Tanllan wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2005 at 12:56pm:


OFTEL should have imposed the necessary clear NTS regulatory framework and price disclosure rules back in the late 1990s and it should have merely then been for Ofcom to maintain and enhance a well thought out NTS regulatory system.

So to be fair to Ofcom they did inherit a nightmare of legacy pro NTS abuse regulations from OFTEL but since then they have continued to fiddle while Rome burns by proposing entirely the wrong reforms and continuing to consult and consult instead of taking urgent remedial action.  Incredibly they even seem to think they need a consultation on whether those abusing NTS on 084/087 (especially mobile phone operators) should have to disclose their true call prices to the customer.  But what is their to consult on here?  It just needs the rules to be made.  Ofcom does not seem to perceive the massive harm that is done by it failing to act sufficiently quickly or vigorously on this matter or if it does perceive the harm then it is complicit with it.

If Ofcom were even vaguely competent 0871 and 0844 would now already be an 09 subspecies regulated by ICSTIS (or possibly a new lower rate NTS series starting 04 or 06 but still regulated by ICSTIS under possibly a slightly different set of Premium Rate regulations) and 0870 and 0845 would by now all have become priced at geographic call rates with any ISPs or customers abusing call centres moving to another number prefix where their receipt of NTS revenue share was made clear.  But instead Ofcom seemingly (judging from comments made at the meeting last Thursday) equates ending revenue share on 084 and 087 with ending all micro payment NTS services that the customer allegedly (according to Ofcom) wants and needs (if there are actually any genuine added value services on 084 and 087 numbers apart from internet dialup which I remain to be convinced of).  But if the customer actually wants and needs these services so badly then clearly he will still be prepared to pay for them even when there is no longer a deceipt about the true call cost to the customer involved.  But it is the ending of the deceipt about the true call costs being known to which Ofcom and many of the NTS abusers seem to object so strongly.

Unfortunately the people at Ofcom in charge of all this do not seem to be driven by principle to do what is the right thing and instead are driven only by cynical expediency to do what they think they can get away with but without causing too much upset to their powerful friends in the major uk telcos.

Quote:


Dont have ago at me ok? I didnt write the response did I?
Now Ive decided not to frequent this site as much.

There are additional responses listed today. I'm sure AJR will provide the list when he has time. There are also additional responses to the NTS info consultation since the last update by bbb_uk.

mc661 wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2005 at 1:08am:


mc661 it would be a shame to lose you from here over this one very small point.  It could of course well be that your grandson only used the 0871 number and listed the geographic number as only for overseas callers to make a point with Ofcom.  Obviously he would have expected them to remove addresses and phone numbers as they have usually done this in the past.

I fully accept you aren't directly responsible for the entirety of your grandson's submission.

But where is your submission mc661?  Is it perhaps one of the now numerous Name Withheld efforts?

Still I have yet to send in my submission.  It was going to be earlier but what with the Ofcom Workshop and then other matters in life intervening for 3 to 4 days it has had to wait until the last moment.  There is nothing like a deadline to get you down to doing something.

Quote:


Thanks very much for your comments, NGM.  I agree with what you're saying and also acknowledge that Flextel are striving to take a coherent approach to the matter.

I don't wish to go on, however, but I'm still struggling to get my head around their position.  Are we saying that its possible for all revenue sharing to move to 09 numbers AND for 0870 to be charged by TCPs at higher than geographic rates? (This is stated in Flextel's consultation response)  Perhaps my understanding is too simplistic but these two statements appear to be contradictory ?  Help! 

Being insulted by NGM, appears par for the course.  But he, and any respondent, should be as tactful as possible.

-----------------------------------------------------------

Getting back to fundamentals:

Ofcom should stop micro managing things and produce a radical overhaul of the numbering and charging structure.

A caller should be faced with a simple and clear structure, all the hybrid and clandestine number that charge more than the customer Normal Rate ( 0p/min on Option 3 etc) should be moved to the “09" class of numbers.

If an organisation wishes to receive money from the caller, this should be done in an open manner.  Even if the organisation (or telecom provider) using the number only wishes to receive 1p/min from the caller, the number  should be placed in the 09 class.  The 09 range could have pre announced charges starting with 1p/min.

If an organisation wishes to have a number with special features or offer some sort of service, they should pay for them, if not, then the number should be placed in the 09 class, in that class the customer is aware that he will be paying extra (above his Normal Rate) - a simple system.

The total of responses has now reached 896. The new ones added on Friday (Dec 2) are listed below.

You can read the responses here: http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/nts_forward/responses/

AIMS Accountants for Business  
Allingham Dr C  
Andrews P  
Armitage B D  
Arscott P  
Barraclough N  
Barton D  
Bateman J  
Beattie A  
Bickford P  
Birkin R  
Bleher Dr S M  
Boxall C  
Cambourne Travel Ltd  
Central Hertfordshire Consumer Group  
Coleman D  
Collier R  
Crow M  
Crowe B L  
Culley C  
Cupples J  
Damle R  
Dennison J  
Dovehouse Travel  
Duncan C  
Elston T M  
Firth R M  
Fraser D  
Fraser I  
Gardner D and H  
Gear M D S  
Gibbon B  
Giles D  
Harrigan E  
Herron M D  
Hollis R W  
Hooper J  
Howarth J  
Isaacs A  
Jackman M  
James B  
Jones E W  
Keane C  
Kearney M  
Kennedy M  
Knight J  
Lawless B  
Lewis-Cracknell E  
Littmoden R  
Marflow C  
Marsden S  
Miller R  
Name Withheld 124  
Name Withheld 125  
Name Withheld 126  
Name Withheld 127  
Name Withheld 128  
Name Withheld 129  
Name Withheld 130  
Name Withheld 131  
Name Withheld 132  
Name Withheld 133  
Name Withheld 134  
Name Withheld 135  
Name Withheld 136  
Name Withheld 137  
Name Withheld 138  
Name Withheld 139  
Name Withheld 140  
Name Withheld 141  
Name Withheld 142  
Name Withheld 143  
Name Withheld 144  
Nayyar N  
Patel M  
Rowlinson S  
Sands P  
Sawitz A  
Shale J  
Shepherd R  
Sliwka T  
Spence P  
Tan B  
Taylor J  
Telephone Helplines Association  
Walters K  
Watts A  
Webber D  
Wood I  
Worrell B  

AJR wrote on Dec 8^th, 2005 at 1:26pm:


Impressive number and equally impressive of you AJR in helping all of us keep track of the consultation responses!  I've appreciated your regular updates throughout the consulation period! 

Many thanks