Quote:

How can Ofcom allow these numbers to be connected to the rates on the monopoly's tariff and, paradoxically, break up this monopoly? ???

Quote:

How about putting this to Ofcom as a ground breaking theory: The reason service providers (ie insurance companies, banks and other services) [supposedly] 'believe' it costs no more to call NGNs is because of the misleading spin in the information provided by NGN providers.

How many services don't 'require' [Ofcom's definition, not mine] extra revenue? Some more rocket science: If NGN providers don't pay service providers for using them then the money must go somewhere. Also, how can one provider's 0870 number who doesn't give revenue be cheaper to call than the provider who does give revenue? Are Ofcom trying to suggest that the people running businesses are that simple?

Putting the financial issue asside for a moment, there are surely practical advantages to NGNs. These being routing to various locations/numbers when busy or depending on the location of the caller etc. However, Ofcom has not created such a number range which is charged at normal geographical rates, being free when on inclusive call packages.

Yes, but Dave,

Did you notice BTs admission hidden in their statements in this meeting?:

".........
Q      Colin Scott asked what scope operators would have for seeking retrospection on the impact of NCCN 500 (following the conclusion of the NTS Framework re-examination and the submission of a further Competition Act complaint).
A      Caroline Wallace said that if there were a breach of the Competition Act, this would date from the pricing change, not the date of the conclusion of the framework re-examination. Operators were therefore free to submit a Competition Act complaint on NCCN 500 after the conclusion of the framework re-examination.

A discussion on the issues then followed. Colin Annette said that BT wasn’t wishing to jeopardise the future of the UK NTS market as this accounted for between a quarter and one third of switched revenues for BT. Colin said he was in the process of putting indicative pricing through an internal pricing board and it was his intention to issue a bi-lateral pricing ‘offer’ to operators. This offer would not be contractual, instead BT would look for operator feedback on a bi-lateral basis.

Caroline Wallace said that she could see the value in BT issuing pricing bi-laterally and Ofcom would be interested in seeing operator feedback. Colin Annette suggested that the feedback be copied to Ofcom. Caroline said that it appeared to Ofcom that Ofcom intervention would be required to implement NTS Futures type arrangements. ....."

This statement supports what I have claimed previously, that BT introduced Revenue Sharing on NGNs other than 09, as part of a very deliberate strategy, then persuading as many organisations as possible to change their telephone numbers to those such as 0870, 0871 etc. The principal reasons for this strategy were that queueing was not prohibited with NGNs other than 09, which made them more attractive to organisations wishing to exploit their customers; and that it was a deliberate gambit to prevent free competition, since with the premiums to be paid the new entrants to the market (their competitors) would not be able to undercut them by much with these numbers.

The considerations of the Competition Act discussed here and their specific statement here that about 1/3rd of their "switched revenue" (that is revenue from call traffic carried by them) is now for non 09 NGNs (implied) shows just how successful they have been in getting organisations to change over to using these wretched rip-off numbers, and worst of all enticing consumers to call them!