No, they certainly do not NGM and they clearly very overtly continue without any shame or embarrassment whatever.

Andy9 I am afraid I could not disagree more about your implied belief that it is acceptable for some non-09 NGN uses such as connections to ISPs and call-through international providers to continue to be Revenue Sharing (used as disguised Premium numbers).

You ask for the history of it. Well, when the National Telephone Numbering Plan (NTNP) was introduced one of the key concepts was to move all Revenue Sharing (Premium) numbers, which previously had been littered within various unidentifiable code blocks to 09 by decree. From then on no Premium use was to have been allowed in any other block, and all call queuing was prohibited on Premium numbers. The purpose of this was to ensure that the Citizen Consumer could thenceforth easily identify and know which numbers were Premium numbers, and to protect the Citizen Consumer from the inevitable abuses which had already then occurred with queuing.

I think you will find that it was BT who first commenced abusing other NGN blocks and using them as disguised Premium numbers. The first abuse I recall was with ISPs. Oftel went to sleep, or more likely were encouraged directly to accept it, and did nothing to cease or prohibit this first abuse of the NTNP by BT. BT thus encouraged then began to similarly abuse other blocks in the same way and Oftel did nothing. The term "Revenue Sharing" was in fact invented by BT and Oftel when the questions began to be asked about the abuses, to attempt to conceal the fact that these were direct abuses of the NTNP with other NGNs being used as Premium numbers. Oftel claimed that "Revenue Sharing" was completely different to Premium use, whereas the mechanism and the effect is identical.

Even though Ofcom now change the NTNP increasingly frequently to justify and allow the increasing abuses as they are asked by telcos, at present the NTNP still defines clearly that all Premium use must be within the 09 category only and that call queuing is prohibited. Ofcom have in effect now introduced a major conflict in the NTNP, and the position is entirely similar to the commandments written on the barn wall in Orwell's "Animal Farm". They get changed each night to permit the latest round of abuses which the telcos want to be able to perpetrate! Clearly none of this is in the interest of the Citizen Consumer.

So I must completely disagree with you on this point. The root of the problem is that as that as Ofcom  have played their game of deceit they have become hoisted by their own petard, just like the Pigs. They have altered part of the NTNP one night to allow the abuses, but they have overlooked the fact that since they did not alter the definition for the 09 category, since this could hardly be done in any suitable way which would not be completely blatant and outrageous, there is now a foundational conflict in the NTNP. The only true way in which they are in reality forced to address this is to move all revenue sharing uses where they belonged in the original NTNP and even within the Pigs currently mutilated NTNP. All Revenue Sharing numbers must be in the category 09 according to the NTNP, and call queuing must be prohibited.

I too think that there is a place for revenue sharing on 08xx numbers in respect of call-through to international, or internet access numbers.

My employer bars access to 09xx premium and international numbers (yes, I know that it’s short-sighted as calls to mobiles cost more than some international numbers).  I have also been known to use an 0844 call-through number to access a UK number so as to hide the number I am contacting (sneaky, I’m afraid).

Has this problem been considered?

I agree NGM except not sure about PAYG dial-up but really PAYG dial-up should have been allocated it's own number anyhow same as dial-up for schools.

If ofcom aren't going to do nothing about 0844 (which we all know they wont) then they should, at the very least, prohibit call queuing on these numbers in the interim.  So all those companies that are going to migrate over to these numbers will not gain any money from us for queuing for 20+ mins and only when we actually speak to a human will we be charged.  I've found that the queuing is generally longer than the time you are on the phone speaking to a human.

But NGM that would still defeat the purpose and spirit of the NTNP. The purpose was that all revenue sharing numbers should be moved to 09 and queuing prohibited. The foundational reason was so that Citizen Consumers can easily recognise which numbers are revenue sharing numbers. To speak of having other number blocks which may have revenue sharing for different purposes is a retrograde step, and a reversion to the confusion and disparity which the NTNP plan was designed originally to end.

I see no reason that sub-categories of the 09 bank cannot be provided at different cost rates for all of the applications which you mention, and I believe that is the only way for the true interests of the Citizen Consumer to be met.

Yes of course you are correct with the realities of these things NGM, and what Ofcom will actually do; and of course you are completely correct with regard to 070 PNS. However I sense that you do in fact essentially agree with my point about the NTNP.

What Ofcom want to do is to have their cake and eat it so to speak. It was the regulators who implemented the NTNP (the plan). They are supposed to be the regulators which means they are supposed to "regulate" the telcos. Instead they have allowed the exact opposite to occur, and instead of regulating according to the regulations, their remit and the NTNP they have allowed the telcos to drive a coach and horses through all of it, and then in addition have changed the regulations and the NTNP bit by bit to whatever the telcos demand that they want to do.

That is not regulation. That is conspiracy!

I do not see that one subdivision of the 09 category could not be allocated for all these lower cost uses, and treated by the telcos differently for Premium call banning purposes on subscriber's services. In other words there should be two levels of Premium call banning operated by telcos: one which bans all except the lower cost category calls (thus not banning ISPs etc. on the equivalent of the present 0845) and another which bans ALL 09 calls. I would myself have the one banning ALL 09 calls, and at present I have 09 banning.

bbb_uk wrote on Nov 17^th, 2005 at 7:22pm:


None of these 09 scams would happen if 09 numbers were deactivated by default on a subscriber line and could only be used by the subsciber requesting a PIN number that had to be entered before any 09 call.  It would then be the subscriber's choice as to whether they shared the PIN number with anyone else in the household.  If this was combined with compulsory price announcement the rogue dialler scams could not happen and people's kids and cleaners could not dial these numbers knowing that they don't have to pay the bill.

But Ofcom have permitted a system that deliberately allows the scams of their friends in the telecoms industry to continue totally unchallenged.  Ofcom are seemingly on the side of and secretly condone almost all forms of telecoms scamming because they claim all of this as valuable economic activity it would be a shame to lose.  Don't forget that for very 09 scammer who operates a part of the proceeds are usually also going into the pocket of BT for routing the calls.