It is worth remembering that the regulator has been 'consulting' on this for a number of years now. There have been six consultations and still nothing has been done. The consultations are:

• 0845 and 0870 numbers: Review of retail price and numbering arrangements
  Published (by Oftel): 26 September 2003
  This was the first time the regulator questioned whether the connection between 0845/0870 and local/national rate was relevant.
  
  
• 0845/0870 retail pricing – a statement and further consultation
  Published: 29 April 2004
  This statement said that the existing framework of local/national rate for BT non-discounted tariffs should stay, even though the numbers on these tariffs was decreasing. Only industry changes were planned, so nothing happened, despite the issue being raised.
  
  
• NTS: Options for the future
  Published: 22 October 2004
  This document talked of "value added services" on 084 and 087 numbers. It also made mention of BT's "standard" local and national call rate with respect to 0845 and 0870 numbers, despite the fact that the vast majority didn't pay BT 'standard' or non-discounted rates.
  
  
• NTS: A way forward
  Published: 28 September 2005
  One of the proposals was that the linkage between 0870 numbers and national rate should be restored. This consultation received more than 1,000 consumer responses.
  
  
• Telephone numbering: Safeguarding the future of numbers
  Published: 23 February 2006
  The idea of 03 numbers was raised in this consultation.
  
  
• Raising Confidence in Telephone Numbers
  Published: 13 February 2007
  This covered the regulatory measures of 03.

It is truly shocking to see public sector services adopting 0845 numbers, and even worse, claiming that they are "local rate". It is consultation after consultation and consumers have had enough. NTS: A way forward received well over 1,000 consumer responses, showing clearly the level of public concern over the way in which these numbers have been allowed to descend into premium rate by the regulator.

Of course they do not want to do anything about ending the scam with 0870 numbers, nor any of the other abused NGNs. The whole series of consultations with their smoke and mirrors and parrying was just a device to play for time until their real and strategic decision could be implemented.

The government, particularly with the current (and about to increase) fiscal problems, do not want an end to the stealth taxes collected from call queuing on Premium numbers, their telecoms buddies do not want an end to call queuing on Premium numbers; no one wants an end to call queuing on Premium numbers except the poor Citizen Consumer, who it is that has to pay the licensed extortion! It is now clear, as I trust you begin to see, that the announcement to move 0871 to ICSTIS with Premium call queuing allowed to continue was to "test the water" for their final master strategy: for Ofcom to get rid of the problem! That was if the Citizen Consumers did not realise what they were up to (and refuse to accept the concept of Premium numbers with call queuing permitted) to move all the problem numbers into a new category of Premium numbers with call queuing permitted, under the control of ICSTIS. Once they had announced that they were doing that with 0871, and there was no violent backlash or protest from Citizen Consumers, they saw that they could get away with their master strategy. They then agreed with ICSTIS a change of their name to PhonepayPlus so as to finally prepare for the biggest SCAM of all, and then began to prepare for even more of these rip-off numbers to be added to the existing ones in the new category of Premium numbers with call queuing permitted.

I hate to say that I did point this out some while ago when I realised what their real strategy was; and that the focus of any future campaign had to be only on call queuing! Unless campaigners realise that this is the pivotal reason for the intense resistance against taking any proper regulatory action, and target this issue only there is no hope of defeating this scandal.

Oftel originally decided that call queuing on Premium numbers was totally bad and unacceptable for Citizen Consumers, and enshrined this in the original National Telephone Numbering Plan. It was not consumers who made this decision; it was the regulators themselves! Call Queuing on Premium numbers is still just as bad and just as unacceptable as it always was. Citizen Consumers do not want it and will not accept it. (I don't believe it is allowed in any other civilized country?) ONLY IN RIP-OFF BRITAIN!

The only issue and focus of the campaign now must be CALL QUEUING ON PREMIUM NUMBERS MUST BE PROHIBITED. Ofcom's strategy to "solve" their problem is perfectly outrageous and even worse than what exists now. Citizen Consumers must not accept this outrageous further abuse by Ofcom.

dorf wrote on Jan 5^th, 2008 at 4:50pm:

… [Ofcom] do not want to do anything … … The government … do not want an end to the stealth taxes … their telecoms buddies do not want an end to call queuing on Premium numbers … Citizen Consumers do not want it and will not accept it. The only issue and focus of the campaign now must be CALL QUEUING ON PREMIUM NUMBERS MUST BE PROHIBITED.

Dorf

It is possible that some “citizen / consumers” accessing commercially operated 10p per minute helplines would rather wait for an agent to be available than the alternative. That would probably be no service at all, or a very high fixed price cost per call.

Whilst one may question the judgement of those who call TV quiz lines, one cannot deny the fact that there are many of them.

Many of those who can afford to do so would rather wait their turn in a queue to speak to a GP receptionist at busy times than repeatedly hang-up and re-dial on the off-chance of getting through - revenue sharing is totally unacceptable for NHS contractors, but one cannot simply say that everyone would rather re-dial.

Your cause is nonetheless just and a fair basis for campaigning. If however one accepts your arguments, it stands little chance of success without some means of recruiting a sizeable amount of public engagement, or causing a significant change in consumer behaviour (well beyond that already achieved by saynoto0870).

Please continue to press your point and seek to solicit support, which I am happy to give myself, although only in general terms with some qualifications.

At the same time, please also allow others, who may not yet be fully won over to share your analysis, to pursue more limited objectives that they believe to have some hope of success.

---

One point of clarification – are you happy for call queuing to be permitted if charged at the same competitively-priced, but profitable, rates applied to normal calls by the various telcos?

One point of clear disagreement – the term “citizen/consumer” is a b*stard invention of Ofcom, intended to wrongly conflate its two distinct and potentially conflicting principle duties under section 3 of the Communications Act. It devalues the significance of citizenship and serves to misrepresent the role of consumers in markets. (If you wish to debate this OT point, let us do so offline.)

David

Quote:

Many of those who can afford to do so would rather wait their turn in a queue to speak to a GP receptionist at busy times than repeatedly hang-up and re-dial on the off-chance of getting through

I think this is really the crux of the problem. It is rather optimistic to suggest that the average consumer will constantly redial a number. There is an understanable reluctance to hang-up and then retry the call at a later time. This is where the adopters of queued call systems recognise typical human behaviour - and act on it! In most other countries, it is not a problem. For example, in Australia where a 1300 NGN numbering scheme is used, it doesn't matter how long you have to wait (within reason) because it is a fixed price (25c) call. In the USA, it will normally be via a 1-800 number. You are prepared to wait if you know you are not being financially penalised for the delay. Indeed, it is generally in the interest of the called party to take the call as quickly as possible, because they are - probably - paying for it on a timed basis.

But in the UK, the whole perverse system has been twisted through 180 degrees. Now, it is actually in the interest of the called party to make you "hang on" (ie queue) as long as possible, thereby maximising their revenue stream. That is what is unacceptable.

You may be right in saying that many people would rather hang on when waiting in the queue for the doctors receptionist but in most cases it is because they do not want to lose there place in the queue. Research suggests that even those that can afford it (me included) despise the fact that they are having to queue and they despise the fact even more when they have to pay through the nose for it.

Only yesterday an elderly Aunt of mine remarked on the fact that it costs her a fortune when contacting the H.S.B.C. bank, I have now given her the alternative number she was chuffed. In most instances people would rather use an alternative 01/02 number if they knew how to and the fact that saynoto0870 was available.

I have found a way to avoid telephoning the doctor for an appointment... I go down to the surgery and make an appointment, if they ask why you have come down, just say it is quicker than joining the queue on their money making system.

sherbert wrote on Jan 7^th, 2008 at 9:34am:

I have found a way to avoid telephoning the doctor for an appointment... I go down to the surgery and make an appointment, if they ask why you have come down, just say it is quicker than joining the queue on their money making system.

So, you are fit enough to make that journey! With respect, the argument being made here is partly for the benefit of the poor, sick and disabled - exactly the 'citizen/consumers' who are most vulnerable to rip-off charges.

SilentCalls Victim is correct in that a campaign for fair phone charges must have political endorsement as a worthy social aim; it can be argued this is the case for health care.

In the case where you purchase a commercially offered service the cost of the call is akin to the stamp on a letter or the parking charge you pay to drive to a shopping centre, although that cost must be clearly stated as with other goods (I forget the relevant price marking law).

If we are to win support we must be specific and be careful not to ask for too much

I agree with what you are saying but if you are making an appointment to see the doctor, you have got to go to the surgery anyway so an extra trip would not make any difference. I accept that if you want a home visit because you are so poorly to get down there then my distardly plan would not  work.

It was just an idea anyway.

Hi Silentcallsvictim,

I agree entirely with your point about not losing a place in the queue. As mikeinnc concurs, this is a human behavioral attribute which is being exploited at the base of this scam. However you seem to be missing the key point! No one objects to call queuing on GNs. That is not a problem. The objection is to all call queuing on Premium numbers - i.e. numbers generating revenue for either the terminating subscriber or an intermediary or both.

Whilst I agree with your point about the use of the term "Citizen Consumer", it is the term which Ofcom have decided to use, and therefore in essence we are stuck with it. I would not wish to argue it one way or the other.

With regard to GPs etc using abused NTS numbers, I agree with Sherbert. I do the same thing. If your GP is not far away, unless you are old and infirm, the answer is to walk down to the surgery and arrange an appointment. The reality is that as with the abuse of these numbers by the Pensions Service, Welfare Benefit offices, The Tax Credit Office, Job Centres and other Employment offices, the use of Premium numbers with permitted call queuing is hitting hardest the elderly, infirm and the poorest and disadvantaged in our society, to effectively collect stealth taxes of one sort or another (whether in revenue per se or as telephone equipment subsidies). This abuse by GP's surgeries and hospitals is an example, but is worse in the sense that we have all paid large amounts of NI contributions and NI additional Income Tax already for the medical services which we are supposed to receive then "free at the point of need"! We should not have to pay more then to make an appointment. GPs should be using 03 numbers.

However, I feel these associated issues are digressing from the original topic here, which is that Ofcom do not want to do anything to end the abuses of NTS numbers, and my point is that I believe that they have been playing a game of deception with the Citizen Consumer all along with their "consultations", and their sham statement of intent for 0870 numbers in Feb. 2008. which they have now reneged on.    

dorf wrote on Jan 7^th, 2008 at 11:34am:

However, I feel these associated issues are digressing from the original topic here, which is that Ofcom do not want to do anything to end the abuses of NTS numbers, and my point is that I believe that they have been playing a game of deception with the Citizen Consumer all along with their "consultations", and their sham statement of intent for 0870 numbers in Feb. 2008. which they have now reneged on.

I think we can take it for granted that Ofcom cannot/will not budge from its policy for whatever murky reasons and vested interests. I presume it's the conflict with these interests which has prompted European Commissioner Reding's ongoing enquiry into the adequacy of telecom regulation.

So what's the solution? My point is that when logic fails politics must step in. Can a pressure group such as ours move from exposing the rip-off ( Shock! Horror! Daily Mail headlines) to lobbying for the political impetus necessary to address the social consequences for the disadvantaged? Is that our role?

Discuss

Many points well made by all.

To confirm my position on some of these.

1. In ferociously attacking Surgery Line and similar systems, I have always made it very clear that it is the means of funding, not the system itself, which is at fault. Defenders have naturally tried to link the two, as if they were inseparable - this is a spurious argument.

2. I seek an end to revenue sharing on telephone lines used to provide public services. I believe that this is an achievable goal, although it is not within Ofcom's powers to deliver it. We must accept that this will most likely involve transferring some cost burden from the service user to the taxpayer.

3. I believe that all those who answer intended interactive telephone calls without engaging in a conversation have a duty to immediately explain to the caller exactly what is happening. In many (but not all) cases it would be appropriate to offer a call-back where a lengthy delay in responding is likely - there is good automatic technology available to do this.

4. Those who provide "premium rate services" are inviting callers to enter into a commercial relationship with them. The price charged and the service being offered must be properly and clearly explained in advance. If this includes delivery of a music download, i.e. listening to an electronic rendition of Vivaldi for 10 minutes, then this and the associated cost are part of that service.

5. The telephone, as a means of conducting a remote spoken conversation, remains a most valuable and important tool. Internet communication and personal visits also have a valuable role. Each should be available for use as deemed appropriate by both parties.

6. Whilst I tend to be pragmatic, I will not accept Ofcom's misrepresentation of its separate duties. I see the distinction between our identities as citizens and as consumers as vital, but under severe threat.

7. It is great to see our differences of view being aired whilst we seek to do all we can to advance the purposes that we share.

David

Farci, I agree that the only possibility of getting these abuses stopped is to use political lobbying, directed both to MPs and to MEPs. Fortunately there is already some support which has been declared by certain MPs, and of course there have already been several significant questions asked in the House of Commons.

However, I do not agree with you SilentCallsVictim, when you claim that Ofcom do not have the necessary powers to end the abuses. They most certainly do have the powers to end them, but they continuously refuse to use those powers to do so, despite the fact that it is their primary duty under the Acts to ensure that Citizen Consumers' rights in telecommunications are protected and that free competition is maintained and assured in the UK Telecommunications Public network and services. Instead they indulge in continuous deception, parrying and evasion, to avoid taking the action which they well know their remit requires them to take to end these abuses of NTS.

They have also deliberately and calculatingly gradually amended the original NTNP (like the commandments on the barn wall in Animal Farm) because they well know that it specifically prohibited any revenue sharing (which is exactly the same as use as Premium numbers) within any category of number except 09 (with call queuing prohibited); the problem arose because Oftel originally did not enforce the NTNP, as one telco first and then others began to circumvent the rules. As the abuses increased, instead of enforcing the interests of the Citizen Consumer and requirements of the original NTNP they altered the plan to allow what the telcos wanted, and now what the current lying, cheating charlatan government wants, to be able to continue its stealth tax collection via public service telephone calls from Citizen Consumers.

So I am completely unable to agree that Ofcom does not have the powers to end these abuses. The problem is that they do not want to use their powers, and they do everything they can to parry, deceive and confuse the issue, so as to preserve the current status quo of abuse. I also believe that those (both present and current) responsible within Ofcom must finally be charged with mal-regulation and eventually punished in a suitable manner, on the basis of their accountability for their actions and corruption. I believe the final admission that these numbers were and are in reality Premium numbers, in moving them over to PhonepayPlus (after having formally denied that they were Premium numbers) will add to the evidence in the allegations against them.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Jan 7^th, 2008 at 1:55pm:

4. Those who provide "premium rate services" are inviting callers to enter into a commercial relationship with them. The price charged and the service being offered must be properly and clearly explained in advance. If this includes delivery of a music download, i.e. listening to an electronic rendition of Vivaldi for 10 minutes, then this and the associated cost are part of that service. David

I believe you have encapsulated the argument in this sentence.

Because few users associate 084x and 087x with "premium rate services" they swallow whole the 'local/national rate' declarations. We have rehearsed the argument about pre-call notification ad nauseam - but it is a commercial relationship so, caveat emptor

However when we call the government or its minions (incl GP surgeries) we have no expectation of a commercial relationship and it is therefore indefensible to charge a premium rate for a contact for which we have already paid taxes.

This is an argument we can win

Hands up those who are surprised that Stephen Carter, former Ofcom head, has been appointed chief spin doctor by Gordon Brown.

dorf wrote on Jan 7^th, 2008 at 2:36pm:

So I am completely unable to agree that Ofcom does not have the powers to end these abuses. The problem is that they do not want to use their powers, and they do everything they can to parry, deceive and confuse the issue, so as to preserve the current status quo of abuse. I also believe that those (both present and current) responsible within Ofcom must finally be charged with mal-regulation and eventually punished in a suitable manner, on the basis of their accountability for their actions and corruption. I believe the final admission that these numbers were and are in reality Premium numbers, in moving them over to PhonepayPlus (after having formally denied that they were Premium numbers) will add to the evidence in the allegations against them.

Once again dorf we find ourselves in total agreement on these matters.  It is perfectly clear that the Communciations Act 2003 and in particular its backstop powers granted to Ofcom give them the necessary powers to act.  The reason they do not act (not even to threaten to withdraw 084/7 phone numbers issued to any organisations or telcos who continue to lie that 084 and 087 are local and national rate numbers and not even to publicly promote and explain their reasons for launching 03 numbers in national newspaper advertisements) is because various important New Labour allies make their fortunes out of 084/7 numbers and the politcal cronies of New Labour who run Ofcom have therefore been instructed not to close down these scams.

It is perfectly clear that Ofcom's actions should be subject to review and over-ride by the Office of Fair Trading and the Comeptition Commission where they are against the public interest but because this would interfere with the revenue making activities of major New Labour propagandists such as Sky/Newscorp this does not happen.

Ofcom is the ultimate example of the sleazy corrupt double standards of government that so deeply characterise the present New Labour regime. >:( [smiley=thumbdown.gif] [smiley=thumbdown.gif] [smiley=thumbdown.gif]

Heinz wrote on Jan 7^th, 2008 at 2:58pm:

Hands up those who are surprised that Stephen Carter, former Ofcom head, has been appointed chief spin doctor by Gordon Brown.

Nothing could provide us with greater and even more convincing evidence that all the previous actions and obfuscations of Ofcom in preserving and defending the retention of 084/7 numbers has been with the express blessing of the New Labour government that was principally responsible for deliberately allowing their cancerous explosion across the uk call centre industry.

If the job is Ofcom CEO then only paid up New Labour cronies need apply. >:( >:( >:(

Some further clarification is needed.

My only comment about the limit of Ofcom's powers related to it determining who may and may not use revenue sharing numbers. In terms of Ofcom's duties, public bodies are simply consumers of telecommunications services.

My own engagement in campaigning activities has been focussed primarily on pressing Ofcom to use powers that it possessed, dismissing efforts to change the law as meaningless and unnecessary. I failed, in that a change to the law was introduced, leading to the powers actually being used for the first time.

To eliminate other possible doubt, I agree that Ofcom's general approaches stink of duplicitous New Labour thinking, reflecting that of the regime that has been in continuous power for well over 10 years - a belief that lightly regulated markets are what best serve a free society. Treating citizens as if they are consumers in markets is a clear illustration of how that philosophy is put into effect. (Please can we stop the Politics).

David

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Jan 7^th, 2008 at 6:11pm:

To eliminate other possible doubt, I agree that Ofcom's general approaches stink of duplicitous New Labour thinking, reflecting that of the regime that has been in continuous power for well over 10 years -a belief that lightly regulated markets are what best serve a free society.

Then why do New Labour seem to believe that a big stick and a large hammer are the best way to deal with drivers committing minor breaches of the speed limit (or for that matter using mobile phones while driving without a hands free kit) that have almost nothing to do with the death rate on the roads ceasing its previous fall of many years - the real reason being New Labour's total failure to invest in developing the UK road network in proportion to the continued expansion in levels of traffic and instead tipping the money in to the NHS and the schools where it largely disappears without any obvious evidence of improvement.

And why do Labour think they need to spy on our every move on the internet and our every movement in and out of the country and around the country (via ID cards and APNR systems) as though we are all prison inmates while thinking that ruthless big businesses are all jolly decent chaps who will never try and form cartels and shaft the consumer in every possible way they can get away with?  There is only one explanation which is that their natura tendency is actually to control everything but they make an exception when it comes to their major financial benefactors in big business, many of whom have their tentacles deeply entwined in the 084/7 revenue gravy train.  Or another of them called Newscorp keeps telling everyone to vote Labour in its newspapers as long as New Labour keep making regulations (via Ofcom) that allow Sky to continue its excess dominance of the UK pay tv marketplace.


Quote:

Please can we stop the Politics

Definitely not.  It is political support from New Labour for the NTS call centre industry that has led Ofcom to ignore large responses by the public to consultations (given that most consultations that are then listened to get far less responses) by Ofcom and ICSTIS saying that it is wholly unacceptable.  It is New Labour politics and their covert support for the NTS call centre industry that has actually kept it in business.  A Conservative government would at the very least have ensured that all revenue shares lines were prominently labelled with a different number code and clearly priced so that the consumer could then make a rational choice and the market would operate efficiently.

NGMsGhost wrote on Jan 7^th, 2008 at 6:39pm:

Then why do New Labour ... ?

I would suggest that the thinking goes something like this.

For consumers to buy (vote for) a government, it has to be seen to be doing something, be necessary and in control of what is happening. Being seen to act against bad driving, bad health, bad schools and any other "bad" behaviour, e.g. smoking and terrorism, is bound to win support, because only a minority of perverse consumers would ally themselves with bad things. Successful businesses must be supported, not impeded, because they are obviously doing what their customers want to win in the market in which they operate.

If, as is suggested, a different government would remove Ofcom's sham independence and increase the burden of regulation, then this may or may not be a good thing. This, and the likelihood of it happening, may be valid topics for debate and Political campaigning, but relate only to a time in the possibly distant future.

I will continue to work on the politics of now, with supporters and representatives of all parties (and none) to see how much we can achieve.

David

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Jan 7^th, 2008 at 10:54pm:

If, as is suggested, a different government would remove Ofcom's sham independence and increase the burden of regulation, then this may or may not be a good thing. This, and the likelihood of it happening, may be valid topics for debate and Political campaigning, but relate only to a time in the possibly distant future. I will continue to work on the politics of now, with supporters and representatives of all parties (and none) to see how much we can achieve.

You didn't make clear you distinction between your views on Politics with a large and a small p in your previous post.

I still think Politics with a large P also has its place in this campaign because the ability of Labour MPs to make a fuss is ultimately constrained by the fact that it is their government that set up and also always approves the final selection of the CEO of Ofcom.  Whereas MPs of other parties have no need to appear to show tacit support for the glorious Frankenstein like Ofcom creation made up of several previously far more competent and effective regulators (OFTEL excepted of course).

NGMsGhost wrote on Jan 7^th, 2008 at 11:24pm:

I still think Politics with a large P also has its place in this campaign because the ability of Labour MPs to make a fuss is ultimately constrained by the fact that it is their government that set up and also always approves the final selection of the CEO of Ofcom.

Dead right. We have to apply an understanding of [big]P olitics if we are to pursue our [small] p olitical objectives with those who are engaged in it.

My approaches to Ben Bradshaw and Alan Johnson are different to the briefings I provide to Mike Penning, Andrew Lansley and Norman Lamb. Many briefings are provided to backbench MPs of all parties, such as those who have signed EDM108, who are able (and in some cases, keen) to show an independence of mind in support of their constituents.

In this forum however, I hope that all can exchange ideas and views that stand in isolation, without having to declare any broader interests or allegiances, or needing to demonstrate the same in-depth knowledge of topics shown by "full", or even more senior, members.

David

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Jan 8^th, 2008 at 12:00am:

without having to declare any broader interests or allegiances, or needing to demonstrate the same in-depth knowledge of topics shown by "full", or even more senior, members.

Not to mention the forum's "Supreme Members". ;) :D :P

Whilst the briefing work you are doing is undoubtedly admirable SCV I wonder if a lack of briefing of MPs is really the problem as I believe that by now the vast majority of MPs that have an innate interest in telecoms issues are only too well aware of the government's hypocritical position on this issue.  Their problem like the rest of us is to try to force the government marionettes at Ofcom to start dancing to a different tune to the one that the government is covertly briefing them to dance to.

We also face other problem like the fact that the once serious Panorama news program has now becoming a sensationalist show chasing ratings with an increasingly tabloid viewership and thus chooses to spend most of its time briewing up wild scare stories such as there being an alleged army of middle aged paedophiles after their children on the internet, rather than covering serious stories about regulatory duplicity and double dealing by Ofcom.

A certain company has donated large sums to the Labour party. The same company has been awarded lucrative government contacts; runs call centres and uses 087x and 084x telephone numbers which the government regulator (Ofcom) has been slow to regulate.

People with a suspicious tune of mind, may think they are all connected.

kk wrote on Jan 8^th, 2008 at 8:53am:

A certain company has donated large sums to the Labour party. The same company has been awarded lucrative government contacts; runs call centres and uses 087x and 084x telephone numbers which the government regulator (Ofcom) has been slow to regulate. People with a suspicious tune of mind, may think they are all connected.

Does the company name rhyme with - 'Jobbies'? :-/