, whereas my point is I DON'T EXPECT TO HAVE TO PAY TWICE FOR THE SAME THING ie for my call package and then certain individual calls as well.   A third option is to force all telcom providers to include calls to ngns in their call packages but I don't think that is likely!   The only points I can see for pushing the transparency of calls costs are to increase public anger and revolt as more people realise about these and to make life so difficult for organisations which use ngns they might think again.   These may be forlorn hopes but that does not mean they should not be pursued.

dorf wrote on Aug 16^th, 2007 at 8:39pm:

I find that completely astounding, bb_uk, that you should in your own words "be happy for 08x numbers to stay as they are EXCEPT (and providing) that Ofcom makes it widely known that 08x numbers are not lo-call, local or national and actual pricing information for these numbers is published along with the fact that revenue sharing does take place". This implies profoundly that you have no fundamental objection to call queuing with revenue-generating calls, nor do you object to the scam term "revenue sharing" which was specifically coined as part of this whole rip-off to try to deceive citizen consumers, and conceal that this usage was in reality Premium calls in disguise with call queuing.

Here, here dorf.  It is good to see you are sticking to your guns while the moderators in this forum are beginning to shilly shally and lose their way.

The only logical campaigning position is where we demand that all premium rate calls that give revenue to the caller either directly (through a payment to them) or indirectly (by giving them free switchboard equipment or an artificially reduced contract price for handling the call routing) are on a separate range of number codes - preferably on 09.  As a slight compromise I would possibly be prepared to see lower priced recvenue share calls at 10p per minute or less on a separate code such as 06 or 04 but they must not be on 08 mixed up with Freephone and geographic rate 0870.  And worst of all 0871 premium rate must not be right next to 0870 soon to be geographic rate.

Ofcom has now launched 03 so clearly we should demand that all 084 and 087 users make up their minds and migrate to either 03 or 09 depending on whether they pay or the caller pays for their call routing.  Now cynical double talking BT tries to confuse the issue by taking 0845 prices below 01 and 02 calls in the weekday daytime for BT Option 1 users.  This is blatantly being done in order  to muddy the waters, given that 0845 will still not be part of inclusive call packages due to the revenue share at any time.  You can just see HMRC will say if we stop using 0845 it will cost most of our callers more to call us..........................

If our two moderators cannot be guaranteed to take a more robust line on these matters, instead of agreeing to a fudge so unclear that no one will know what our campaign is about, then I think it is high time that we began to look for some new forum moderators of the forum who can more robustly defend the position of our campaign. >:( :-/

NGMsGhost wrote on Aug 17^th, 2007 at 11:06am:

....... I think it is high time that we began to look for some new forum moderators of the forum who can more robustly defend the position of our campaign. >:( :-/

What exactly is the campaign?

~ Edited by Dave: Quote box tidied up

simond001 wrote on Aug 17^th, 2007 at 11:09am:

What exactly is the campaign?

To bring an end to the covert use of premium rate revenue share numbers that do not admit they are charging a premium rate and instead masquerade as local, lo-call and national rate numbers when they are no such thing.

This basically requires revenue share numbers to be located on a code where they are clearly identified and for all landline and mobile and Voip users who want the facility to be provided with a clear, free of charge, indication of the cost of every call they make both before they dial it and after they dial it.

In other words the same trading standards rules applicable to the pricing of virtually all other goods consumers buy of them knowing the price before they buy them should also apply to the currently mafia controlled UK telecoms industry.

bb_uk and Dave,

What you are suggesting here in your posts is different from what bb_uk originally posted and what I posted in reply, I believe. There is the world of difference in being prepared to accept a compromise and being "happy for 08x numbers to stay as they are EXCEPT (and providing) that Ofcom makes it widely known that 08x numbers are not lo-call, local or national and actual pricing information for these numbers is published along with the fact that revenue sharing does take place", and believing that the best compromise is for all NGNs to remain as they are. The previous statement implies that you are also happy with call queuing on Premium numbers as I pointed out. It also implies that you are happy for the scam term "revenue sharing" to continue to be used, when this term was deceitfully introduced to attempt to fool the public into believing that these numbers are not Premium numbers!

Nowhere did I suggest in my post that campaigners should hold out for all Premium (revenue generating) numbers to be moved to the 09 category, although in fact I believe that is the only rational total solution to the current problems and abuses generated by the ineffectuality and corruption of the current regulator, most of all because it was the official regulator who decided to do that in the first place - not the consumer. The official regulator originally took the decision to move all Premium (revenue generating) numbers from the plethora of 08, 03, 05 etc. numbers which they originally occupied to the category 09. It was not the citizen consumer who tried to pressurize the regulator or demanded that this should be done! The regulator took this decision in isolation as a rational and sensible decision. They also similarly decided in isolation that queuing on Premium numbers should be and would be prohibited. These decisions were then enforced in the original National Telephone Numbering Plan (NTNP), and made supposedly binding on the telecoms provider (only BT at that time I think).

BT fearing their monopoly about to end, and the inevitable loss of revenue from calls which they then carried began to look for dirty commercial tricks, to attempt to preserve some of their call revenue. They saw an opportunity with NGN calls except 09. At this time the first call queuing systems were being introduced. These were a great money spinner for BT, even as they were initially on GNs, because BT then received call revenue for the time which a caller was queuing, at the charge rate per minute, rather than nothing for an engaged call. Someone at BT then had the idea of sharing their call revenue on NGNs with the terminating subscriber (initially), although actually this was illegal under the original NTNP. BT was then beginning to experience initial limited competition for the first time with the first new call carrying providers, but this competition was with GNs initially only. They realized that by offering revenue sharing with NGNs (other than 09), since they effectively still had a monopoly with NGNs at that time, they could encourage companies to use NGNs rather than the GNs they were using, and by advising them that they could use the revenue share with call queuing this was the main marketing attraction, and thus enabled BT to get them locked into an NGN with them, preventing any competition from the new market entrant call carriers. This ensured BTs monopoly continuing with large volumes of call traffic then on NGNs instead of GNs.

CONTINUED IN NEXT POST

CONTINUED

This is understandable to some extent, in that BT had never experienced competition previously and the civil-service mentality staff had not learned to think commercially in an honest sense. The problem was that Oftel, the regulator at that time, sat by and did nothing, although what BT was doing, using NGNs other than 09 as Premium numbers, was a complete contravention of the regulations and of the original NTNP. Oftel were then in a quandary. As the complaints rolled in from consumers about NGNs other than 09 being used as Premium numbers with queuing they panicked, and invented the term "revenue sharing" so that they could reply to all the complaints with the response "No they are not being used as Premium numbers. It is Revenue Sharing and that is different"!

Once subsequently Ofcom and BT were forced to admit that "Revenue Sharing" was exactly the same as use as a Premium number the current idiocy commenced. Like the pigs in Animal Farm Ofcom then changed the NTNP to attempt to cover their tracks and allow the abuses to continue. That is where we are now. I am sorry to have to repeat this at such length, but this is the problem. People who have come into the campaign at this late stage do not seem to understand the history of how and why this has all come about, and they continuously neglect the issue of call queuing with revenue generation as being the foundation of it all. This is what Ofcom are now desperate to preserve and deceive the public about. You will note for example that call queuing and the tricks with call queuing are always glossed over by Ofcom in all statements and in all consultations. The smoke screen is always "What shall we do with the numbers?" I believe the key issue is "What should be done about call queuing on Premium numbers?".

I thus believe that the only acceptable compromise is that all call queuing must be abolished with all revenue-generating numbers. This would be enforcing the regulator's (Oftel) original decision which they took themselves without any consultation. They understood at that time what would happen if call queuing were allowed with revenue-generating numbers - and it now has!!! That was thus the decision which they originally made and I believe that the focus of this campaign should be for the regulator to enforce the original decision. With that compromise all numbers could stay where they are, with revenue sharing continuing and no one would have to change their number, even though we are back to the total confusion which existed prior to the attempt by Oftel in the NTNP to end the chaos with Premium numbers in different categories, due entirely to their complete failure to enforce their own plan.

So once you understand the history of these scams, there is no way in which any intelligent citizen consumer can ever "be happy" if call queuing on any Premium numbers is allowed to continue. I believe the best compromise is as I have stated - to insist that all call queuing on Premium numbers is prohibited and enforced with heavy fines for offenders. That after all is not a demand from citizen consumers. It is just a matter of Ofcom enforcing the regulator's own original decision so as to end the current abuse and profiteering resulting from call queuing being allowed with Premium numbers.  

Dorf,

Firstly thank you for such a clear response. It was probably the most sensible post i have seen on here, without the mindless tirades that i have become accustomed to. (NGM's "mafia" comment springs immediately to mind).

Why this campaign (which i have some support for) is listed under the heading "NEG propoganda" i do not understand. Maybe if it is to be taken seriously you should consider starting again with a clearer and less emotional team.

Unfortunately once insults and general denegration appear to be the main purpose of a forum respect is lost, focus moves away from the original ambition, and any serious contributions are ignored.

As i have stated previously, i do support the correct use of NGN's, both at  lo-call (0845) and national call (0870) rate with their respective 0844 and 0871 24/7 charged alternatives. I do however believe that they shouldonly be used where there is a benefit in kind i.e you have a value to justify the increased cost of the call.

I do not believe that they should be used in an instance where the caller is required to hold for more than 30seconds, and in this instance it shold be mandatory for the call to terminate and an automatic call is placed back to the caller.

simond001 wrote on Aug 17^th, 2007 at 12:15pm:

As i have stated previously, i do support the correct use of NGN's, both at  lo-call (0845) and national call (0870) rate with their respective 0844 and 0871 24/7 charged alternatives. I do however believe that they shouldonly be used where there is a benefit in kind i.e you have a value to justify the increased cost of the call.

But doesn't the value of 084/7 calls virtually always accrue to the called party and the way they are able to lower their own costs by more efficiently handling the call.  And often that so called extra efficiency is actually deemed to be a more orderly queue, which the caller then pays for even though the called party is actually at fault in generating the queue.

About the only legitimate use of 084/7 numbers that the caller is actually happy with are dial thru numbers for low international call routing services.  In that rare case the extra value of the 084/7 number almost all accrues to the caller.  But anyhow those numbers could function just as well on overt but lower rate 09 premium number codes


Quote:

I do not believe that they should be used in an instance where the caller is required to hold for more than 30seconds, and in this instance it shold be mandatory for the call to terminate and an automatic call is placed back to the caller.

On that point I am in 100% agreement with you and would even go further and suggest the caller gets an additinal flat rate compensatory payment from the called party of 25p put on their phone bill if the call is not answered in 30 seconds.  If call centres were penalised for bad service instead of profitting from it then they would soon start to smarten up their act.

Quote:

BT fearing their monopoly about to end, and the inevitable loss of revenue from calls which they then carried began to look for dirty commercial tricks, to attempt to preserve some of their call revenue.

Thank  goodness someone has said this at long last! It is what I have long suspected. It appears that the incumbent telco will do just about anything (selling grannie springs to mind!) to maintain its - previous - monopoly position. Off topic, I admit, but Telstra in Australia is playing exactly the same sort of tricks as BT as it sees line rental and call revenue disappear due to competition. The only saving grace is we have a strong and fiercely independent competition commission that is up to all these slimy tricks.

And - this might not be too far of subject, as I seem to recall that NEG may have some sort of tie-in with Telstra? Hmmmmm........now why wouldn't I be surprised?  >:(

dorf wrote on Aug 17^th, 2007 at 11:18am:

BT fearing their monopoly about to end, and the inevitable loss of revenue from calls which they then carried began to look for dirty commercial tricks, to attempt to preserve some of their call revenue. …

So BT should just sit back and let competition take the business. Is that not the point of competition?  ::)

What's more, if BT does it, it is a "dirty commercial trick", yet if others had done it, it would (presumably) be acceptable?


dorf wrote on Aug 17^th, 2007 at 11:18am:

They saw an opportunity with NGN calls except 09. At this time the first call queuing systems were being introduced. These were a great money spinner for BT, even as they were initially on GNs, because BT then received call revenue for the time which a caller was queuing, at the charge rate per minute, rather than nothing for an engaged call. …

When was the first network based answering service introduced? I don't think it was BT that started it off. I guess it was a mobile network thing. That's also a form of charging for a call which does not terminate on the subscriber's instrument. The engaged tone and even ringing out unanswered becomes a thing of the past in the same way that it does so with many NGNs.


dorf wrote on Aug 17^th, 2007 at 11:18am:

… Someone at BT then had the idea of sharing their call revenue on NGNs with the terminating subscriber (initially), although actually this was illegal under the original NTNP. …

If BT had not done it, do you really think that no one else would have done it?


dorf wrote on Aug 17^th, 2007 at 11:18am:

… They realized that by offering revenue sharing with NGNs (other than 09), since they effectively still had a monopoly with NGNs at that time, they could encourage companies to use NGNs rather than the GNs they were using, and by advising them that they could use the revenue share with call queuing this was the main marketing attraction, and thus enabled BT to get them locked into an NGN with them, preventing any competition from the new market entrant call carriers. This ensured BTs monopoly continuing with large volumes of call traffic then on NGNs instead of GNs.

But revenue was only paid on 0990 ("national rate"). Receivers had to pay for receiving calls on 0345 ("local rate").

The fact is that the competition in NGN providers has come about because of the way in which BT was only allowed to retain on a cost-basis, an amount for originating the call. If this had never been put in place, then we would never have as many NGN providers as we do now.

What's more, the more competition, the more providers want to set themselves apart from one another. Sharing call revenue is one such attraction and the more one pays out, the more others do. Indeed, it tends to be providers other than BT who pay out more revenue, a scheme which we oppose. Yet, these companies are not considered to be engaged "dirty commercial tricks", unlike BT who are apparently the only bad guys in all this.

The increased payment of revenue where it is possible is only the opposite effect of the driving down of call charges to callers.

Dave wrote on Aug 17^th, 2007 at 11:11pm:

Yet, these companies are not considered to be engaged "dirty commercial tricks", unlike BT who are apparently the only bad guys in all this.

I find this hilarious as this post is called NEG Propaganda.

Reading from the same hymn sheet would help your cause.

~ Edited by Dave: Quote box tidied up

simond001 wrote on Aug 17^th, 2007 at 12:15pm:

[...] Why this campaign (which i have some support for) is listed under the heading "NEG propoganda" i do not understand. Maybe if it is to be taken seriously you should consider starting again with a clearer and less emotional team. [...]

The wikipedia entry on propaganda starts:

"Propaganda is the deliberate, systematic attempt to shape perceptions, manipulate cognitions, and direct behavior to achieve a response that furthers the desired intent of the propagandist." Source: Garth S. Jowett and Victoria O'Donnell, Propaganda And Persuasion, 4th edition, 2006.

Propaganda [from modern Latin: 'Propaganda Fide', literally “propagating the faith”] is a concerted set of messages aimed at influencing the opinions or behavior of large numbers of people. Instead of impartially providing information, propaganda in its most basic sense presents information in order to influence its audience. The most effective propaganda is often completely truthful, but some propaganda presents facts selectively to encourage a particular synthesis, or gives loaded messages in order to produce an emotional rather than rational response to the information presented. The desired result is a change of the cognitive narrative of the subject in the target audience.

Given the first contribution in this thread, which I will repeat below for the sake of clarity, I believe that the term propaganda is wholly appropriate.

What is Surgery Line?

“Surgery Line is a cost-effective way for forward looking surgeries to improve the service that they offer to patients, reduce stress levels for staff and self-fund a state of the art phone system,” explains NEG’s CEO, Richard Chapman. “As you can see, this case study focuses on one of the hundreds of surgeries that have already switched to Surgery Line. By doing so, they have saved money, improved the service that they offer patients and relieved the pressure on busy staff.”

You and your staff benefit When a surgery switches to an 084 number, NEG will install and maintain the most efficient communications system on the market. You specify exactly what equipment you want to receive (from handsets to switchboards) for no extra charge. With your own 084 number, you keep about 2p from every call to re-invest in your practice, instead of BT making all the profit from calls to your surgery.

How your patients benefit Patients benefit by having their calls answered more quickly. The engaged tone becomes rare – even at peak times - because you are able to handle incoming calls more efficiently, whilst patient calls are spread out during the day. Calls to 084 or ‘lo-call’ numbers cost patients 4p per minute, the same as the first minute of BT’s standard call rate between 6am and 6pm. This means that many patients will actually pay less in total because their call is answered and processed more quickly. Significantly, the cost of calls from mobiles remains unchanged - these account for around 30% of all calls to surgeries.

The phone system that won’t test your patients “I’ve met a number of practice managers who think that Surgery Line sounds almost too good to be true,” says Chapman, “but after it’s been installed, they realise that NEG delivers everything we promise, and more.”

I am beginning to wonder whether some of the moderators on this forum have accepted some sort of "retainer" from BT? !!! Even Ofcom reluctantly accept that BT still have "SMP". This propensity to support BT in whatever tricks they pull does any campaign against these abuses no good whatsoever; in fact it is a severe impediment to the cause.

In the context which I was describing a dirty commercial trick is one based on SMP. That is what BT are continually doing - to abuse their SMP with dirty commercial tricks, and the inept, corrupt regulator lets them get away with one after another, in fact condoning their abuses as acceptable. A commercial enterprise in their position with SMP could in fact compete most effectively due to their economies of scale, if this remnant of the Civil Service was properly managed - which it is not. This is the root problem. They have kept all their old dross civil-servant staff, commercially unqualified "managers" (I use the term loosely) and they have no idea how to run a commercial enterprise. Instead of competing as they could properly on a commercial basis they can only think of dirty commercial tricks to attempt to maintain their previous government-given monopoly. Take Tesco for example. They have SMP in their market, but nothing like as significant SMP as BT have in their market. Yet Tesco can use their economies of scale to slaughter the competition; they do not resort to dirty commercial tricks to do it because they are an effectively-run enterprise managed by professionals. Now you may like them or hate them, but you have to admit that they dominate the market, and they do this on a proper commercial basis, mainly because of their economies of scale.

Dave states:

Quote:

When was the first network based answering service introduced? I don't think it was BT that started it off. I guess it was a mobile network thing. That's also a form of charging for a call which does not terminate on the subscriber's instrument. The engaged tone and even ringing out unanswered becomes a thing of the past in the same way that it does so with many NGNs.

I do not even intend to answer that as it is such a ridiculous question. However, I must observe, what on earth has that got to do with the present abuses with NGNs and queuing. I really don't see the connection.

The Dave asks:


Quote:

If BT had not done it, do you really think that no one else would have done it?

If any other carrier had done it Oftel at that time would have come down on them like a ton of bricks and you know it! It seems you just cannot understand why BT introduced so-called "revenue sharing" at all? The only reason that BT were allowed to get away with it was that their ex-BT mates at Oftel felt bad about them loosing their monopoly and wanted to help them retain it. There were possibly other considerations too, but we had better not mention those here for reasons of potential libel accusation, since I cannot prove anything. This cosy relationship between BT and Oftel first then, and now Ofcom is the root of many of the problems and why Ofcom do not fulfil their primary statutory duty - which is to protect the interests of Citizen consumers.

I could address the other issues which Dave raises, but I really think there is little point. I would be wasting my time. The only other thing I will mention is that this post of Dave's really does the campaign cause no good at all. This sort of myopic viewpoint in my opinion weakens the cause and shows remarkable and pronounced dissension, which as simond001 has pointed out dissipates the cause.

Lastly I would agree that this has all gone horribly off topic since started by bb_uk's post. This is not about NEG's propaganda at all any longer, and probably these posts since bb_uk's post which led it all off topic should be moved elsewhere?

dorf,

May I congratulate you on your masterly exposition of the fallacies in the reasoning of one of our esteemed forum moderators in so readily springing to the defence of the underhanded and anticompetitive commercial practices of BT.  Of course BT's latest decision to cut the price of 0845 calls in the weekday daytime below the cost of embryonic and fledgeling 03 calls is yet another example of the disgraceful dirty tricks of which you speak by this company and shows why the goons at Ofcom should not have ever released their price controls on BT's main line rental or call tariffs.

I am happy to see that despite the imminent arrival of your 70th birthday that there is no sign that this is any way impacting on the acuteness of your always highly atuned powers of analysis.

I think (and have voted as such) that the pricing of 08 numbers should be made more clear. None of this "blah pence from a BT landline" - it should be "maximum cost from any landline, blah pence; maximum cost from a mobile, blah pence" (and really, they shouldn't be that much more expensive from a mobile - maybe double but not up to 4 times more!!)

I've made a list of a few points I think that should be considered also:

• If people knew exactly what they were paying for a call, I feel there would be less consumer "dislike" towards them. A free "price information message" should be made at the start of every call that is not charged at geographic rates.
  
• Price should be directly linked to the "range" the number falls in. For example, the cheapest 0844 number might be 1/2p (not sure if there is cheaper) - that should be 08440; following that trend, the most expensive 0844 (5p?) should be 08449. Also, to make it clear of the price, numbers should be formatted 0844x xxx xxx (not 0844 xxx xxxx).
  
• Indeed, considering the "price ranging non-geographic", why not allocate an unused number range (04 for example) to be non-geographic, revenue sharing numbers, ranging from 1/2p (low 0844) to 10p (0871). Leave 08 numbers for free phone. That would stop confusing between free 08 numbers and revenue 08 numbers.
  

I'll add anything else I think of later on  ;D.

Barbara wrote on Aug 17^th, 2007 at 9:24am:

bbb_uk, I know, roughly, the costs of calls to ngns (ie more than the zero if included in my call package), I accept that many people do not and that is an issue.   My point of view is that knowing it costs me more is no help at all if I have no choice but to phone the ngn in question!

I agree but it is your telephone provider (BT or whomever) that decides what type of calls to include.

Calls to 08x aren't generally included as we know and I also hate that as well but the reason these calls aren't included is as Dave mentions - these calls cost your telephone provider more to carry the call which would then mean either paying an extremely high price for your inclusive tariff or having other costs increased to subsidise the cost of carrying calls to 08x.  For example, did you know that there could be two, three or even more communication providers involved in carrying calls on 08x hence why they're generally not included.

VirginMedia do have tariffs where calls to 08x are included however it obviously costs more, a lot more, for the tariff and there is a maximum amount of minutes that are included in any one month.  This is to prevent VM going into more debt because if VM had an no maximum inclusive minutes set then most people would be better off on that tariff to save paying for 08x calls but then VM would slip more and more in red (just as they are now).

Like I said earlier, I'd love for 08x numbers to be force migrated to 09x but the reality is that after years of trying, Ofcom have only done a little bit to help by removing revenue sharing from 0870.  ICSTIS has no intention of properly imposing regulation over 0871 numbers that it currently does for 09x.  This, along with the fact that it is obvious beyond any doubt that Ofcom have no intention of sorting these issues out to our (us consumers) benefit.  Instead, and as usual, Ofcom generally always side with that of their telephone provider friends which they all enjoy nice meetings to discuss things without us end consumers being present - even though in some cases decisions are made that directly or indirectly effect us consumers.

If I thought for one second we stood a chance then yes, continue.  However, I don't believe that any other forum member can honestly say that they do 100% believe that Ofcom will give-in and force migrate 08x users to 09x.

Although not ideal, a compromise could basically be to rename the 08x range from lo-call, local/national rate lies, etc to something along the lines of mini-premium rate and then if us consumers are fully aware of the costs involved and the fact that the company (and government department) they are ringing is earning revenue and this fact was advertised/well known and published then I believe that consumer outrage (that is happening to a limited degree now with 0870 numbers) will stop or at least make companies/gov departments think twice before getting one of these premium rate numbers.

This way, consumers are fully aware of the costs (ie call announcements, etc to be introduced) and the fact that they are lower-end premium rate numbers and can then choose whether to do business with a company using these numbers.

Under such pressure, I think most companies would go back to geo or switch to 03x, or at the very least have a 0845 instead of 087x number.


Quote:

A third option is to force all telcom providers to include calls to ngns in their call packages but I don't think that is likely!

So why do you think that forcing telecom providers to include calls to ngns is unlikely but yet you believe that Ofcom will actually do something and force migrate 08x users to 09x?

My point I was trying to make is that I believe realistically pushing for force migration from 08x to 09x and enforcing ICSTIS safeguards is never going to happen although I DO wish it would hence the reason for my post regarding a compromise.

Remember that we are on the same side and ideally all want the same thing but to actually stand a chance of achieving something then I believe a compromise of some kind is needed although not what I'd like.

I think all 084/7 users should be forced to migrate to 09 if they wish to continue to revenue share or alternatively to 03 if they are prepared to pay themselves for the convenuience of their enhanced call routing facilities.

The poll seems to currently have a mistake in talking of all 08 numbers migrating to 09.  It should be all revenue sharing 084/7 numbers that the consumer pays the revenue share on being forced to migrate to 09 as clearly we are content for 0800 and 0808 numbers to stay right where they are.

NGMsGhost wrote on Aug 18^th, 2007 at 1:47pm:

I think all 084/7 users should be forced to migrate to 09 if they wish to continue to revenue share or alternatively to 03 if they are prepared to pay themselves for the convenuience of their enhanced call routing facilities.

But what do you realistically believe Ofcon will give in to because that's what the poll is about - not what you or I would like!


Quote:

The poll seems to currently have a mistake in talking of all 08 numbers migrating to 09.  It should be all revenue sharing 084/7 numbers that the consumer pays the revenue share on being forced to migrate to 09 as clearly we are content for 0800 and 0808 numbers to stay right where they are.

I only meant 084x/087x by stating 08x but you are right and I've amended it accordingly.

bbb_uk wrote on Aug 18^th, 2007 at 1:57pm:

I only meant 084x/087x by stating 08x but you are right and I've amended it accordingly.

Thanks.

But I think you also need to do this for Option 2 as well. ;)

Remember this poll is what you realistically believe Ofcom are more likely to do and NOT what you'd like

bbb_uk wrote on Aug 18^th, 2007 at 2:12pm:

Remember this poll is what you realistically believe Ofcom are more likely to do and NOT what you'd like

Dear bbb,

Thank you for also correcting the error in Option 2 of the poll.

The problem is your idea and Dave's idea of what is "realistic" and mine and dorf's ideas of what is "realistic" are completely different.

You seem to be suffering from that usual problem that many forum moderators eventually seem to suffer from of believing that your understanding of what is possible is the only correct one.

NGMsGhost wrote on Aug 18^th, 2007 at 2:28pm:

The problem is your idea and Dave's idea of what is "realistic" and mine and dorf's ideas of what is "realistic" are completely different.

Well what would you realistically believe Ofcom would give-in to as a compromise bearing in mind Ofcom's reluctance to do anything at all to upset their teleco buddies and cosy meals?

bbb_uk wrote on Aug 18^th, 2007 at 2:31pm:

Well what would you realistically believe Ofcom would give-in to as a compromise bearing in mind Ofcom's reluctance to do anything at all to upset their teleco buddies and cosy meals?

I believe Ofcom will continue on the present sorry basis with 0871 numbers transferred to ICSTIS but then not subject to premium rate regulation and allowing 0844 and 0845 as a complete unregulated revenue share trojan course. Also mobile phone companies will continue to scam on 0871 by failing to include them in bundled minutes and charging extra for them by adding a price announcement thanks to Ofcom's deliberate scammer's loophole.

It is our job not to complacently accept this and roll over with our feet in the air but to take the moral high ground by continuing to campaign for a total move of all covert premium rate numbers to 09.  Then as a compromise Ofcom may eventually at least require full call price announcements and disclosure for all 084/7 numbers.

If we only campaign for full price disclosure on 084/7 our campaign will not capture the imagination of journalists and so will not work at all.

For instance the idea that doctors are running covert 09 rate premium services that stupid Ofcom has failed to act in the public interest to protect us from is of much more news value to a journalist.

If our cause can be trivialised as just people carping about only a few p per minute then we will never win.  We have to make it emotive by calling it premium rate numbers by the back door and £100 extra on the average UK domestic phone bill and £100 extra on the average mobile phone bill that people shouldn't be paying in order for us to get anywhere.

bbb_uk wrote on Aug 18^th, 2007 at 10:10am:

Do other forum members realistically believe that Ofcom will...

As I have voted for option 3, I am obliged to comment.

I believe that because 084 is presently such a mess, Ofcom has decided to wait to see what happens as a result of the relatively simple provisions that it has put in place. I believe that it will come back to review 084 in the light of:

- How the telcos go about providing and supporting 03 numbers

- How much take up there is of 03 (taking away current 084 usage)

(these two are inter-related and largely outside Ofcom’s direct control)

- How quickly dial-up internet access (a major use of 084) dies, as broadband is universally adopted (an Ofcom objective).

- How well its subcontractor (ICSTIS) copes with the considerable growth in the scale and scope of its responsibilities caused by the reclassification of 0871.

- Representations received and a general perception of public attitudes


Ofcom and the government believe that the premium rate industry should be self-regulating. The Communications Act made specific provision for Ofcom to sub-contract the operational aspects of its statutory duty to ICSTIS. ICSTIS is made up of those who earn a living from premium rate services. There is no obvious affinity between such organisations and those, like the DVLA, who recover part of their call centre costs by imposing charges on callers through use of a 0870 number. The concept of a self-regulating industry cannot be extended beyond the realms of common interest.

It is also significant to note that Ofcom’s statutory powers to impose and enforce regulations may only be applied to those who provide telecommunications services. Whilst “chatline” providers fall within this definition, the DVLA does not (although if it switches to 0871 before next February, from then it would).


If Ofcom allows revenue-sharing (as distinct from “premium rate”) to remain, then I cannot see how it could enforce the transparency about the fee element (as opposed to the total cost) that we rightly seek. In the commercial sector there is some entitlement to commercial confidentiality regarding how an originating telco distributes the money it collects from its customers.

The telcos are already under a very strong obligation to be transparent about the total cost. (Users of non-premium rate NGNs cannot be made subject to such a requirement by Ofcom.) Any failure to comply with Ofcom’s requirements must be the subject of a formal complaint. Any competing telco would be very quick to endorse or even submit such a complaint.

Our right to demand information from public sector bodies is different. I wonder if anyone has considered a FOI request to the DVLA regarding the revenue it obtains by charging fees for calling its call centre. To obtain a resolution, we may have to address this with each public sector body separately, although assistance may be provided by the COI and the No 10 Delivery Unit, who are both involved.


If I have the opportunity to study these matters further I may be ready with suggestions about how Ofcom could address all of the issues that arise. For now I am focussed on the public sector and the NHS in particular. I therefore have to disappoint those who may wish to see a total answer.

I hope these observations are helpful to the discussion – that is my only objective here. My work to actually resolve the issues is taking place elsewhere.

David

Thank you GoNGM for your kind comments concerning my evidently somewhat delayed senility !! And thank you bb_uk for sorting out the original topic and moving the off topic material to a new thread.

I have voted for the third compromise option in the poll. I have already explained what I feel that option is and why I believe it is the only feasible one from the consumer's point of view. However, I did anticipate that someone if not several of you knowledgeable people would spot the sting in the tail and realise why it is the option which I recommend. It is a subtle strategy.

Firstly, it was Oftel who originally decided to ban call queuing with premium numbers as I have emphasized already, so citizen consumers are only asking Ofcom to keep to a decision which the regulator has already made previously and failed to enforce. But the key part of this strategy is that by now demanding that they keep to and enforce their own original decision we would be aiming a fatal blow to their Achilles Heel. This is because they have tried desperately all along to conceal and parry the fact that this is really the only reason that they, the telecoms providers and companies using NGNs as Premium numbers want the status quo to continue; so that they can have queuing on Premium numbers. Once queuing was prohibited again on all Premium numbers there would be little point in using NGNs except for their original purpose, because the big money is made from queuing. I believe so far we have played into their hands, by going along with them, and concentrating on which numbers (0870, 0871, 0844, 0845 and 070PNS) should be moved where. This has been their red herring to avoid the real issue. Once call queuing was banned again they will have lost to us. They would probably then gradually rationalize these numbers themselves in time without any pressure from the citizen consumer, as the regulator (Oftel) did previously. It would be common sense.

So I believe that is the key strategy. Its great strength is that it is quite difficult if not impossible to produce complicated, verbose, smoke screen, garbled consultation documents in perpetuity concerning call queuing on Premium numbers. There are only two possibilities - call queuing on Premium numbers is either good, or it is bad. Oftel had decided rationally before that it was bad, because it will always be open to abuse as we can see only too well at present. If Oftel had previously decided that it was bad it is going to be extremely difficult for Ofcom to argue that it has all changed now, and it is not bad any more. After all they accept that it is prohibited on 09, so now that Ofcom and BT have publicly admitted that what they previously tried to pretend was "revenue sharing" is in reality use as a Premium number, they do not have a leg to stand on against an onslaught on that one issue, most of all if there is a co-ordinated voice of the citizen consumer from now on agreeing with their decisions about where the numbers should be! I believe this strategy will pull the wool from under their feet, particularly if MPs and MEPs are supporting it and making representations about it. It is nice and simple and impossible to use any smoke screen against.

So I believe our position should be, that we agree that these non-09 NGNs may be used as Premium numbers and we don't mind where Ofcom put them (although there is one place we would like to see them put them which would satisfy us the most, but we can't be rude here), so long as they keep to Oftel's original decision that queuing on all Premium numbers must be prohibited, because queuing on Premium numbers is bad - Oftel already said so. I rest my case.  

I write the following in response to comments made about my point of view and accusations that I have a somewhat “myopic viewpoint”, which some view as being supportive of BT.


dorf wrote on Aug 18^th, 2007 at 8:05am:

I am beginning to wonder whether some of the moderators on this forum have accepted some sort of "retainer" from BT? !!! Even Ofcom reluctantly accept that BT still have "SMP". This propensity to support BT in whatever tricks they pull does any campaign against these abuses no good whatsoever; in fact it is a severe impediment to the cause.

That is because I post on here because I believe that the central issue is one of having decent telecommunications services in this country. Privatisation has allowed competition to be introduced and has also created the necessity for such companies to make money (for shareholders).

I do not see how a company like BT can reduce its market share (and revenue) whilst increasing profit and still having to maintain the network, regardless of how many subscribers it has. The point is that the network infrastructure is paramount to the country for telecommunications and therefore BT can't simply close bits down to reduce costs.

This is happening with the Post Office, where rural branches are closing, because in this “modern” time, the necessity to make profit is now being put before the necessity to have a telephone service or postal service. This was, presumably, not an issue when the networks were created.

Cable is an example of a network that has been built since privatisation and we can see that the providers only want to cable areas where they know they can get a return. On the other hand, companies like BT and Royal Mail, must provide a service to all places, whether they be urban or rural.

Another example is with mobile telecommunications, where we have four principal GSM networks. The technical aspects of getting the best coverage should be paramount for mobile telecommunications. However, what we have is the completely crass solution of having four competing providers who each go and build their own networks which cover the same areas!

There are other areas that either have no coverage at all, or aren't served by all providers. Thus, whether I can get a signal or not is not defined by the whether any signal is present in my current location, but whether my provider covers that area.

I introduce this into the topic because it illustrates the difference between BT, the state run service which covered everywhere and the cable and mobile networks which have been built from square one by private finance. The better way of, creating/running the infrastructure at least, is surely the GPO/BT one, or at least to have one body that works as one. This has been proven to be the case with the railways.

There was talk about 'inefficiencies' and that competition and privatisation would drive these out. But all the extra mobile phone masts because each operator must have its own to cover the same area, I think is a sure sign that inefficiencies remain!


dorf wrote on Aug 18^th, 2007 at 8:05am:

In the context which I was describing a dirty commercial trick is one based on SMP. That is what BT are continually doing […] Yet Tesco can use their economies of scale to slaughter the competition; they do not resort to dirty commercial tricks to do it because they are an effectively-run enterprise managed by professionals. Now you may like them or hate them, but you have to admit that they dominate the market, and they do this on a proper commercial basis, mainly because of their economies of scale.

But the point is surely one of introducing competition to the market versus the SMP that wishes to keep/increase its market share. If we imagine that the ex-government operated telecommunications network has been run in a ‘Tesco-like’ manner since privatisation, what difference would this make with regards to introducing competition?

With 084/087 NTS numbers, BT only retains a small amount (on cost basis) for originating the calls. The amount left is paid to the NTS provider, as decided by the regulator. But NTS providers have no interest in reducing the price to callers. It is this which is the reason for saying no to 0870, along with the “local rate” et al lies which emanate from some telcos when marketing these numbers.

The scales are improperly balanced, whereby there are many providers who terminate calls but don't originate them. This is not the case with 01/02 calls and may help explain how the prices of these has been driven down. To me, this is the key sticking point and why calls to 0845 and 0870 remain high at (broadly speaking) the same as local and national rate when there was only BT.

Continued....

....Continued from previous post


dorf wrote on Aug 18^th, 2007 at 8:05am:

Dave states: Quote: When was the first network based answering service introduced? I don't think it was BT that started it off. I guess it was a mobile network thing. That's also a form of charging for a call which does not terminate on the subscriber's instrument. The engaged tone and even ringing out unanswered becomes a thing of the past in the same way that it does so with many NGNs. I do not even intend to answer that as it is such a ridiculous question. However, I must observe, what on earth has that got to do with the present abuses with NGNs and queuing. I really don't see the connection.

I mentioned this because NTS numbers are not the only type of numbers/service that charge calls even though they are not connected to an end subscriber, a point which you have raised. The fact is that since competition has been introduced, there are now many more instances where callers are charged even though they are not connected to the person they are calling.

On a similar note, I see no earthly reason why, in addition to ringing, busy (etc) states, which are not chargeable, we couldn't have another one which asked the caller whether they would like to be put through to the receiver's voicemail. If the caller were to hang up, they wouldn't be charged and if they pressed whatever to go to VM, then they would be charged.

However, as I've already mentioned, some technical possibilities/benefits are seemingly at odds to competition and profit making.


dorf wrote on Aug 18^th, 2007 at 8:05am:

The Dave asks: Quote: If BT had not done it, do you really think that no one else would have done it? If any other carrier had done it Oftel at that time would have come down on them like a ton of bricks and you know it! …

I am not convinced that the regulator would have stopped such payments as they would be seen as "commercial arrangements". I agree with you that 070 personal numbers are covert-premium. They go up to 50p/min from BT (five times higher than 0871), however, BT has no 070 numbers allocated. So the idea of revenue sharing and more so, the allowance by the regulator to let it continue on 070 has nothing to do with BT!!!


dorf wrote on Aug 18^th, 2007 at 8:05am:

…It seems you just cannot understand why BT introduced so-called "revenue sharing" at all? The only reason that BT were allowed to get away with it was that their ex-BT mates at Oftel felt bad about them loosing their monopoly and wanted to help them retain it. There were possibly other considerations too, but we had better not mention those here for reasons of potential libel accusation, since I cannot prove anything. This cosy relationship between BT and Oftel first then, and now Ofcom is the root of many of the problems and why Ofcom do not fulfil their primary statutory duty - which is to protect the interests of Citizen consumers.

I would not be surprised to hear that decisions have/are taken by the regulator to favour the telcos, if for no other reason ex-telco people make up the regulator.


dorf wrote on Aug 18^th, 2007 at 8:05am:

I could address the other issues which Dave raises, but I really think there is little point. I would be wasting my time. The only other thing I will mention is that this post of Dave's really does the campaign cause no good at all. This sort of myopic viewpoint in my opinion weakens the cause and shows remarkable and pronounced dissension, which as simond001 has pointed out dissipates the cause.

The campaign is about the abhorrent use of 0870 and other covert-premium telephone numbers. This is a public forum and everyone is entitled to their own views. I think that the most important point of any sensible discussion is the reasoning behind one’s views.

I believe that blaming any one party (or parties) does no good. It does not identify what positive steps we can take and is very unlikely to achieve any positive results.

This means that a lot of my post is actually irrelevant, just like blaming BT or whoever for all the wrongs. But I have made this post in response to previous postings by other members who seem somewhat blinkered in their thinking. They see that if one disagrees with their view that something (in this case BT) is bad or dislikeable, then he/she must be supportive of it. I believe that whether I like one party’s decisions or not does nothing for the cause.

The whys and wherefores of the current state are, therefore, to quite an extent, irrelevant, as we are where we are and that’s it.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Aug 18^th, 2007 at 4:01pm:

… ICSTIS is made up of those who earn a living from premium rate services. There is no obvious affinity between such organisations and those, like the DVLA, who recover part of their call centre costs by imposing charges on callers through use of a 0870 number. The concept of a self-regulating industry cannot be extended beyond the realms of common interest.

How can a such a line between these two types of service be drawn? Where do you put it?

I refer to a previous post of yours:

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Aug 15^th, 2007 at 5:35pm:

… I find the degree of distinction presently drawn between revenue sharing numbers and premium rate numbers unacceptable. …

These two seem to contradict one another. :-?

Perhaps the next bit helps to explain:

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Aug 18^th, 2007 at 4:01pm:

It is also significant to note that Ofcom’s statutory powers to impose and enforce regulations may only be applied to those who provide telecommunications services. Whilst “chatline” providers fall within this definition, the DVLA does not (although if it switches to 0871 before next February, from then it would).

So what you’re saying is that Ofcom (under the law, i.e. Communications Act) must make this distinction?


SilentCallsVictim wrote on Aug 18^th, 2007 at 4:01pm:

The telcos are already under a very strong obligation to be transparent about the total cost. (Users of non-premium rate NGNs cannot be made subject to such a requirement by Ofcom.) Any failure to comply with Ofcom’s requirements must be the subject of a formal complaint. Any competing telco would be very quick to endorse or even submit such a complaint.

Currently, quite a few telcos don’t provide pricing information for 084/087 NGNs alongside that for 01/02, as decreed by Ofcom following the consultation last year. Why would a telco put in a complaint against another? All that will happen is that they will all put in complaints against one another. When they want to, they stick together and, in this case, they keep schtum.


SilentCallsVictim wrote on Aug 18^th, 2007 at 4:01pm:

… I wonder if anyone has considered a FOI request to the DVLA regarding the revenue it obtains by charging fees for calling its call centre. …

This has already been addressed and has been discussed in parliament. See the Parliamentry Update thread, specifically this post where it can be seen that the DVLA ‘earned’ £2,894,284 during 2006/07.

dorf wrote on Aug 18^th, 2007 at 6:18pm:

… There are only two possibilities - call queuing on Premium numbers is either good, or it is bad. Oftel had decided rationally before that it was bad, because it will always be open to abuse as we can see only too well at present. If Oftel had previously decided that it was bad it is going to be extremely difficult for Ofcom to argue that it has all changed now, and it is not bad any more. …

dorf, I feel that we are in agreement. This sounds a good idea. Other than the suggestion by SilentCallsVictim that Ofcom must (by law?) draw the distinction between “premium rate” and “revenue sharing” numbers and therefore it may argue that they are not the same, meaning that call queuing is apparently bad for one and not the other.

I thought Ofcom had connived with its subcontractor ICSTIS to come up with a Consultation document on 0871 that suggests that there is not enough consumer detriment to bother to ban call queuing on these up to £6 per hour numbers.

At least I distinctly recall responding to such a consultation recently at quite some length.

So it sounds to me like Ofcom has recanted on the idea that call queuing is not allowed on Premium Rate numbers.  Bearing in mind that ICSTIS is the premium rate regulator. ;) ::) :-/

NGMsGhost wrote on Aug 18^th, 2007 at 9:42pm:

I thought Ofcom had connived with its subcontractor ICSTIS to come up with a Consultation document on 0871 that suggests that there is not enough consumer detriment to bother to ban call queuing on these up to £6 per hour numbers. At least I distinctly recall responding to such a consultation recently at quite some length.

The responses to which have yet to appear on ICSTIS' website.

Dave wrote on Aug 18^th, 2007 at 9:47pm:

The responses to which have yet to appear on ICSTIS' website.

I don't think they liked what most of the responses had to say about their proposals.

Perhaps they are having urgent internal talks with Ofcom about what to do before they publish them and the press get hold of the total numbers against their proposals and the strength of that opposition. We may yet see a limitation on the length of call queues to 0871 numbers.

Quote from jgxenite


Quote:

Indeed, considering the "price ranging non-geographic", why not allocate an unused number range (04 for example) to be non-geographic, revenue sharing numbers, ranging from 1/2p (low 0844) to 10p (0871). Leave 08 numbers for free phone. That would stop confusing between free 08 numbers and revenue 08 numbers.

But isn't this one of the major issues? Surely, the very reason that the whole sorry mess is so bad is precisely because the telcos WANTED to create as much confusion as possible between 0800 numbers and revenue share numbers. Even today, given all the negative publicity, I would guarantee that many - possibly even a majority - of British people think that there is some "connection" between 0800 and 08xx - and that these revenue share numbers are also 'free'. Just this week, whilst searching for a number on a web site for a major (non-British!) electronics supplier, I saw the British contact phone number as 0870 xxxx annotated quite incorrectly as 'Free Call'. Since the corresponding US contact number was a 1-800 number - also (correctly) annotated as 'Free Call', is there any surprise that the confusion continues? (And, should there be any surprise that the US customers get a free call and the Brits pay through the nose!  >:()

I would suspect that Telcos will fight tooth and nail against EVER allowing revenue share numbers to be given either their own range (04) or be moved to 09. The similarity between 0800 and 0870 / 0845 etc is very much in their favour!

NGMsGhost wrote on Aug 18^th, 2007 at 11:04pm:

We may yet see a limitation on the length of call queues to 0871 numbers.

I would love to see that but I think the lack of responses online is because ICSTIS only has a limited number of staff (compared to Ofcom) so maybe they haven't had time to go through all the responses and mark down what they need to before it going online.  If I remember correctly it took ICSTIS a while to do the pre-consultation which only had a few responses most of which by the industry.

Dave wrote on Aug 18^th, 2007 at 9:00pm:

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Aug 18th, 2007 at 4:01pm: … ICSTIS is made up of those who earn a living from premium rate services. There is no obvious affinity between such organisations and those, like the DVLA, who recover part of their call centre costs by imposing charges on callers through use of a 0870 number. The concept of a self-regulating industry cannot be extended beyond the realms of common interest. How can a such a line between these two types of service be drawn? Where do you put it? SilentCallsVictim wrote on Aug 15th, 2007 at 5:35pm: … I find the degree of distinction presently drawn between revenue sharing numbers and premium rate numbers unacceptable. These two seem to contradict one another. SilentCallsVictim wrote on Aug 18th, 2007 at 4:01pm: It is also significant to note that Ofcom’s statutory powers to impose and enforce regulations may only be applied to those who provide telecommunications services. Whilst “chatline” providers fall within this definition, the DVLA does not (although if it switches to 0871 before next February, from then it would). So what you’re saying is that Ofcom (under the law, i.e. Communications Act) must make this distinction?

Sorry, I raise more problems than solutions here.

Ofcom uses ICSTIS to administer self-regulation of "premium rate" numbers, on behalf of the relevant industry, assuming that members would wish to protect the reputation of their industry by ensuring high standards. (Yes, I can see the joke.) I would see the line around the industry being drawn to include only those who "earn a living" from premium rate numbers. Ofcom would find the self-regulatory approach hard to defend if organisations such as the DVLA were to be seen as part of the same industry as "chatline" providers.

There are also the issues, which I have not explored, of how the arrangement with ICSTIS works in terms of funding and the level of resource that the ICSTIS management structure can support to do its work. The delay in giving effect to the reclassification of 0871 was largely caused by the need for ICSTIS to prepare for a massive change in the scope and scale of its operation. How much more could it take?

Ofcom will be reluctant to change the way in which this arrangement works, as it has been seen to be successful (by Ofcom and others, not by me).


I am not a lawyer. I can only suggest that reading section 120 may lead one to agree with me that (in this respect) Ofcom can only regulate those who provide telecommunications services, and that Ofcom may determine this according to whether or not they rent a "premium rate" number. One may read more of the Act to find the same limitation applying in respect of all its other regulatory powers.


The present distinction is unacceptable, but it may not be easy to get this removed.

Any suggestions (other than that of placing a bomb under Riverside House) would be very welcome.



NGMsGhost wrote on Aug 18^th, 2007 at 11:04pm:

I don't think they liked what most of the responses had to say about their proposals. Perhaps they are having urgent internal talks with Ofcom about what to do before they publish them …

We must remember that ICSTIS is a private body. Other than specified duties imposed through its contract with Ofcom, it is responsible only to its members. Why would it publish critical responses to a consultation? Ofcom admitted to suppressing publication of 164 out of 235 responses to its consultation on its Silent Calls policy.




Dave wrote on Aug 18^th, 2007 at 9:00pm:

Why would a telco put in a complaint against another?

Have a look at the "Competition Bulletins" to see a bunch of kids snitching to teacher.

If some are gaining a competitive advantage by not publishing prices properly, one might have thought that those who may be suffering as a result would be keen to see this corrected. (There may be evidence to prove me wrong.)


SilentCallsVictim wrote on Aug 18^th, 2007 at 4:01pm:

… I wonder if anyone has considered a FOI request to the DVLA regarding the revenue it obtains by charging fees for calling its call centre. …

Apologies, I missed the extensive postings in another thread showing that written ministerial questions have been asked, and answered.

A good follow-up question would be to ask how many of those who contributed to these legitimate earnings were advised in advance of the fee they would be paying to the DVLA (or other body) for the chargeable service that they choose to use.

mikeinnc wrote on Aug 19^th, 2007 at 4:39am:

Quote from jgxenite Quote: Indeed, considering the "price ranging non-geographic", why not allocate an unused number range (04 for example) to be non-geographic, revenue sharing numbers, ranging from 1/2p (low 0844) to 10p (0871). Leave 08 numbers for free phone. That would stop confusing between free 08 numbers and revenue 08 numbers. But isn't this one of the major issues? Surely, the very reason that the whole sorry mess is so bad is precisely because the telcos WANTED to create as much confusion as possible between 0800 numbers and revenue share numbers. Even today, given all the negative publicity, I would guarantee that many - possibly even a majority - of British people think that there is some "connection" between 0800 and 08xx - and that these revenue share numbers are also 'free'. Just this week, whilst searching for a number on a web site for a major (non-British!) electronics supplier, I saw the British contact phone number as 0870 xxxx annotated quite incorrectly as 'Free Call'. Since the corresponding US contact number was a 1-800 number - also (correctly) annotated as 'Free Call', is there any surprise that the confusion continues? (And, should there be any surprise that the US customers get a free call and the Brits pay through the nose!  >:() I would suspect that Telcos will fight tooth and nail against EVER allowing revenue share numbers to be given either their own range (04) or be moved to 09. The similarity between 0800 and 0870 / 0845 etc is very much in their favour!

Yes, I suspect that for a lot of foreign people, the distinctions between 0800, 0808, 0844, 0845, 0870 and 0871 are completely lost on them - especially if they come from the US, where effectively every 1-8xx (except for a few cases) number is "toll-free".

It wouldn't surprise me in the least if the reason for all this is purely to confuse people, make the pricing of such numbers completely obscure so as to acquire as much revenue from the unsuspecting British public as possible. It is completely mind boggling!!

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Aug 19^th, 2007 at 8:54am:

Dave wrote on Aug 18th, 2007 at 9:00pm: Why would a telco put in a complaint against another? Have a look at the "Competition Bulletins" to see a bunch of kids snitching to teacher. If some are gaining a competitive advantage by not publishing prices properly, one might have thought that those who may be suffering as a result would be keen to see this corrected. (There may be evidence to prove me wrong.)

Most things mentioned on Competition Bulletins are the fact that they've been unable to negotiate a price for terminating calls, etc.

With regards to the fact that NGN prices should be given equal prominence as geographical numbers (what Dave is referring to), this regulation has been in place for a year now and none of the landline providers (except VirginMedia) comply with it.  That is BT, which still has SMP, still doesn't fully comply with it despite being warned by Ofcom over many, many, many months ago (along with other OCPs).  The only reason I can see why OCPs don't want to do this (especially BT as it probably originates and terminates most calls to 084/087 numbers) is because I believe they possibly make more of a profit on 084/087 numbers than geographical numbers (or at least a significant proportion) and obviously if they (OCPs) made clear the actual call costs involved and the fact that they can cost significantly more than geographical numbers which would become apparent if both geographical call costs and NGNs are displayed on the same page, then this may lead to more complaints about call costs and may question whether 084/087 is local/national rate.

Ofcom have, IMHO, dragged their feet over this despite admitting that many consumers have no idea of call costs but yet other things Ofcom can act very quickly when it wants to.

For example, did you know that at one time despite geographical calls costing less than an 0845, Ofcom only published an 0845 number.  Following complaints, it revealed the geographical number as well then eventually removed the 0845 and just published the geographical number.  Now surely Ofcom in its position would know that most consumers actually paid more for 0845 than geographical number?!?!

Dave, I am glad you liked my suggestion.
Quote:

dorf, I feel that we are in agreement. This sounds a good idea. Other than the suggestion by SilentCallsVictim that Ofcom must (by law?) draw the distinction between “premium rate” and “revenue sharing” numbers and therefore it may argue that they are not the same, meaning that call queuing is apparently bad for one and not the other.

It is important though to place the emphasis on this being the only issue that campaigning is needed on. Once this was won everything else would fall into place naturally, because without the scam of call queuing on Premium numbers the principal attraction of this rip-off would be ended. If everyone continues to concentrate instead on what 08 or 07 number should be moved where we will never win!

This would have been more difficult until BT and Ofcom publicly declared that these numbers were being used as Premium numbers. (BT even did and still may list them now as Premium numbers on their price list.) So hand-in-hand with this has to go the reality that there is no such thing as a Revenue Sharing number or a Revenue Generating number or a Special Service number which is not a Premium number. All revenue generating and revenue sharing numbers are Premium numbers and must not be called revenue sharing. That is exactly what a Premium number is - a number which is not charged at the normal call rate and which shares the Premium rate paid (above a normal number charge rate) between the telcos carrying the call the terminating subscriber and/or an intermediary.

Carriers will lose their rebate from 0870 from Feb 08. This means that everybody who has previously used these will a. lose their incom stream, and b. need to spend money changing numbers on stationary, vehicles, adverts etc. If they do not there will be a cost applied to every call they recieve.

Although this is the type of action that you want, the costs for these changes will be passed to the consumer. That is the nature of economics.

We have already seen the travel industry, which was a heavy user of 0870's, move to 0871 numbers. This is the only way to safeguard the income that was previously recieved.  This gives a nett loss to the consumer as they are now paying more for the call, and the busieness has incurred ditional costs to facilitate the change.

Consumers have the right to choose,  and a more sensible option was always to fully promot ethe call costs and allow the consumer to decide whether they wanted to pay for a 087 call, or find a different vendor. I believe that the more succesful a campaign to change NGN's, the higher the eventual cost will be for the consumer. We have seen this throughout the deregulation of telecoms services, with the average directory enquiries call now costing double the cost for 192.

Education is the way forward. a full and transparent pricing structure that is fixed regardless of carrier or origination (GSM/PSTN). Whether this would come under the guise of price fixing i do not know, but if so a max call cost (ppm) could be applied.  

simond001 wrote on Aug 19^th, 2007 at 11:38pm:

We have already seen the travel industry, which was a heavy user of 0870's, move to 0871 numbers. This is the only way to safeguard the income that was previously recieved.

An industry that relies on now completely deceiving the consumer about the real cost of its products.  For instance why is it that any high street or non travel online retailer charges me nothing at all extra to use a credit or charge card compared to a debit card but the travel industry finds a ripoff £4 or £5 flat rate charge universally necessary (even British Airways now), even if the value of the flight I'm buying is only £60! :o

And would any of these travel companies have moved to 0871 numbers if they were not reliant on being able to deceive the average ignorant punter (and most punters who book their holidays on the phone rather than the internet now are either usually old or ignorant) that an 0871 number only costs the same as an 0870 (and therefore in the ignorant consumer's mind a normal priced phone call) and a charlatan regulator that does not require compulsory call price announcements saying these are non standard priced calls and that a proportion of the call price goes to the called party.  And would they have moved to 0870 in the first place had the regulator again not been totally in bed with the telecoms industry by allowing the introduction of covert premium rate numbers, universally misdescribed at that stage as being National Rate calls.


Quote:

Education is the way forward. a full and transparent pricing structure that is fixed regardless of carrier or origination (GSM/PSTN). Whether this would come under the guise of price fixing i do not know, but if so a max call cost (ppm) could be applied.

What hope of education for the consumer when we have unprincipled and gutless Ofcom in charge of proceedings (the ultimate example of the kids being put in charge of the sweet shop).  If the Office of Fair Trading had a say over telecoms competition matters there might have been some hope.

For instance the only major efforts Ofcom has ever made to educate the public was when it paid for full page newspaper adverts last summer to claims that its de-regulation of BT price controls would actually enhance competition for the consumer.

But what has happened since.  The cost of line rental has gone up by around 5% and the minimum price of an 01/02 call for BT Option 1 customers has gone up 400% in order to lower the difference with and try and force them on to a much cheaper BT Option 3 so they no longer see a major price difference in switching their business elsewhere.  And to top it all and most outrageously of all BT has been allowed to introduce new restrictive contract terms that make it difficult to leave them.  Even though they are still the massively default and incumbent operator.

You refer to the Directory Enquiries fiasco.  With respect this is just yet another example of the spectacular ineptitude and incompetent regulation at which Ofcom is so good/bad depending on your point of view.  Another regulator would have introduced a system that would have driven the price of the product down.

In my view the problem here is actually the regulator as in other industries greater competition and more choice has actually reduced the cost of the product for the consumer.

NGMsGhost wrote on Aug 20^th, 2007 at 6:26am:

And would any of these travel companies have moved to 0871 numbers if they were not reliant on being able to deceive the average ignorant punter …

I think that this will eventually become known by the consumer and these companies that use them (especially 0871) will have to stop. More and more people will see expensive entries on their phone bills and will realise. Unfortunately those who make the calls from a pay as you go mobile won't be aware and those who don't get itemised bills will also be unaware.

When this day comes, companies will then have to stop using them as their cover will have been blown, as it were. I feel it will undermine people's opinion of using the telephone (as well as that of the companies which used the numbers).

simond001 wrote on Aug 19^th, 2007 at 11:38pm:

Carriers will lose their rebate from 0870 from Feb 08. This means that everybody who has previously used these will a. lose their incom stream, and b. need to spend money changing numbers on stationary, vehicles, adverts etc. If they do not there will be a cost applied to every call they recieve. Although this is the type of action that you want, the costs for these changes will be passed to the consumer. That is the nature of economics. We have already seen the travel industry, which was a heavy user of 0870's, move to 0871 numbers. This is the only way to safeguard the income that was previously recieved.  This gives a nett loss to the consumer as they are now paying more for the call, and the busieness has incurred ditional costs to facilitate the change.

The real reason these numbers are used is to gain revenue without the caller, in most cases, being aware of it - ie via stealth methods.

If the travel industry were to use 09x numbers costing exactly the same amount - 10p/min - then we all know there would be an outcry and the travel industry would lose potential customers as well as probably existing customers and therefore they'd be be forced to use lower priced numbers like 0844 or 0845.

As a consumer, I have the right to know if the company I'm ringing is receiving money from the call - ie i'm ringing a premium rate number.

Besides, if ICSTIS wasn't afraid to protect consumers more then being charged whilst in a queue would be prohibited so therefore in most cases it would be cheaper to ring a 0871 costing 10p/min than a 0870 costing 7p/min simply because in most cases the overall cost of the call is due to being held in a queue.

Although I mention travel industry, this really applies to all companies.

NEG, just like most other communication providers (CPs) and companies/government departments using these numbers are exploiting and taking advantage of a weak regulator that has problems enforcing call transparency and stopping CPs from using misleading claims like lo-call, local and national rate to imply the call is cheaper or the same as geographical numbers.  In fact, only the ASA in it's very limited remit is actually doing something although even here the ASA could do better but at least they're doing something.

If 084/087 numbers were known to all as mini-premium rate numbers and being charged whilst stuck in a queue was prohibited just as it applies now to 09x numbers then very few companies would be using these numbers.


Quote:

Education is the way forward. a full and transparent pricing structure that is fixed regardless of carrier or origination (GSM/PSTN). Whether this would come under the guise of price fixing i do not know, but if so a max call cost (ppm) could be applied.

Ofcom cannot willy nilly apply any fixed pricing of anykind unless that telecom provider has significant market power (SMP).  For example, when Ofcom announced it would introduce 03x number range charged at same rate as geographical numbers and included in any inclusive minutes, there was outrage from original communication providers moaning that Ofcom had over-stepped their powers by forcing 03x to be charged the same as geographical numbers.  Ofcom managed to get around this by stating all they're doing is ensuring that 03x is charged at the same rate as geographical and telecom companies are still free to set their own prices for calls to geographicals.

I believe Ofcom does have the power to force all operators to charge the same regardless of whether mobile/landline but I believe that all communication providers would oppose this and take Ofcom to court/European court over it and this is why Ofcom have been reluctant to take this step.

simond001 wrote on Aug 19^th, 2007 at 11:38pm:

Carriers will lose their rebate from 0870 from Feb 08. This means that everybody who has previously used these will a. lose their incom stream, and b. need to spend money changing numbers on stationary, vehicles, adverts etc. If they do not there will be a cost applied to every call they recieve.

Didn't stop them doing it in the first place to rip us off did it? No worries about the cost then!

~ Edited by Dave: Quote box tidied up

NGMsGhost wrote on Aug 20^th, 2007 at 6:26am:

And would any of these travel companies have moved to 0871 numbers if they were not reliant on being able to deceive the average ignorant punter (and most punters who book their holidays on the phone rather than the internet now are either usually old or ignorant) that an 0871 number only costs the same as an 0870 (and therefore in the ignorant consumer's mind a normal priced phone call)...

I don't know if the word ignorant is fair IMHO.  There are just so many places like company websites, telephone bills, telephone providers websites, etc, etc.. that describe these numbers as lo-call, local or national then why wouldn't the average punter (to choose your words) think otherwise?


Quote:

And to top it all and most outrageously of all BT has been allowed to introduce new restrictive contract terms that make it difficult to leave them.

I've actually made a complaint to Ofcom conerning this under possible unfair t&c with regards to customers returning back to BT are now forced to stay with BT for linerental for 12months where previously it was a more acceptable 3months.  I agree that for new customers where BT have to lay cable, connect to peoples homes (if applicable) and route and wire to the local exchange then I believe it was fair to have a minimum term contract of 12months.

bbb_uk wrote on Aug 20^th, 2007 at 11:41am:

Ofcom cannot willy nilly apply any fixed pricing of anykind unless that telecom provider has significant market power (SMP). …

And here in lies the problem.

What happens if/when there is no SMP? I feel that telcos will then act together (an oligopoly) like we have seen with the main landline providers introducing the connection charge and whole minute charging. Mobile providers have done this by removing 084/087 from inclusive minutes.

derrick wrote on Aug 20^th, 2007 at 11:44am:

simond001 wrote on Aug 19th, 2007 at 11:38pm: Carriers will lose their rebate from 0870 from Feb 08. This means that everybody who has previously used these will a. lose their incom stream, and b. need to spend money changing numbers on stationary, vehicles, adverts etc. If they do not there will be a cost applied to every call they recieve. Didn't stop them doing it in the first place to rip us off did it? No worries about the cost then!

Exactly.  Many companies claimed it would be too expensive to change their stationary, etc but like Derrick says it never stopped them doing it when changing from a geographical to a NGN or even from a lower-priced NGN to a higher priced NGN.

On a similar note, OCPs (Originating Communication Providers) claimed that free pre-call announcements were too costly to implement and Ofcom agreed.  The thing is that OCPs already apply somekind of free call announcement for calls to freephone where they advise that the call isn't free and call costs would apply and Ofcom then later said that a call announcement would have to be made for OCPs that want to charge more than the cost of a geographical call to 0870 from Feb 08.

On yet another similar note, dial-up ISPs claimed they couldn't change to other number ranges from 0845 because of the cost involved and the fact that they couldn't inform their customers because not all ISP customers use email addresses assigned by their ISP - in other words they use the likes of hotmail, etc.  Funny thing now is that most ISP have now switched to 0844 numbers and were able to redirect via a webpage, customers signing on via an 0845 and informed them that the dial-up number was changing to 0844 and to download new software or make ammendments yourself.  Not bad going considering they told Ofcom they couldn't do this!

bbb_uk wrote on Aug 20^th, 2007 at 12:05pm:

On yet another similar note, dial-up ISPs claimed they couldn't change to other number ranges from 0845 because of the cost involved and the fact that they couldn't inform their customers because not all ISP customers use email addresses assigned by their ISP - in other words they use the likes of hotmail, etc.  Funny thing now is that most ISP have now switched to 0844 numbers and were able to redirect via a webpage, customers signing on via an 0845 and informed them that the dial-up number was changing to 0844 and to download new software or make ammendments yourself.  Not bad going considering they told Ofcom they couldn't do this!

It was obvious at the time of their report to anyone other than the LIARS at Ofcom that by February 2008 that the dial up ISP market would be nearly dead and buried.

Yet Ofcom have used the excuse of inconveniencing dial up ISPs as a way of inconveniencing every government department, council, police force and charity who got an 0845 number mainly for the enhanced call routing features.  Yet under Ofcom's proposals all these organisations now have to get new 03 numbers to avoid ripping their customers off.  I find it odd that Ofcom saw no problem in making it costly for organisations to adopt numbers that lowered the costs of making calls to them for the general public. :-? :o >:(

A cynic like me might suggest that the LIARS at Ofcom knew the 0845 dialup market would be dead by Feb 2008 but just insisted that 0845 users had to move over to 03 to avoid over charging their callers in order to let their pals in the NGN number vending and telecoms industries hang on to as much 0845 revenue share as possible for several years longer.

And the fact that BT is now cutting the per minute rate of 0845 calls (but cross subsidised by a higher connection fee and per minute rounding up) below 01/02 calls in the weekday daytime for BT Option 1 customers (but still exlcuded form bundle calling plans like BT Option 3) is part of yet a further development in this deceitful masterplan where the Inland Revenue, Police and others will now claim there is no need to change to 03 numbers as for BT Option 1 customers weekday daytime calls would then be more expensive.

This whole industry is an industry of lies and deceit kept in business by the chief ringmasters and biggest LIARS of the lot at OFCoN.

bbb_uk wrote on Aug 19^th, 2007 at 9:12am:

With regards to the fact that NGN prices should be given equal prominence as geographical numbers (what Dave is referring to), this regulation has been in place for a year now and none of the landline providers (except VirginMedia) comply with it.

I recognise that this issue is far from easy, but if VirginMedia is suffering a competitive disadvantage as a result of complying, then one would assume that it could be counted on as an ally in support of efforts to gain compliance from others.

Under Ofcom's formal complaint procedures, complaints from competitors are treated very differently from complaints from individual consumers.

I do not propose that the thread be extended to discuss the issue of Ofcom's complaints procedures, beyond simply noting its relevance to possible ways of making progress with this one point.

David

bbb_uk wrote on Aug 19^th, 2007 at 9:12am:

…  did you know that at one time despite geographical calls costing less than an 0845, Ofcom only published an 0845 number.  Following complaints, it revealed the geographical number as well then eventually removed the 0845 and just published the geographical number.  Now surely Ofcom in its position would know that most consumers actually paid more for 0845 than geographical number?!?!

At the time when Ofcom switched over to publication of the geographic number it was somewhat preoccupied in dealing with another issue. Campaigners on that issue had been addressing the general point of how easy it was to raise complaints with Ofcom. This led to considerable improvements to the website.

Matt Peacock, who was responsible, engaged me in discussion over whether it was appropriate to retain the 0845 number, accompanied by a suitably lengthy explanation of how this was actually cheaper for some, including those on the BT light user scheme. I looked into this with reference to the BT tariff that I was on at the time. I noted that the choice of which number was cheapest for me to use to contact Ofcom by telephone was far from straightforward, as it required consideration of the time and day as well as the expected duration of the call. (This was some time ago, so the detail may not be relevant now).

I responded reminding him that telcos may change their tariffs from time to time. This changes the relative cost benefit of using numbers in different groups and may cause the balance to switch over, or cause an equilibrium to be gained or lost (this is where the whole problem with 0845 and 0870 started).

Furthermore, it is an objective of Ofcom for different telcos to have different tariffs, differentiated to suit the differing needs of various consumers, so as to provide choice. My key point was that Ofcom's efforts to regulate the ensuing jungle must be sufficiently robust to accommodate these unavoidable facts of life.


One may question the extent of the responsibility of anyone (such as Ofcom, or even a local hairdresser) who publishes a telephone contact number. Should they consider only what they understand to be the interests of the majority of those likely to use it, even if this majority is perhaps only slender, based on unverifiable assumptions and likely to be affected by movements in the telephone tariff market? Is it fair to publish only one number and leave it to the SayNoTo0870 website to publish alternatives along with a clear and up-to-date explanation of the precise circumstances under which the alternative is preferable?

If the hairdresser publishes two numbers, their small box advert in the local paper may not provide sufficient space to fully explain which number any particular customer should use. Ofcom decided that it was best to disregard the interests of what it understood to be a minority by removing the 0845 number.

Some may find Matt's comments to me at the time to be interesting:


Quote:

While some people will read our careful caveats about calling costs where these are set out in a more discursive FAQ, many more people are likely to be confused by too much information on the Complain to Ofcom landing page and plump for the number which 'looks cheaper' - typically, and mistakenly, the 0845.

I believe he intended to say that it was typically a mistake to see the 0845 number as being cheaper, rather than it being a mistake in all circumstances that was typically made.

(As Matt is no longer with Ofcom, these comments, in a private message, cannot be taken as representing the views of Ofcom.)


It may be that the cost/revenue balance now always favours geographic numbers for every caller and NGNs for the telcos and those who are called. I may need to be convinced that this is true now, and is likely to remain true for the foreseeable future. It certainly has not always been the case. I do not wish to engage in a debate about whether a particular minority group is significant or not.


In summary, I am sure that Ofcom was fully able to understand the complexities of the position. It has a difficult role, in that it must always recognise where the interests of the majority lie, but must not allow this to cause those of the minority to be disregarded. At the same time it aims to keep things as simple as possible. Most of the benefits of what Ofcom does must be delivered through competitive activity in a market, which it is required to promote, but cannot direct. It duties are far from easy to fulfil, but that is no excuse for failure.

I do not seek to defend the improper actions of Ofcom, nor to draw this, already off-topic, thread further away from the point at issue. I offer my own thoughts, but aim to share whatever I may have learned with those who seek to extend what they already know about how to get Ofcom to perform its duties properly.

My campaigning focus is restricted to the issue of public bodies levying "stealth" charges through use of premium rate (no quotes) numbers. NHS GP services is at the front of this, as even if the existence of the charge was declared and the level of the fee was found to be minimal, this would still be totally unacceptable.

David

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Aug 20^th, 2007 at 2:45pm:

My campaigning focus is restricted to the issue of public bodies levying "stealth" charges through use of premium rate (no quotes) numbers. NHS GP services is at the front of this, as even if the existence of the charge was declared and the level of the fee was found to be minimal, this would still be totally unacceptable

Yet in an earlier post you said we had to accept that not all NHS services were free at the point of delivery.

Now you seem to say the use of 0844 by NHS doctors is "totally unacceptable".  So which is it? :-? :-/

Coming back to your alleged victory on Silent Calls I am beginning to wonder if this is not something Ofcom was going to bring about anyway given that it clearly infringed various EU privacy and data confidentiality regulations.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Aug 20^th, 2007 at 2:45pm:

It may be that the cost/revenue balance now always favours geographic numbers for every caller and NGNs for the telcos and those who are called. I may need to be convinced that this is true now, and is likely to remain true for the foreseeable future. It certainly has not always been the case. I do not wish to engage in a debate about whether a particular minority group is significant or not.

I believe this to be true.


Quote:

My campaigning focus is restricted to the issue of public bodies levying "stealth" charges through use of premium rate (no quotes) numbers. NHS GP services is at the front of this, as even if the existence of the charge was declared and the level of the fee was found to be minimal, this would still be totally unacceptable.

Does your thinking of this apply to all governement departments or just specific/selective ones?  For example, the DVLA and passport office that are known to receive millions in revenue, I find unacceptable especially as we already pay a fortune for our driving license (including changes, etc) and passports are so expensive as well and keep rising significantly on a regular basis (well it has recently).

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Aug 20^th, 2007 at 2:45pm:

I offer my own thoughts, but aim to share whatever I may have learned with those who seek to extend what they already know about how to get Ofcom to perform its duties properly.

Do you agree that greater call transparancy and the fact that 084/087x are (according to the dictionary) premium rate numbers and should be known as such?  I don't mean, and to be fair, that 084/087 should migrate to 09x but just that misleading terms like lo-call, local/national are stopped and that instead a term such as mini-premium rate (or any such similar name) be used to describe these numbers.  A term that lets consumers know they are ringing a premium rate number albeit lower amounts than that of 09x and that call costs are known.

To stop abuse of these numbers then somekind of call queueing whilst being charged be prohibited or limited, or at the very least, your position in the queue and how long left before it's estimated they can answer be introduced.  The latter I proposed to both Ofcom and ICSTIS and of course nothing was mentioned in their consultation statements/proposals.

bbb_uk wrote on Aug 20^th, 2007 at 4:06pm:

I believe this to be true.

I believe this to be wrong as for users of the BT Light User Scheme and making a call to a number outside their own local call area the cost of a call to an 0845 number will still be lower than the cost of a call to an 01/02 number.

But the BT Light User Scheme has highly restrictive terms that now virtually render it an obsolete product.

1. It down not allow broadband on the line which it still treats as a luxury for the well off.

2. It does not allow the ownership of a mobile phone, once again on an apparent early 1990s model that only very rich people owned such things.

3. The call charges levied for national geographic calls are now so much higher than BT Option 1 and the line rental discount disappears so quickly as you make calls that unless you use it more or less only for Incoming Calls Only it is not worth having.

The failure to replace the Light User Scheme with a low cost line rental product for the less well off that does allow broadband is yet another example of the total failure of the UK citizen consumer that characterises most of Ofcom's work. :o >:( [smiley=thumbdown.gif] [smiley=thumbdown.gif] [smiley=thumbdown.gif]

NGMsGhost wrote on Aug 20^th, 2007 at 3:23pm:

... in an earlier post you said we had to accept that not all NHS services were free at the point of delivery. Now you seem to say the use of 0844 by NHS doctors is "totally unacceptable".  So which is it? :-? :-/

One example of NHS services not being free at the point of delivery is the totally unacceptable use of 0844 by NHS doctors.

Some find this acceptable, being happy to pay a modest charge for an improved service. Others question the modesty of the charge and the nature of the improvement. Some may find it acceptable for charges to be made for NHS services if a majority of those who pay are happy to do so. I recognise this argument and see how it can carry weight in a consumer society.

In my view, this is totally unacceptable. I see consumerism as only being valid within limits, and I see NHS services as falling outside these limits. I invite those who address this issue from a consumerist perspective to question whether they also see a need for there to be limits on the application of consumerist principles, although I do not expect us all to agree on where the line should be drawn.

(This invitation was simply an attempt to give focus to campaigning effort on "the NEG issue".)

To anticipate a further question - I am, somewhat reluctantly, prepared to accept prescription charges and charges for dental services, although not on the simple basis of "consumer satisfaction".

I answer the challenge by expressing my personal view. It is however what Alan Johnson and Ben Bradshaw are prepared to accept and defend that is of greater relevance.



NGMsGhost wrote on Aug 20^th, 2007 at 3:23pm:

Coming back to your alleged victory on Silent Calls I am beginning to wonder if this is not something Ofcom was going to bring about anyway given that it clearly infringed various EU privacy and data confidentiality regulations.

I would be happy to go through the correspondence, which is still in progress, between myself, the ICO, OFcom and the former DTI regarding the UK implementation of Article 13 of 2002/58/EC. The DTI position seemed to have been finalised early in 2003 (in conjunction with the late addtion of the persistent misuse powers, that also had a broader purpose, to what was then the Communications Bill). Although the Statement of Policy prepared by Oftel in 2003 seemed to recognise that some duty was left to it and Ofcom to fill the gaps left in regulation 19 of PECR through use of the persistent misuse powers, it made no reference to this, partly because the PECR had not been finalised at that point. Subsequently Ofcom failed to implement that policy and then moved further away from filling the gap through the weakening of the relevant provisions in the 2005/6 Statement of Policy. I have also failed to persuade Ofcom to incorporate suitable provisions in the recent revisions to the General Conditions covering Sales and Marketing activity. I recall a recent Commission report raising no issues with the UK implementation of the 2002 Directive. As I see Ofcom continually moving in the wrong direction, I do not claim "victory" on this, nor on many other points. I also find it hard to see how one may conclude that Ofcom is on some other course. I am not aware of any other "EU privacy and data confidentiality regulations" that may be directly relevant.

It is hard for any campaign that has not achieved 100% of its objectives to talk of victory. We must not however be unwilling to recognise what we do achieve, as this may help us to refine our efforts in order to maximise future achievement. I am ready to "come back" to history as I have in responding above, but would seek only to use this to see how it may help us to move forward.

I am prepared to defend challenges to my integrity, if necessary, but would rather spend the time I have available moving matters forward.

Perhaps any further discussion of this particular issue would be better undertaken outside this thread.

David

NGMsGhost wrote on Aug 20^th, 2007 at 4:55pm:

bbb_uk wrote on Aug 20th, 2007 at 4:06pm: I believe this to be true. I believe this to be wrong as for users of the BT Light User Scheme and making a call to a number outside their own local call area the cost of a call to an 0845 number will still be lower than the cost of a call to an 01/02 number.

That is true however SilentCallsVictim had at the end of that paragraph and I
Quote:

I do not wish to engage in a debate about whether a particular minority group is significant or not.

and as BT LUS customers are the minority of customers (must be only a few percent (if that) of total BT customers) that would actually benefit from an 0845 number I therefore sided with SilentCallsVictim.

Similar thing applies to prices of calls quoted as per ASA guidelines.  There is no easy way to be correct/accurate in all circumstances hence reason base prices on the tariff with most customers (BT Together 1).

Apologies if the sequence of the thread is getting a little messy due to a time lag in responding to points addressed to myself.


bbb_uk wrote on Aug 20^th, 2007 at 4:06pm:

I believe this to be true.

Thanks for the direct answer.

If it is to be relied upon in external discussion, it is imperative that this position may be sustained. Otherwise it must be qualified to avoid undermining an otherwise valid dependent argument.



bbb_uk wrote on Aug 20^th, 2007 at 4:06pm:

Does your thinking of this apply to all governement departments or just specific/selective ones?  For example, the DVLA and passport office that are known to receive millions in revenue, I find unacceptable especially as we already pay a fortune for our driving license (including changes, etc) and passports are so expensive as well and keep rising significantly on a regular basis (well it has recently).

I will be selective in putting revenue taken by the Passport Agency in a quite separate category. There is a major political issue behind this, so matters of pricing fall away into insignificance. If the issue of the national ID database is settled (either way) on the basis of arguments about what consumers are prepared to pay for a "passport", with this subsidised through fees paid by commercial organisations able to access the database, then some of us will be deeply disappointed. Please keep me well away from this issue.

With that said, I refer not just to central government departments, but all public bodies, including agencies (departmental and non-departmental), national and regional governments and their agencies as well as local government and the others which any citizenship student could list for you. I would also include services directly commissioned by those bodies (e.g. NHS GPs) where control over charges to users is, or should be, covered in the terms of the contract.

(Not very selective).


The level of revenue taken in charges by any one body and the propriety of the varying levels of contribution made are valid topics for political discussion with reference to that body. Where telephone call revenue is a significant part of the total, it may be difficult to separate this out as a separate issue.

There may however be cases where the charges are generally so high that the amount earned from telephone calls could be dismissed as being relatively insignificant. The DVLA could be an example of this.


In general I see a two-stage process. Firstly, I see it as vital that users of services provided by public bodies are aware of what they are paying to the provider for the service. The general failure to do this in respect of charges raised through telephone charges must be corrected.

We know the level of vehicle excise duty that we have to pay. We are told that there is a £2.50 surcharge for renewing on a credit card. We are not told what we are being charged by the DVLA for renewing it by telephone.

Once the level of charges is in the open then stage two may take place - a debate about the level and propriety of each and every element of the charge.

As campaigners on the issue of telephone charges we may all be together on the first of these. There may also be the possibility of some co-ordinated action across the various bodies involved, although I am not aware of any simple means by which this could be "ordered".

The political issues raised at the second stage belong elsewhere.

David