andy9 wrote on Dec 10^th, 2005 at 4:30pm:

I agree in so much as consumers perceive 09 premium rate to be 'expensive rate'. Having sub-prefixes within 09 which distinguish price bands, much like they have done within 08 now would help to make it clearer.

Irrespective of whether all RS numbers operate within 09 or not, it needs some number structure that is clear. The current 084 and 087 numbers are of the same type as the 09 numbers, so I firmly believe that they should be within the same category.

andy9 wrote on Dec 10^th, 2005 at 4:30pm:


Yes andy9 I accept your arguments here and indeed at the Ofcom NTS Consumer Workshop, which you have complained I have not reported on sufficiently, I suggested that it might be unacceptable to force all 084/7 users to 09 because of the very negative marketing connotations assocaiated with those numbers and the expense of ICSTIS regulation for lower pence per minute charges.  ICSTIS regulation could be especially prohibitive for 1p per minute internet dialup services.

My suggestion was to set up a lower rate 06 revenue share prefix and that all revenue share calls up to say 15p per minute could be on 06, including ISPs and all currently voice based 084/7 users who wanted to go on revenue sharing.  At the same time all NGN users who didn't want to revenue share could be migrated to the 04 prefix for a geographic rate NGN service where the servcie provider pays for any additional NTS facilities they receive and not the caller.  08 would then be left for just Freephone calls so that telecoms consumers were not confused about each code prefix and its significance.

So 01/02/03 would all be for geographic numbers at geographic rates, 04 for non geographic NTS services charge at geographic rates to the caller, 05 for non geographic voip at geographic rates (I would compulsorily move the last few Freephone 0500 numbers to 08), 06 for non gepographic voip calls with higher costs to the caller and revenue share to the recipient and call price announcements, 07 for mobiles, 08 for Freephone and 09 for geographic PSTN calls with higher costs to the caller, price announcements and ICSTIS control.  Of course it gets more complicated than that as there will be voip mobile numbers too in due course, but the basic point is for Ofcom to create a logical NTNP that can be vaguely understood by most callers.

Of course all of this should have happened at least 10 years ago and in these dieing days of PSTN I suspect Ofcom will eschew all this in favour of a bodge it and scarper approach that means as little change as possible for the telecoms industry.

andy9 wrote on Dec 10^th, 2005 at 5:54pm:


Once again we can agree andy9.

The most maddening aspect is OFTEL and Ofcom staff having been paid such a fortune in cushy jobs over the years to allow the wholesale collapse of any legitimacy or order in the uk phone numbering system.

Their allowing of 0845 to share both voice and internet data traffic, their failure to launch an NGN code with intelligent routing but without revenue share or increased call cost above geographic rates, and their failure to ensure adequate security protection against line misuse on £90 an hour 09 services are amongst their very worst failings of the lot.

Quote:

Apologies if my complaint wasn't justified; I'd picked it up from other remarks, and perhaps I've missed some of the info you've given. This detail looks interesting.

Without going into the detail of the various numbering schemes you've suggested, I fully agree that Ofcom or its predecessors were sluggish on numbering systems years ago; it almost appears that you've given it more creative thought than they have, or perhaps their further plans are reserved in-house or ad hoc spur of the moment affairs.

Because in the old system 08 had fewer codes in use, it was natural that new allocations came from these [I discovered only very recently that Market Harborough, Outer Hebrides, Oxford, and others were much earlier 08 reallocations]. So they mixed in mobile numbers, and then the 0870 numbers that were the first longer numbers. I reckon they should have got on top of it then.

You've said on other threads and hinted here about the growth of VoIP. I'm amazed in some ways that it has gone so slowly, but it will certainly become much more prevalent, and will need plenty of allocations.  

It isn't clear though which will be the most successful operator companies; some seem over-invested and some fixed monthly charge accounts already look too expensive. But there will also be an awkward crossover when all the peering agreements between the smaller companies and loss leading tariffs mean they have not enough revenue and want to start charging; I include Finarea rightly or wrongly in this category.

Ofcom's document last year about the introduction of 0560 numbers was very open-ended. I've been surprised that hardly any telephone companies have heard of these numbers yet, or rather that they haven't trained their staff to answer queries about them.

Dave wrote on Dec 10^th, 2005 at 6:15pm:

Sorry, I hoped I'd made it clearer that I envisage many of the calls I'm thinking of being in the range 0.5 to 2p per minute, potentially including all ISP payg access and most call centres. At the moment the only mechanism for anyone to run a call centre using their own telecoms provider and charge the customer just above telecoms cost - say 1.2p per minute - is the discredited 0844 number.

And I don't object to a dedicated 0844 number that directly forwards to a given foreign landline for 2p per minute. But on the expectation that the number prefix would change, I'd suggest that 09 is not appropriate for this, and I don't see any point in a tariff announcement on a call-through number delaying the connection or adding to the cost of the call, even though the provider gets a share of the revenue. I'm suggesting a new 082 number, and NGM maybe suggests 06 or 04 or something, I'd have to check.

Dave wrote on Dec 10^th, 2005 at 8:27pm:


At the Ofcom NTS Workshop I made the suggestion of low priced NTS being on 06 with call price announcements but not subject to ICSTIS rules.  Since then I have heard from the rest of you that you all think that we must demand the purity route of 09 only so decided to go with that in my submission on the unlikely basis Ofcom would buy it from SayNoTo0870ers as a whole.

With my alternate suggestion for 06 for lower priced NTS I am just being realistice that Ofcom will never agree to move all 084 and 087 to 09 because ICSTIS will say they can't cope with regulating this many extra numbers and the ICSTIS costs are too high for low priced numbers at 1 to 5p per minute.

So a compromise is put them on 06 because its free and therefore the public could be educated it was for lower priced NTS but still with revenue share and/or micropayment.  Otherwise Ofcom will probably just leave 084/087 as they are because the move to 09 for low priced NTS numbers is too controversial.  In principle I agree with you on moving them all to 09 but then you have to look at whats in the Communication Act and Ofcom not interfering with the market unnecessarily.

Whether its 06 or 04 or 03 doesn't matter to me.  The key thing is the prefix should be unque to that use as 01, 02 and 09 are and not a dogs breakfast of different uses like 08 and for that matter now 05 are.

Dave wrote on Dec 10^th, 2005 at 10:49pm:


Dave,

Althought it is admirably purist of you to want to have the cheapest numbers on the 01 and 02 prefix and the most expensive numbers up on 09 the international convention on Freephone numbers (08) and Premium numbers (09) and International Access Code (00) kind of ensure that this is actually impossible and that's before we start looking at another anomalous areas in the NTNP like 118.  We already have 08 and 09 as neighbours so the idea there is a progressive charging sequence simply doesn't hold water.  Of course I suppose may be you want Freephone back on 0500 but that would put us out of step with the rest of the world.

I think any research by a pshychologist would report back that most individuals with enough education can associate a short code
with a particular form of chargiing or a particular place but that they cannot be made to understand that say 0870 is normal national rate and that 0871 is low end premium rate.   They could be made to understand that 09 is expensive premium rate that you can't use without having a PIN number from the line owner (say 16p per minute and over) and that 06 is lower cost premium rate without security control that means you are making a payment to the company running the phone number.  And no I wouldn't let anyone stay on 084 and 087 codes in the long run.  Let them all make a choice and move to either 034 or 037 or move to an appropriate 064 or 067 lower rate premium number.  This kind of double dialling of area codes for a transition period has happened before with the 01 to 0171 and 0181 and 0171 and 0181 to 020 area dialling code changeovers.

I used to work in a company that purely collected and distributed numbers and there were the same problems of data purity being constantly threatened by those who wanted to push for short term commerical expediency being more important than long term data purity.

Unfortunately the expediency merchants cannot ever see the big picture and do not understand the damage to the whole series of numbers that is done in the longer term.