I have only objected to your personal attacks on a  number of people. Which is elitism?

And I have sought to suggest that there should be more respondents, whereas you have wished to make your own more important than the others.

andy9 wrote on Dec 9^th, 2005 at 8:18pm:

I am sure you would be in a better position than me to comment on the policy of  the forum's management.  But the tendency of Forum_Admin to be logged in a lot but to rarely post does seem very puzzling.  Unless of course there is another mouthpiece mainly used for that purpose.

Haven't you missed a big gun or two in your highlighted with links selections?

Also where is the response from Which and from the Ofcom Consumer Panel?  It would be little short of a scandal if neither of these bodies have responded to the consultation.

Also as I highlighted in the other thread on these Consultations where are the responses from Martin Lewis or Daniel - who also failed to respond to the NTS Options for the Future and Call Termination Market Review consultations that closed in January this year.

andy9 wrote on Dec 10^th, 2005 at 2:33pm:
Fully agree. The FleXtel submission, for example, is excellent, even though I disagree with some significant aspects. It has put together a well-argued case, even though it is at odds with my own position. Unlike others in the NTS business, FleXtel does not appear to be an exploitative organization and seems genuinely concerned with the consumer issues.

firestop wrote on Dec 10^th, 2005 at 2:50pm:

The second clause of the sentence is supportable in other circumstances, but certainly cannot be deemed to follow the unjustifiable first, so fairyland seems apt.

I don't object to revenue-sharing per se. There are call-through numbers for cheap international calls for example. And some information or consultancy services are appropriate to have this charge method as an option (but not support of faulty products!)

But when it is involuntary, when companies wilfully suppress and change alternative numbers (and not just on changing provider), it causes the growing annoyance that Vodafone's ivory tower viewpoint appears unable to even see, let alone comprehend. Well, they are used to higher call charges of course.

If it is low impact, why are so many companies devoting such energy to selling these over-priced calling systems that effectively transfer large companies outgoing call budgets on to their incoming callers?

andy9 wrote on Dec 10^th, 2005 at 3:18pm:


I also do not object to NTS revenue share per se provided it is all on 09,  and provided there are compulsory call price announcements and rules to require price disclosure in all broadcast and print advertising.  Also provided that 09 Premium is turned off on all subscriiber lines by default and if it is enabled there is different PIN number for each member of the household who wants to use it (with it being listed by user on phone bills).  With those provisos NTS/PRS revenue share might continue.

Call through providers don't care whether they use 08 or 09 and use both although I'm sure they probably object to having to pay the ICSTIS levy for services only used by intelligent people who are trying to minimise their costs as compared to irresponsible customers who tend to use adult chat lines and quiz show lines (excepting Who Wants to Be A Millionaire where there is a real contest)

I don't think Vodafone's comments come from any Ivory Tower at all but rather from the commercial sewer.  The same sewer that people like Tiscali and Windsor Telecom also appear to inhabit.

Quote:

NGM, I think that if we had to sum it up in one short sentence [NGM, I know that's not your forte! lol  ], it would be:



That would provide transparancy, and hopefully CPs would provide the services you mention as a benefit to their customers.

Also see the response from Norfolk County Council Trading Standards Department which talks, as it did before, about advertisers keeping silent on call price being the best option so as not to mislead.