Working Lunch today included a further partial treatment of NGN number abuses and customers' anger concerning them and particularly at being kept on hold for long periods.

However, just like their previous treatment of these NGN abuses they watered down the whole issue, even admitting that the BBC themselves use and abuse them, but claiming that "they make no money out of them after they have deducted the cost of providing the services on them"!!! But that is what this whole scam is about. It is quite inappropriate to claim that it costs an organisation money to have their employees answering the telephone!! It has always been thus and will always be thus. This is an overhead cost which must be born by the organisation and factored into their overall costing. That is exactly what Standard Costing is about in Management Accountancy! In the case of the BBC these abuses are a form of "stealth tax" which really represents a surreptitious  increase in the Licence Fee! It is all about pretence and dishonesty.

Again in the normal way that we are now used to with Working Lunch, they could not even get the facts concerning these abuses correct. Again either they did not get their research correct or pressure was put on them to dilute the facts. This time they were claiming that organisations receiving these abused NGN calls with queuing were receiving only 2.5p per minute! We have the evidence to show this is untrue. We know it is up to 4.7 p per minute for those with large call volumes. They claimed that BT do not make much out of these calls. We know again that that is untrue. The key issue is that BT often (due to SMP) both initiate and terminate these calls. The reason that BT insist that Ofcom make redactions in consulting documents concerning all issues of their actual revenue from these abuses is that previously BT have admitted that these abuses are now a very large part of their call carrying business and this proportion has since grown further. Since they have lost such a large proportion of their previous market share with normal geographic calls, because they are no longer competitive, their revenue from these abuses is now something like 58% of their total revenue from call traffic. That is why they attempt to keep it secret. They know their customers will be outraged if they find out the truth.

Working Lunch also glossed over the enormous difference in call costs between for example an 0870 call and a geographic call via 18866. They also wrongly represented the cost of 0845 and 0844 calls and completely ommitted the resurgent abuses with 070 PNS numbers, which are much more expensive and yield even more for the scam merchants.

In addition it has come to my attention that it is clear that commercial pressure has been placed upon the operators of Google by the 0870 and other NGN pervayors and the NGN abuse campaign sites have been deliberately removed from their database! The sites still come up well on other search engines however.

All of this points I believe to the fact that these abuses are now so endemic and yielding such large amounts of profit that those who have a vested interest in these abuses continuing are using all of their muscle and influence to defeat us. Look for the next stage in their strategy, which will be a big move to change all of the geographic numbers to which abused NGNs are patched and to conceal the new geographic numbers, so forcing increasing usage of abused NGNs and increasing the revenue generated. It will then be increasingly difficult for this site to continue to defeat these abuses.

The real problem is that we have become so successful at publicising these abuses now and at publicising the alternative geographic numbers that the vested interests can follow our every move and have now been able as a result to begin to disable us. There is big money at stake here and that is why there is a big problem.  It can only get worse unless the EU intervenes.

Since I looked at it yesterday they seem to have replaced it in the database  for some searches, but not all which it should and did appear for previously. 

If I do a search for "0870 numbers" on Google.co.uk now it does not appear, but if I do a search for "0870 abuse" on Google.co.uk it is now again No. 3.

Quote:

Sorry it isn't, not even on the first page!

The only reason that we come up on the Google search is because is in the site name , is in the main page title , and both are in the page text.

To force the engines to present pages, words have to be put into the pages data in text format, and also additional descriptive words into the html page header.

Consequently, as the word does not appear on the page or in the underlying html, it should not come up on a search for , and indeed, it does not !!

In fact, if you try , we're down in 9th position, because it's only on the page joined up as . But then try searching for and for our only mention we drop to 37th/38th, albeit for a redundant link, even though we have Saynoto in the html of the main site page as link addresses !?

Funny things these Search engines - you can't rely on anything these days.  

Just checked it out on a different computer.

This site is definately No 1 on Google if you enter only "0870".

If you enter 0870 on the UK site we are not listed.

Is this something to do with the title of this thread?

I hope so because entering the UK site is optional, I was worried that Google would bow to pressure from the telcom companies.

Do you really think that is likely?

j

Totally agree. (With the final pargraph).

juby

Hi kk Yes that is the point. I agree entirely. These abuses of NGNs particularly with 0870 are:

(1) a barrier to free trade and 
(2) anti-competitive in nature.   

The EU Commission ought therefore to investigate the whole scenario and particularly why Ofcom are not fulfilling their obligations under current law. 

However, one query I have with what you state is, when is a call to an NGN no more expensive than a call to a GN (at the same time of the same day that is)? I don't know any example of that.

The other key issue that I believe should be emphasised in any complaint to the EU Commission is that revenue sharing with NGNs other than 09 is a contravention of the UK National Numbering Plan (NTNP) which it is the responsibility of Ofcom to enforce; and the only reason that Revenue Sharing with NGNs other than 09 was initiated as a contravention of the NTNP was to circumvent the prohibition of call queuing which exists for 09 numbers and to restore BT's generated call revenue in the face of tough competition with GNs.

One other point: apparently there has recently been a revision of the Google search results index and this has resulted in many websites losing their listing or their previous ranking in the Google listings. Participants in the Google News Forum at WebmasterWorld.com have dubbed the changes "The Allegra Update", apparently named after the popular allergy medication. Many are not too pleased! It may be this revision which has resulted in the removal of associated 0870 sites from Google rather than a deliberate move in response to commercial advertising pressures or demands.

Hi dorf
I agree: I have struck out “in general”.

I also agree with the point about 09 and Ofcom etc.

When I sent a letter to the EU a week or so ago, I also said:

“………Under the doctrine of “Direct Effect” Ofcom may be in breach of EU law. I would also assert that government departments and government agencies who also use non-geographical numbers are also in breach of EU law.   BT, who is not a government department, may also be liable, as under EU law,  BT could be considered as an “emanation of the state” (see Foster v British Gas [1990] ECR I-3313).

The UK does have a special category of premium telephone numbers starting with 09, to which special rules apply.  It is inexcusable that 087x and 084x number should not be placed in this special premium category.  By not placing those numbers in the premium category Ofcom are  helping to hide the true cost and nature of 087x and 084x numbers……..

I did not wish to complicate my post to this site, by putting the above into it.  It is also important not to produce a “standardised letter”, as they are not as strong as individual correspondence.