Guidance on pricing information for 0845 and 0870 numbers was changed just over a year ago to reflect the changes to BT's tariffs which saw 0845 charges brought down below that of geographic calls:

http://cap.msgfocus.com/q/16COL8tNfEj/wv

Saynoto0870 should urge the CAP to wake up to the fact that BT is neither the sole, nor even the dominant, provider of telephone service in the UK.

To base rules for advertising around the marketing (i.e. consumer pricing) activities of a single service provider is perverse and improper.

SCV - I agree entirely.

In another thread I asked if companies listing the call rates from a BT landline were breaking unfair competition rules by persistently promoting one supplier over the other.

An increasing number of people, approx 15% (population not households) no longer have ANY landline anyway.

floella2 wrote on Apr 15^th, 2010 at 7:02pm:

An increasing number of people, approx 15% (population not households) no longer have ANY landline anyway.

So, does that mean that 15% (population not households) do not have a broadband connection? I thought you had to have a landline to have broadband. :-?

sherbert wrote on Apr 15^th, 2010 at 7:16pm:

floella2 wrote on Apr 15th, 2010 at 7:02pm: An increasing number of people, approx 15% (population not households) no longer have ANY landline anyway. So, does that mean that 15% (population not households) do not have a broadband connection? I thought you had to have a landline to have broadband. :-?

Sherbert, my limited Internet knowledge, extends thus far: Virgin Media provide cable only Internet, and it can be sold without it's landline service, also there is a rise in the number of mobile broadband users, which also do not need/require a PSTN (Landline) connection or service.

To have home ADSL Broadband a landline IS required however.

I hope this helps.

The latest data from the Office for National Statistics (August 2009) states that 63% of all UK households had a broadband connection.

The trend suggests that this may be increasing by a few percentage points per annum. It is therefore very likely that over 30% (not 15%) of UK households still do not have broadband.


Whilst on the subject of official statistics, according to the latest (q/e December 2009) Ofcom Data Tables, the percentage of landline call minutes placed through BT was down to 41.2%, and of overall minutes to 23.1%. (The "Call volumes by Operator" data for mobiles is understated, which inflates the overall BT percentage. Furthermore, it is not split between residential and business, so one cannot give a figure for the BT share of the residential calls market. CAP guidance does of course cover advertising aimed at businesses.)


It is demonstrably wrong and improper for so much to be based on the particular (and partially regulated) marketing practices of a single provider in a diverse market. I only offer these figures for interest; in my view it would still be wrong even if BT had around 80% of the telephone calls market, rather than the 20% which it actually has.

floella2 wrote on Apr 15^th, 2010 at 7:02pm:

An increasing number of people, approx 15% (population not households) no longer have ANY landline anyway.

If that is indeed the case, then the 15% must rely on their mobiles, then those people  are as just as bad as the companys that use 08 numbers as it costs more to phone a mobile than a landline

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Apr 16^th, 2010 at 1:07am:

The trend suggests that this may be increasing by a few percentage points per annum. It is therefore very likely that over 30% (not 15%) of UK households still do not have broadband.

No one has suggested that 15% of UK households do not have broadband. What was suggested was that 15% do not have a land line

sherbert wrote on Apr 16^th, 2010 at 6:36am:

No one has suggested that 15% of UK households do not have broadband. What was suggested was that 15% do not have a land line

I was reponding to the question:


Quote:

does that mean that 15% (population not households) do not have a broadband connection?

The only figure I could find was for households (37%), not population. Clearly the raw population percentage would be higher, as many will benefit from a connection that they do not actually pay for themselves. One could speculate as to whether there is any difference in the average size of households that have broadband as against those who do not. I would suggest that smaller households are less likely to have broadband, so the percentage of the population without access to fixed broadband at home is probably smaller than the figures given.

I do however conclude my quoted posting by commenting that the issue here is with BT prices. These are not enjoyed by a sufficient proportion of the population to make them worthy of exclusive consideration with reference to rules about pricing assumptions in advertising.

---

sherbert wrote on Apr 16^th, 2010 at 6:32am:

those people  are as just as bad as the companys that use 08 numbers as it costs more to phone a mobile than a landline

This is a fair point. Under the present regime, all mobile users (not just those without landlines) benefit from a subsidy paid by those who call them, in the same way as those who use 08 numbers. (In the case of 080 users, their only benefit is in not meeting the full cost of incoming calls from mobiles.)

One could however argue that mobile users have no alternative; they cannot opt to meet their share of the cost of incoming calls under the present regime. The same applies to 080 users who wish to be "free to caller".

Those who use revenue sharing and PRS 08 numbers have however had the option of 03 for two years now. It is also likely that the same service could always have been offered using geographic numbers, although possibly at greater expense than with 03, and in some cases at a greater cost for some callers.

It is the choice to opt for subsidy from callers that is the focus of criticism, especially (as is commonly the case) where this done dishonestly. There are few of us who offer our mobile number and claim that it costs no more than a call to a geographic number.

Dave wrote on Mar 16^th, 2010 at 2:03pm:

Guidance on pricing information for 0845 and 0870 numbers was changed just over a year ago to reflect the changes to BT's tariffs which saw 0845 charges brought down below that of geographic calls: http://cap.msgfocus.com/q/16COL8tNfEj/wv

This is clearly quite outrageous given that 0845 calls are still excluded from bundled minutes on almost all mobile phone call packages. >:( >:( >:(

Would you agree that companies publish this in such a way as to make the cost of the call appear negligable to many people? (After all they would hardly say 'calls from T Mobile will cost 40p per minute, calls from landlines may be considerably less...' lol)

SCV states that 'Saynoto0870 should urge the CAP to wake up to the fact that BT is neither the sole, nor even the dominant, provider of telephone service in the UK.' AGREE ENTIRELY!

Sherbert asks if 15% of the population do not have broadband, in actual fact 73% of households currently have an internet connection (type of connection not stated) http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=8

My question is this: (Please stick with me here - I am looking somewhat outside of the box)

What is the legal stance when Government Departments are advertising BT as a Telephone Provider on practically all of its publications? Is this not unfair on other providers?

I personally feel it must surely be illegal but I cannot find the rules on the matter! If it is illegal and we can challenge it, it would open up another avenue to push harder (with a different tactic) for 03xx numbers as is could possibly remove the need for them to publish such information about BT.

If anyone can find the law on this matter I will PERSONALLY notify every single telephone provider in the UK and get them to do the donkey work for us!!!!!

Pricing stated at "BT rates" is detailed in the National Telephone Numbering Plan, part of the legal framework for how the UK telephone system is administered.

http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/telecoms/numbering/numplan080410.pdf

http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/telecoms/numbering/numplan280710.pdf



The wording is just about to be changed, to accommodate the increase in VAT rates in January.

http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/consultations/numbering-plan-changes/

http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/consultations/addendum-numbering-plan/

floella2 wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2010 at 4:26pm:

Sherbert asks if 15% of the population do not have broadband, in actual fact 73% of households currently have an internet connection (type of connection not stated) http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=8

Of course, no one is taking into account the number of people that who do not have internet connection but go to the public library or internet cafes (or even use a friend's) to use the internet.

Another point to consider is that Ofcom will very shortly (in the next couple of weeks) be launching a consultation on proposals that will (probably) do away with BT's special position in the National Numbering Plan, and the associated regulation of its retail prices.

Powers for Ofcom to regulate the retail prices of all providers are contained in a live EU Directive that is planned to be incorporated in UK law in the Spring of 2011.

The proposals, along with other non preferred options presented in the consultation, will outline how Ofcom proposes to retain control of pricing for calls to Non-Geographic Call Services (NGCS) other than through rigid regulation of the charges levied by what was once the monopoly provider.

It is my fervent hope, and I have lobbied strongly for it, that the consultation will include a clear and simple explanation of the status quo. I maintain that this will not only be important so as to enable consultation respondents to appreciate the options for change in context, but also to provide a proper understanding of the situation as it will remain over the lengthy period before any proposals can be confirmed and then implemented.

(Please let nobody question any way in which Ofcom currently regulates the charges of all providers. Some of Ofcom's powers are like fairies - they only exist because people believe that they exist - the Tinkerbell effect.)

Yawn.

Whatever sham of proactivity Ofcom may try to create all of the scams will remain firmly in place as happened with 070 numbers despite earlier promises by Ofcom to take action.

NGMsGhost wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2010 at 3:09pm:

Yawn. Whatever sham of proactivity Ofcom may try to create all of the scams will remain firmly in place as happened with 070 numbers despite earlier promises by Ofcom to take action.

Ofcom is certainly not being proactive. It is responding to strong representations and actions by BT, which resents being treated as holding SMP, when this is admitted not to be the case. Ofcom is also reacting to extensive public representations about the lack of transparency in pricing for calls to NGCS.

In a lightly regulated free market there will always be scams. Action by regulators may cause the nature of the scam to change, but the profit motive will always push against the edges of regulation. Because regulation imposes limitations on freedom of action, it has to be justified as being necessary, which means that it has to be reactive, rather than proactive. It is therefore at least one step behind what is actually happening.

In a liberal and regulation-averse environment, the powers of regulators are kept severely limited. When this is compounded by natural human incompetence and an industry-minded outlook, it is unsurprising that Ofcom and the other regulators appear ineffective. This makes our efforts in campaigning for what can only ever be modest changes difficult.

It is perfectly understandable that some become tired and despondent, focussing on past failures to suggest that our efforts are to no good purpose. I differ from that position in that if I ever felt that I had done all that I could, I would simply move on to deploy my energies elsewhere. When I judge that this point has arrived, that is what I will do. I have no interest in noble failure or pointless whingeing.

NGMsGhost wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2010 at 3:09pm:

Whatever sham of proactivity Ofcom may try to create all of the scams will remain firmly in place as happened with 070 numbers despite earlier promises by Ofcom to take action.

And the 06 range being reserved* supposedly for 070 migration.

* In 2005, IIRC.

Wth Ofcom's recent proposals to introduce clarity into the pricing of premium (084x, 0871, 0872, 0873 and 09) numbers, I think that ASA should be proactive and consider what the best practice should be for service providers.

Dave wrote on Apr 17^th, 2011 at 12:03pm:

Wth Ofcom's recent proposals to introduce clarity into the pricing of premium (084x, 0871, 0872, 0873 and 09) numbers, I think that ASA should be proactive and consider what the best practice should be for service providers.

Along with many other voluntary and statutory bodies involved in setting and enforcing standards, I see the CAP / ASA as key to the success of Ofcom's proposals.

The only way that Ofcom can regulate pricing by "Service Providers" is by classifying them as providers of "Premium Rate Services", so as to fall within the self-regulatory regime imposed by PhonePay Plus on members of the "pay by telephone" industry. Unless the practice of obtaining subsidy through relatively modest "Service Charges" is to be outlawed (i.e. no "Business Rate"), then PRS is the wrong mechanism to employ for effective regulation.

I have urged Ofcom to engage with all of the relevant bodies at the earliest possible stage. I see it as vital that Ofcom defines the basic standards to be applied by the various bodies on a common basis. I cannot see any point in urging the CAP to try to second guess what Ofcom may do, so it may not be appropriate for it to be "proactive". Regulators have to be very careful about stepping into territory occupied by others, so this does need to be properly co-ordinated.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Apr 17^th, 2011 at 12:52pm:

I have urged Ofcom to engage with all of the relevant bodies at the earliest possible stage. I see it as vital that Ofcom defines the basic standards to be applied by the various bodies on a common basis. I cannot see any point in urging the CAP to try to second guess what Ofcom may do, so it may not be appropriate for it to be "proactive". Regulators have to be very careful about stepping into territory occupied by others, so this does need to be properly co-ordinated.

I'm not entirely sure that "proactive" is the right word to use with respect to this. As I understand it, CAP sets the Codes of Practice for which ASA enforces and rules against.

What I am getting at is the fact that it will be more desireable that CAP decides best practice for call pricing information sooner rather than later (this probably goes without saying!) and the reason is that the current "Other providers may vary" [from that of BT] line is the opposite of the truth.

It seems that ASA/CAP has a choice now:

• it can continue to accept (and advocate the use of) "Other providers may vary", or;
  
• CAP can draw up a new code which says how pricing information should be given, with the possibility that it might change again in the not too distant future.

Ofcom made the point in its consultation document that any pricing information would need to be understandable to consumers in general, else it is likely to cause further confusion (or perhaps just be a waste of time). I wonder if CAP could help in this respect.