Ofcom has just sent out the below email saying they have published their first "under assessment" list of individuals and companies that Ofcom is assessing "to determine whether they have used telephone numbers in a way that has caused serious or repeated harm to consumers".  Ofcom says in its announcement that it will not allocate telephone numbers in the 0871 (or any 087 range other than 0870), 070 and 09 ranges to any company or body on its "under assessment" list.  It does not seem to explain what happens about bodies or individuals who get on this list who have already been allocated numbers in these ranges in the past.

Also Ofcom refers to the bodies to whom it is allocating the numbers, whereas many of the abuses on 0871 and 070 are actually perpetrated by the end users of the numbers rather than by the telecoms companies that Ofcom allocates them to.  So I am not sure how Ofcom proposes to crack down in this case?

Whilst it is good to hear that Ofcom is finally proposing to take some form of positive action against some forms of phone number misuse I am concerned that the failure to include any 084 range and the 0870 range in this new system effectively means that Ofcom has given the green light to any form of customer abuse that companies or individuals may feel like carrying out on those number ranges.  This is hard to understand when several non BT suppliers actually charge the same rate per minute to call 0870 numbers as 0871 numbers.

More information on this below:-


Quote:

Ofcom has published the first “under assessment” list following the introduction of the Consumer Protection Test for telephone number allocation.  The list names individuals and companies that Ofcom is assessing to determine whether they have used telephone numbers in a way that has caused serious or repeated harm to consumers. The list can be found here: insert link Ofcom will not allocate telephone numbers in the following ranges to individuals or companies on the “under assessment” list: 070 personal numbers, 087 (excluding 0870) special services higher rate numbers and 09 premium rate numbers.   Ofcom strongly encourages all providers that assign telephone numbers to others to take best use of numbers and consumer protection into account when making assignment decisions, and to refer to the list for that purpose. Further information on the Consumer Protection Test for telephone number allocation can be found here: http://www.ofcom.org.uk/telecoms/ioi/numbers/cpt/ ........................................................................... Please do not respond to this email. To remove yourself from this update list, use the online forms: http://www.ofcom.org.uk/static/subscribe/select_list.htm.

NGMsGhost wrote on Jan 28^th, 2009 at 11:29am:

... This is hard to understand ...

It is inadequate, but simply understood as part of the failure to treat 084 numbers as being used for "premium rate services". The list of ranges reflects Ofcom's view (as yet unimplemented) of what are "premium rate services" and thereby subject to particular regulation.

If, as may be the case, there is concern (which I do not necessarily share) about proportionality and the best use of regulatory resources in relation to the ranges with lower amounts of revenue share being passed, then at least Ofcom is starting in the right place. As for what this means and what good it will do, I am not sufficiently aware of the activities of those named to offer comment. For Ofcom to take the unusual step of "naming and shaming" one would imagine that it must have received a sizeable number of complaints.

Jack Barnard Telecom is the only one I recognise on the list and is a long standing and well established abuser who have been taken to task by Ofcom before (previously fined £200,000 for 070 scam related activities).

See www.the-scream.co.uk/forums/t27622.html

I am amazed anyone is bold enough to call their operation Telconline.  But then they are based in the British Virgin Islands. ;)

The rest of the companies in the list all seem to be UK based.

Stealthnet allows their 0871 customers to specify how many minutes callers are kept on hold before connection.

pw4 wrote on Jan 28^th, 2009 at 2:05pm:

Stealthnet allows their 0871 customers to specify how many minutes callers are kept on hold before connection.

Disgraceful.  Yet the PhoneScamsPlus 0871 proposals and Ofcom 070 proposals still maintain there is no need to set a specific limit on long call queues or to penalise companies who exceed a certain call queue length.

No wonder they call themselves Stealthnet. :o >:(

pw4 wrote on Jan 28^th, 2009 at 2:05pm:

Stealthnet allows their 0871 customers to specify how many minutes callers are kept on hold before connection.

Is there any easy to find proof of this just so we can provide useless OfcoN and PhonePayPlus with this because as NGM points out, we are meant to believe this doesnt happen especially as according to PhonePayPlus, 0871 numbers are just used for its advanced features not the revenue share!

bbb_uk wrote on Jan 28^th, 2009 at 8:55pm:

Is there any easy to find proof of this just so we can provide useless OfcoN and PhonePayPlus with this because as NGM points out, we are meant to believe this doesnt happen especially as according to PhonePayPlus, 0871 numbers are just used for its advanced features not the revenue share!

Its good to know you are still with us bbb_uk as I was beginning to think that all forum moderation was only in the hands of the one man Dave show in the last few months. :D

So far as proof is concerned I presume something pretty compelling must already have come the way of Ofcom because you can be pretty sure any of these operators might try to go to court to get themselves removed from this list if the case against them was not overwhelming.  And we all know how Ofcom likes to avoid any court or Tribunal case that it thinks it is possibly in danger of losing. ;)

bbb_uk wrote on Jan 28^th, 2009 at 8:55pm:

pw4 wrote on Jan 28th, 2009 at 2:05pm: Stealthnet allows their 0871 customers to specify how many minutes callers are kept on hold before connection. Is there any easy to find proof of this  ...

Fairly easy - the customer fills in Stealthnet's online call queuing form!
http://www.stealthnet.co.uk/en/products/call_queuing_form?f=hpbh

If this is true, it's a complete disgrace. Phone queueing is annoying, and I'd often rather have an engaged tone, but even so I'd thought there was at least a valid reason for having queueing - if the line is busy, it means the caller can wait until the operator is available. However, I can see absolutely no reason for a pre-set delay between when the caller dials and connection if there is a line free.

I also note StealthNET describe 0871 as "charged at the BT National Rate". Utter rubbish.

Now we know where the "Stealth" comes into it: earning money through dishonest practices.

Yet another disgraceful product in StealthNET's portfolio: "Talk to a Doctor" or "Talk to a Counsellor" - and pay £1.50 for the privilege of doing so!

http://www.stealthnet.co.uk/en/products/talk-to-a-doctor-or-counsellor

I don't know why they didn't just call themselves Scamnet. ;) ;D