Wow!!

http://www.prweb.com/releases/conference-calls/conference-calling/prweb3697934.htm

Leading Conference Call Provider Powwownow Becomes a Telco

<<
With Ofcoms decision to remove the rebate payable to the telecoms supplier from 0870 numbers, Powwownow has decided to become a Telco in order to receive the entire rebate available and maintain their current revenue.

(PRWeb UK/PRWEB ) March 8, 2010 -- Powwownow has been providing high-quality, low-cost conference calling for over six years. They do what they do very well and have steadily grown year on year, now turning over £8 million per annum and servicing over 100,000 customers in 15 countries.

The original Powwownow business model was simple; using a 0870 number range and receiving a rebate for every call minute terminated on their conference equipment. The rebate was received directly from the supplying Telco, in this case, Colt and Easynet.

In February 2009 this revenue proved to be in jeopardy. Ofcom proposed to remove the rebate payable to the telecoms supplier from 0870 numbers with the aim of protecting consumers. This debate had been raging for several years but the date was now set, the proposal had become a reality.

So Powwownow had some decisions to make; if they did nothing they would lose 90% of their revenue with the only other revenue generating option from providing conference calls, without the complication of Premium Rate numbers, being the 0844 number range. However, with the return on 0844 numbers from the current suppliers being almost 50% less than the 0870 numbers, the decision was made to become a Telco. This means that Powwownow will receive the entire rebate available on a 0844 number and almost maintain their current revenues.

Mick Kemp, Technical Director comments: 'Becoming a Telco was a huge decision and probably the biggest change we have undertaken to date. It was, however essential for our growth and development. It also enables us to deliver the best quality calls possible whilst still keeping our conference call service free.'

[This is, perhaps, somewhat exaggerated] This now puts Powwownow in the same league as British Telecom, Colt and Easynet. It also presents numerous other telephony related business opportunities, including a whole range of telecoms products such as broadband and landlines, taking Powwownow far beyond conference calling.

Powwownow was founded in 2004, offering customers low-cost conference calling facilities with the ethos of no booking, no billing, no fuss. (The customer does not need to book a conference room and never receives a bill from Powwownow, just the cost of a 0844 call added to their bill). Turnover for 2010 is expected to reach £8m. The company operates in 15 countries including the US and major European markets. Powwownow employs 32 people and is based in Richmond, London.
>>

idb wrote on Mar 9^th, 2010 at 1:48am:

<< ... low-cost conference calling facilities with the ethos of no booking, no billing, no fuss.>>

Can anybody offer evidence that the relative cost of using other conference calling facilities makes this statement false or questionable?

I would suggest that publishing an alternative way of using this service so as to deny the operator the right to earn income from it would be no different to publishing ways of avoiding any other valid charging mechanism.

I firmly oppose any use of revenue sharing numbers that is fundamentally improper, where the cost of calling is misrepresented or the receipt of benefit by the called party is denied. I fully support the publication of alternative ways of making contact with organisations by telephone. I accept that there may be better ways of charging for services than by use of revenue sharing and premium rate telephone numbers.

This particular service seems to be well tuned to a certain market and provides good direct competition for BT - the point highlighted in the original posting.

Apart from the rather silly use of the word "free" in no particular context, which is unlikely to mislead any business buyer, I can find no cause for concern on viewing the powwownow website.

I can have little in common with anyone who cannot distinguish between this case and the use of 0844 numbers in the delivery of NHS services.

(If we are supporting this service, perhaps this thread should be moved to the "Call Providers" section.)

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Mar 9^th, 2010 at 12:54pm:

Can anybody offer evidence that the relative cost of using other conference calling facilities makes this statement false or questionable? I would suggest that publishing an alternative way of using this service so as to deny the operator the right to earn income from it would be no different to publishing ways of avoiding any other valid charging mechanism. I firmly oppose any use of revenue sharing numbers that is fundamentally improper, where the cost of calling is misrepresented or the receipt of benefit by the called party is denied. I fully support the publication of alternative ways of making contact with organisations by telephone. I accept that there may be better ways of charging for services than by use of revenue sharing and premium rate telephone numbers. This particular service seems to be well tuned to a certain market and provides good direct competition for BT - the point highlighted in the original posting. Apart from the rather silly use of the word "free" in no particular context, which is unlikely to mislead any business buyer, I can find no cause for concern on viewing the powwownow website. I can have little in common with anyone who cannot distinguish between this case and the use of 0844 numbers in the delivery of NHS services. (If we are supporting this service, perhaps this thread should be moved to the "Call Providers" section.)

I suspect there will be very little disagreement with the points above. Here we have a genuine 'value-added' service that is available at relatively low cost and paid for through, what I believe the marketing people call, a 'micropayment mechanism' from the generated revenue. The use of a revenue sharing number is entirely appropriate, and indeed, is where these numbering ranges shoudl be put to use.

It is unfortunate that such value-added services are grouped within the same numbering range as what I will call general consumer calls which offer absolutely no added value. Calls to public and government services, and to customer services and the like, should not, I maintain, be provided through revenue-generating services in any instance.

There is an argument that such value-added services should rest within the 09 range, although not one I would share for calls with such a low tariff.

idb wrote on Mar 10^th, 2010 at 2:02am:

I suspect there will be very little disagreement with the points above.

I hope that if any is felt, then it will be expressed in discussion.



idb wrote on Mar 10^th, 2010 at 2:02am:

The use of a revenue sharing number is entirely appropriate, and indeed, is where these numbering ranges shoudl be put to use.

I have to confess to a degree of cowardice in not expressing this point quite so plainly, through fear of being burned for heresy (or perhaps simply causing offence to those with whom I would like to think I am in alliance). I do, of course, fully endorse this comment. I nonetheless remain open to persuasion that there are more effective ways of charging for such services, so as to justify prohibition of revenue sharing and PRS.


I agree with the idea that those who offer "value-added services" should be proud to have them classified as "Premium Rate Services", although perhaps with some grading to distinguish the different price bands. There is the possibility that the Ofcom review of NTS could lead to such banding, if it is to regulate the charges for all NTS calls by all providers. It is perhaps too late for these to be defined purely by clearly recognisable number prefixes without a massive number changing exercise. We may have to get ready for a series of bands that are given names by marketing people. The already used "Lo-call" to describe the lowest band is utterly discredited, due to it being seen as an attempt to resurrect the concept of "local" rate - that was marketing licence being taken too far.

I fear however that there will not be any regulatory demand to provide clear justification of the added-value, which is seen in this case, but not in others. That would be seen as regulation being taken too far. This upcoming review will be a most interesting exercise and will give all of us plenty of opportunity to sort out our ideas and proposals.