Source: Ofcom update

<<
Ofcom today published its statement confirming measures to improve current PRS regulation.   Ofcom has confirmed that the PRS regulatory regime remains largely effective, but has proposed a framework for assessing whether particular services should be included or excluded from regulation.  

A number of specific initiatives have also been recommended for PhonepayPlus, the PRS regulator, to adopt.  These include:

•      the introduction of a mandatory registration scheme for relevant parties operating in the PRS industry;
•      that PhonepayPlus should strengthen its requirements for PRS advertising in line with Ofcom’s approach to PRS in TV programmes (‘calls from mobiles will cost considerably more’); and
•      that PhonepayPlus should consult on establishing minimum standards for complaints handling across the PRS industry.

The full statement can be found here: http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/prs_scope/prs_statement/
>>

Includes:

Call barring

5.91 Given the unique risks of harm from PRS, it is important that consumers are able to monitor and control their expenditure. One means of supporting this is by allowing consumers to decide that their telephone should not be able to make certain types of calls. The availability of call barring for PRS is particularly important given the risks that a phone could be used without the permission of the bill-payer and that children could potentially access inappropriate content.

5.92 The Consultation noted that CPs are not required to offer call barring as Ofcom had previously considered that sufficient numbers of operators offered the service for 09 numbers to meet the needs of consumers. However, we signalled that in light of market developments (such as the growth of mobile PRS) we may need to revisit whether current call-barring services are meeting the needs of consumers. In particular, we noted that most mobile networks did not currently offer a facility to block outgoing voice and SMS to mobile shortcodes, or reverse-billed SMS.

5.93 The Consultation sought the views of mobile operators as to whether they were willing to voluntarily extend their call barring facilities; and also asked stakeholders whether they supported Ofcom undertaking an in-depth analysis of the market for call barring.

Question 6.18: Do you agree with the options identified regarding call barring facilities?

5.94 With the exception of the mobile operators, there was strong support for a closer examination of whether current call barring facilities were meeting the needs of consumers. Where views were offered, there was support for examining whether there was merit in introducing selective call-barring to 09 numbers (i.e. sub-barring), as well as examining outgoing voice/SMS to shortcodes, and reverse-billed SMS.

Stakeholder comments

5.95 BT noted that while it is natural to support a high degree of granularity for call barring, there are likely to be some very serious technical issues to address in mandating sub-barring on the 09 number range. It was noted that call barring is a Wholesale Line Rental (WLR) facility and that at present Openreach call barring is effectively set-up on an on/off basis. Altering this facility could potentially be very costly.

5.96 The mobile operators opposed any regulation to mandate call barring. With particular reference to shortcodes the mobile operators claimed that introducing the facility would be very expensive, that uptake is likely to be low (as it is for 09 call barring), and that, as at least one operator already offers call barring to shortcodes, consumers who feel strongly about the matter have the option of subscribing to that operator. 3 made the point that not all shortcodes offer PRS (for example, enabling congestion charges), so any call barring facility would potentially need to be highly complex to enable consumers to only bar certain services.

5.97 There were no offers from the mobile operators for call barring facilities to be voluntarily extended. The operators strongly opposed any extension of regulation and stated that Ofcom would need to undertake a rigorous cost/benefit analysis before proceeding any further with this proposal.

Ofcom response

5.98 The responses have helped further our understanding of call barring and we will take them into account in deciding whether there is merit in further work in this area. On one hand, it is possible to argue that if there was demand for this service, and the provision was technically feasible and not too expensive, then the market would deliver such a facility. Indeed at least one operator already offers call barring for shortcodes. However, it is clear that the market does not always proactively provide solutions to consumer detriment. Also, in any further work on the issue of sub-barring, we will need to consider how many consumers actually wish to bar their phones from accessing certain 09 services, but require access to others.

idb wrote on Oct 29^th, 2009 at 12:01am:

However, it is clear that the market does not always proactively provide solutions to consumer detriment.

So after more than five years and several hundred thousand pounds each of executive pension contributions and several million pounds each of salary payments to each of its senior executives Ofcom has finally realised that "the market does not always proactively provide solutions to consumer detriment"

Do you think they will perhaps eventually also learn that "paying private sector level salaries to Ofcom's senior executives does not necessarily attract management who are motivated to take actions in the best interests of the general public rather than only in the best interests of their ex cronies in the telecoms and broadcasting industries".  I wonder why no one has ever thought of making ex criminals in to judges, after all I am sure they would fully understand the very real difficulties faced by criminals in being able to successfully and cost effectively pursue their chosen vocation.................................. ::)

Absolutely disgusting that they need to even waste time and money asking whether call barring is necessary!  >:( >:(

It is a basic requirement, and in this day and age it should be available to all. The idea that such a facility should be "consumer" driven is much like letting manufacturers decide whether their products should conform to relevant standards, currently required by law.


Which mobile operator is it that allows premium rate SMS messages to be blocked?  :-?