Am I the first user of this website to discover that one of our moderators (Dave) has had the absolutely splendid idea of registering the domain name www.ofcon.org.uk and linking it to the home page of this website (www.saynoto0870.com).

Many congratulations to Dave for this very amusing send up of Ofcom. [smiley=thumbsup.gif] [smiley=dankk2.gif] [smiley=tekst-toppie.gif]

I see that www.regulatoryfatcats.org.uk is still available.  I must say I'm vaguely tempted..............

Interesting! While I don't think it's a bad idea, I'm not quite sure what the legality of setting up similar-sounding domain names is... might get into a bit of trouble with Ofcom over that.

Only if Ofcom choose to challenge it legally as "passing off" etc.  And I'm sure they could do without providing an opportunity for further extensive press coverage of the www.saynoto0870.com campaign.  Where we could then mention special Ofcom labelled bottled water!

And so far as passing off is concerned let us not forget that Ofcom has done nothing about the obvious scam 118866 scam directory enquiries number aiming to ripoff 18866 discount call customers.

NGMsGhost wrote on Mar 17^th, 2008 at 9:45pm:

And so far as passing off is concerned let us not forget that Ofcom has done nothing about the obvious scam 118866 scam directory enquiries number aiming to ripoff 18866 discount call customers.

Where is the scam? If I remember correctly, 118866 was in existence before 18866!

derrick wrote on Mar 18^th, 2008 at 9:33am:

Where is the scam?

If you misdial by one digit you pay a high fixed minimum connection fee to this DQ service without any warning message about it or opportunity to hang up before you are connected and have to pay the charge.

Also the charge by this DQ service on 118866 is far higher than on their main 118 number which offers precisely the same service but is not there to scam 18866 customers.

Is this the same Derrick who believes that all calls to 0845 4647 are a scam? :o

Derrick is correct, that this service is older and therefore not designed as a scam to victimise people misdialling numbers. There are hundreds of directory services, and millions of potential misdials of almost every phone number in the world

andy9 wrote on Mar 18^th, 2008 at 11:59am:

Derrick is correct, that this service is older and therefore not designed as a scam to victimise people misdialling numbers.

It may not have been its original intention but it does seem to be now.  Why is this company's main 118 number much cheaper to call for precisely the same service.

Also why is there no pre-announcement of the connection fee (which is high on many 118 numbers) before you are connected.

I know it must be because automated burglar alarms can't cope with dialling them. ;) ::) >:(

Presumably because people know that 118 numbers are always charged at a premium?

Do they when some are charged only in pence per minute (although I suppose those may now be rounded up by the minute thanks to recent BT led changes in telecoms pricing) and others have a connection fee and the amounts vary wildly.

Surely all they know is that they are ringing a DQ service (many may not even not still even associate 118 with that).  The product seems to be aimed at the price insensitive and most of the advertsing avoids mentioning the cost of calling and instead focuses on fuzzy warm feeling brand values (eg 118 and telephone yellowpages tv ads).

For someone who is always on about the consumer, you have a remarkable contempt for many of them.

The only time I've called a 118 number from a mobile, I really didn't care that it cost 50p a minute, but as it got us to a tyre place in Tiverton just before it closed, I reckon it saved well over £100 in hotel and recovery and other expenses, plus two nearly half-days work worth roughly another £200.

So you clearly believe the excessive charges levied by most voice based directory enquiries services are justified then (along with their ripoff attempts to connect the call at the same high per minute rates).  Another member has suggested to me that your recent staunch defence of mobile phone cash back deals may mean that you perhaps work for some part of the telecoms industry.  Of course I agree that is speculative and may be wrong.

I would always avoid these exorbitant charges myself by using 0800 100100 from a phonebox or using some form of internet browsing facility.

It seems to me that you are the one who is actually not sticking up for protecting the consumer against being ripped off by the 118 industry.

P.S. These recent posts are now way off topic and so should be removed from this thread in to another thread about 118 DQ charges for that reason.

No need to continue the fantasy accusations. I only expressed reservations about suggestions that the main networks are wilfully procuring cheating and fraud. By the way, the same person attacked me for using another service and saying it worked well, pretending I was criticising it.

I made that call about 5 years ago, and it is the only 118 call I have ever made; 60 pence got me a minute and a bit of call and 5 free text messages sent to me detailing the nearest 5 firms. At that time the number you would always use did not exist, nor was there a phone box or internet facility that would have got you in touch with the business before it closed for the day.  

I note that you think directory enquiries are off the topic of the thread, and that you introduced the subject. I don't know what relevance burglar alarms might have either

NGMsGhost wrote on Mar 18^th, 2008 at 9:53am:

derrick wrote on Mar 18th, 2008 at 9:33am: Where is the scam? If you misdial by one digit you pay a high fixed minimum connection fee to this DQ service without any warning message about it or opportunity to hang up before you are connected and have to pay the charge. Also the charge by this DQ service on 118866 is far higher than on their main 118 number which offers precisely the same service but is not there to scam 18866 customers. Is this the same Derrick who believes that all calls to 0845 4647 are a scam? :o

Don't answer the question without the rest of the quote, (Where is the scam?
If I remember correctly, 118866 was in existence before 18866!), as it gives a false answer!
As I said, (and so have others after my post), 118866 came before 18866.

Re the 0845 4647; yes you know I do, especially as the there is no price indication.

NGMsGhost wrote on Mar 17^th, 2008 at 9:45pm:

And so far as passing off is concerned let us not forget that Ofcom has done nothing about the obvious scam 118866 scam directory enquiries number aiming to ripoff 18866 discount call customers.

NGMsGhost wrote on Mar 18^th, 2008 at 9:53am:

derrick wrote on Mar 18th, 2008 at 9:33am: Where is the scam? If you misdial by one digit you pay a high fixed minimum connection fee to this DQ service without any warning message about it or opportunity to hang up before you are connected and have to pay the charge. Also the charge by this DQ service on 118866 is far higher than on their main 118 number which offers precisely the same service but is not there to scam 18866 customers.

You might be interested in the comments of someone who appeared to be rather sceptical that this actually occurs much in real life

While I was wondering why you might still be using Finarea companies 2 and a half years after your extensive complaints about 18866, and therefore reading an old thread, I found this:  


wrote on Sep 14^th, 2005 at 8:09pm:

[quote author=bill  link=1125944907/15#25 date=1126726182] And no chance of falling foul of the alleged (and expensive) 118866 fat finger dialling problem.

I never seem to have done that in the last year or so.  And that's in the course of making thousands of calls with 18866.
[/quote]

andy9 wrote on Apr 20^th, 2008 at 1:00am:

to be rather sceptical that this actually occurs much in real life While I was wondering why you might still be using Finarea companies 2 and a half years after your extensive complaints about 18866, and therefore reading an old thread, I found this:   wrote on Sep 14th, 2005 at 8:09pm: [quote author=bill  link=1125944907/15#25 date=1126726182] And no chance of falling foul of the alleged (and expensive) 118866 fat finger dialling problem. I never seem to have done that in the last year or so.  And that's in the course of making thousands of calls with 18866.

[/quote]
Thank you once again No.9 for showing in such detail your obsessive credentials as the resident forum stalker and troll.  You are so filled with a vitriolic hatred of me and a determination to discredit me by hours of research of any possible logical inconsistency in my past posts that I can only assume you must be one of Ofcom's longstanding gravy train merchants.

Is your real name by any chance Steve Unger or Geoff Brighton? ;)

Please not that unlike you I am not a number but am a free man. ;D

~ Edited by Dave: Quote boxes tidied up

NGMsGhost wrote on Apr 21^st, 2008 at 1:57am:

Thank you once again No.9 for showing in such detail your obsessive credentials as the resident forum stalker and troll.  You are so filled with a vitriolic hatred of me and a determination to discredit me by hours of research of any possible logical inconsistency in my past posts that I can only assume you must be one of Ofcom's longstanding gravy train merchants. Is your real name by any chance Steve Unger or Geoff Brighton? ;) Please not that unlike you I am not a number but am a free man. ;D

No, it just  struck me that after you posted such vitriol at so much length about these companies all that long ago, including the libellous accusations about persons totally unconnected with the business except as customers, it seems rather strange you'd even countenance using them again

And what you might expect to be hours of research took me under 5 minutes

But as you appear to expect the world to believe you undertook a two hour drive because you would not use another (and more reliable, according to you) company to ring a mobile, who would dare question anything you say, in case they wet themselves laughing at the next instalment?

NGMsGhost, you're not really Boris Johnson, are you?

If only that were true I would then be looking forward to several years of holding London's top job. ;)

. . . and I'm happy to say that just like Boris you've got two Hopes !!

Bob Hope and NO HOPE !!   ::)