Quote:


But aren't there already nearly 100 responses to this consultation with weeks left to go.  Unfortunately most of those responses do not make the right points though due to the clever Ofcom spin in the consultation though.

Perhaps other members of the forum would care to comment on why it has not been felt appropriate to offer a http://www.freeweb.telco4u.net/rachelf/index.htm site for this consultation?

Note the rearrangement of responses and improved alphabetical ordering by surname at http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/nts_forward/responses/ - a big improvement by Ofcom.

I am enraged at the complicity which OFCOM appears to permit in allowing Non Geographic numbers to increase to the current astronomic numbers.  I would have thought that it would be in the interest of all concerned to expunge the ubiquitous system and return to geographic numbers.  I strongly object to having to pay the phone bill for a large company AND help to line their pockets at the same time by being directed, redirected, held in queues and having music(?) played at me.  Why should I have to dial out to another area when the company concerned is local?  Why should I get the feeling that I am dialling "round the corner" and increasing the profite of not only the company concerned but the phone company also?   Biggles

Perhaps it might be an idea to change the name of OFTEL to a more proper "OFFRIP" and challenge the thinking behind what is currently offered to us as help (?).  If there is some method of calling the powers that be to account for their slovenly drafting of legislation and removing their snouts from the trough it would be an advantage.  We should all benefit from less governing and more assistance, plus, we should also be wealthier owing to the fact that there would be less administrators with enormous pay packets to support.  It might be an answer to put them on performance related pay only, much as companies employ a sales force on sales commission only and no basic pay, this would focus their thoughts and actions in order to make a decent living instead of the expensive support they now enjoy.  Only a thought but it is Nirvana and unobtainable as long as we, and I count myself in this, are to lethargic to make any real complaints.  If we had any Colonels worth their salt we should have had a military coup years ago, but that is another line of thought, and unlikely.

I have to wonder where Off-Con got their metrics from, stating that in calling a call centre, they were put through to an operator within 13 seconds ?!?? (point 1.34 if you want to look it up)  What about the length of time it takes to get through their protracted marketing message, usually along the lines of "why not check out our website", then to navigate a complex menu of options?

Then again, I suppose the companies concerned would want to maintain the 0870 number as an alternative to a geographic number.  How many of us would phone a UK-based company that had a number starting with +91 22?

Still, if you can dial a UK geographic number in, say, Bristol, and be put through to a call centre in Dublin, then surely Bombay (or wherever else they so choose) should be no different?  Unless... oh, now I get it...    revenue sharing really is what they're after...

Quote:

How does Ofcom define of "call centre"? How many employees and what sort of companies?

Over on the thread about the 070 personal numbers consultation, I have suggested that 070 numbers might be where companies such as those that install phone systems into university accommodation might go. The allowance of Patientline's systems in hospitals is very similar.

Whilst they might not charge 50p/min, they can still charge callers in the same way they do now with 0870, generating revenue, and get away with it. I cannot see that Ofcom can argue that student room telephones are different to hospital systems.