Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
SAYNOTO0870.COM

<---- Back to main website

 
Home Help Search Login Register

Pages: 1 ... 14 15 16 17 18 19
Send Topic Print
Responses to Ofcom consultation hit 1,159 (Read 235,892 times)
NonGeographicalMan
Ex Member


Re: Responses to Ofcom consultation hit 1,055
Reply #225 - Dec 12th, 2005 at 2:26pm
 
This response strikes me as being like a major drug trafficking company complaining how all the valuable employment and economic activity they supply will be lost if there is a major clamp down by the Police.

Their argument is that we employ people even though its a scam so now you can't close us down in case people lose worthless jobs of which the only purpose is to scam telecoms consumers for unjustified charges.  If only the stupid OFTEL and Ofcom had never let the whole scam industries grow in the first place.

In all their response Elite Telecom never seem to consider that companies might just go back to 01/02 numbers and that everybody apart from employees of his business would then be far better off!
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Dave
Global Moderator
*****
Offline



Posts: 9,902
Yorkshire
Gender: male
Re: Responses to Ofcom consultation hit 1,055
Reply #226 - Dec 12th, 2005 at 2:38pm
 
idb wrote on Dec 12th, 2005 at 2:06pm:
If you want to read a really sad story about how the NTS 'industry' (an industry that has already fraudulently obtained billions of pounds from the public), see the response from Elite Telecom [...]

What a tragic waste.  Cry Cry Cry

Why does the UK permit such nonsense? Why do I get the impression that companies like this are made up of marketing people and accountants and don't have a technical person in sight?  Lips Sealed

Just how are those sorts of people allowed to make money on the back of the telecommunications industry? I'm sure that they can find something else to do should the cat be let out of the bag.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
idb
Supreme Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 1,499
Miami, Florida, United States
Gender: male
Re: Responses to Ofcom consultation hit 1,055
Reply #227 - Dec 12th, 2005 at 2:44pm
 
Dave wrote on Dec 12th, 2005 at 2:38pm:
idb wrote on Dec 12th, 2005 at 2:06pm:
If you want to read a really sad story about how the NTS 'industry' (an industry that has already fraudulently obtained billions of pounds from the public), see the response from Elite Telecom [...]

What a tragic waste.  Cry Cry Cry

Why does the UK permit such nonsense? Why do I get the impression that companies like this are made up of marketing people and accountants and don't have a technical person in sight?  Lips Sealed

Just how are those sorts of people allowed to make money on the back of the telecommunications industry? I'm sure that they can find something else to do should the cat be let out of the bag.
It really is staggering. What is worrying is whether this sob-story will have any impact upon the regulator in reaching its conclusion on NTS. As I have said for a long time, there is little middle ground here - the public hates these numbers, and companies like Elite rely on them to make, IMO, ill-gotten gains. Who will the regulator favor?
Back to top
 

As from November 21, 2013, I no longer participate in the forum and am unable to receive private messages.
 
IP Logged
 
NonGeographicalMan
Ex Member


Re: Responses to Ofcom consultation hit 1,055
Reply #228 - Dec 12th, 2005 at 2:49pm
 
Ofcom seem to have been afraid to change the status quo although I think they are now beginning to realise that hanging on to the status quo may be an even more disruptive option for the future of their well paid careers at their palatial HQ with the delightful river views.

I wonder if we had set up the regulator and its offices in some impoverised corner of the North West of England if it might have more easily come up with rules that favoured better value for the telcoms consumer?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
idb
Supreme Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 1,499
Miami, Florida, United States
Gender: male
Re: Responses to Ofcom consultation hit 1,055
Reply #229 - Dec 12th, 2005 at 2:59pm
 
Quote:
Ofcom seem to have been afraid to change the status quo although I think they are now beginning to realise that hanging on to the status quo may be an even more disruptive option for the future of their well paid careers at their palatial HQ with the delightful river views.

I wonder if we had set up the regulator and its offices in some impoverised corner of the North West of England if it might have more easily come up with rules that favoured better value for the telcoms consumer?
It needs someone at Ofcom to admit that NTS is a failure, admit that they got it wrong, and put into place a sustainable system for the future. I would go further. Because the historical 35 mile or whatever it was definition of 'local' is no longer relevant, a full overview of area codes is needed with a target of fixed-length dialling and fixed-lingth area codes. The current NTNP is a shambles, full of anomolies. It needs to be redesigned. I am sure that there must be some Ofcom staff who are technically, morally and managerially competent that could undertake such a task.
Back to top
 

As from November 21, 2013, I no longer participate in the forum and am unable to receive private messages.
 
IP Logged
 
Dave
Global Moderator
*****
Offline



Posts: 9,902
Yorkshire
Gender: male
Re: Responses to Ofcom consultation hit 1,055
Reply #230 - Dec 12th, 2005 at 3:08pm
 
idb wrote on Dec 12th, 2005 at 2:44pm:
It really is staggering. What is worrying is whether this sob-story will have any impact upon the regulator in reaching its conclusion on NTS. As I have said for a long time, there is little middle ground here - the public hates these numbers, and companies like Elite rely on them to make, IMO, ill-gotten gains. Who will the regulator favor?

The regulator has two principal options:
1) To remove revenue sharing and completely move the goal posts, which suggests that the regulator is of the opinion that the numbers have been promoted in a misleading way.

2) To leave the numbers as they are, in which case it agrees with they way they have been 'sold'. This would tie in with the regulator's view that valuable services exist, which wouldn't do without the current setup.

The numbers are already in service, i.e. service providers have (supposedly) chosen the numbers based what they are now. The decision must surely be based on whether the regulator believes that the numbers were 'misold'.

idb wrote on Dec 12th, 2005 at 2:59pm:
It needs someone at Ofcom to admit that NTS is a failure, admit that they got it wrong, and put into place a sustainable system for the future. [...]

Ofcom just peddles the line that it has been responsible for the introduction of wide ranging services. If it still believes this then it should select 2) above.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
NonGeographicalMan
Ex Member


Re: Responses to Ofcom consultation hit 1,055
Reply #231 - Dec 12th, 2005 at 3:22pm
 
Dave wrote on Dec 12th, 2005 at 3:08pm:
The regulator has two principal options:
1) To remove revenue sharing and completely move the goal posts, which suggests that the regulator is of the opinion that the numbers have been promoted in a misleading way.

2) To leave the numbers as they are, in which case it agrees with they way they have been 'sold'. This would tie in with the regulator's view that valuable services exist, which wouldn't do without the current setup.

The numbers are already in service, i.e. service providers have (supposedly) chosen the numbers based what they are now. The decision must surely be based on whether the regulator believes that the numbers were 'misold'


There seems to be a third obvious option you have missed Dave and which is the one most members on this site would settle for.

Namely allow these people to sell as many NTS/PRS services as they want (there is no difference between NTS and PRS other than the price and the anomalous differences in disclosure rules) provided they are on prefixes readily identifiable as premium rate and revenue sharing, provided there are compulsory call price announcements and provided any monopoly service (whether government or private sector) has to offer a geographic alternative that is equally prominently displayed.

The whole con is based on most members of the public thinking 084 and 087 are ordinary national and local rate calls.  As soon as the sheep's clothing is removed from the wolf the public will recoil in horror and the NTS scam industry will die a slow, natural, lingering death.

I think Ofcom may go for leaving some of the NTS revenue share services on 08 unfortunately but will be forced to add ICSTIS regulation for 0844 and compuslory call price announcements for 0844 and 0871.  I also think they will have to end 0845 revenue share at the same time as 0870 and will be forced to abolish the 0870 loophole of higher prices being allowed with call price announcements.  0845 ISPs will be told to migrate their customers elsewhere I suspect now that Ofcom has realised they will be in  even more hot water for trying to placate the nosy lobby from the ISPs.

As for anyone at Ofcom and/or especially OFTEL having a strong moral leaning regrettably I fear not or we wouldn't be where we are now.  It seems to me that high levels of pay and successful progression of their well paid careers are the key drivers for most senior Ofcom staff.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Dave
Global Moderator
*****
Offline



Posts: 9,902
Yorkshire
Gender: male
Re: Responses to Ofcom consultation hit 1,055
Reply #232 - Dec 12th, 2005 at 3:43pm
 
Quote:
There seems to be a third obvious option you have missed Dave and which is the one most members on this site would settle for.

Namely allow these people to sell as many NTS/PRS services as they want (there is no difference between NTS and PRS other than the price and the anomalous differences in disclosure rules) provided they are on prefixes readily identifiable as premium rate and revenue sharing [...]

I'll re-write the above. My point is that services exist on the current prefixes, which means any changes affect the businesses operating on them. The two points relate to the services operating on 084/087 numbers. The two principal options for 084/087 numbers are:
1) To remove revenue sharing from these services and completely move the goal posts, which suggests that the regulator is of the opinion that the numbers have been promoted in a misleading way. This can be done either by allowing them to move elsewhere to continue RS or leaving them on their current prefixes without RS.

2) To leave the numbers as they are, in which case it agrees with they way they have been 'sold'. This would tie in with the regulator's view that valuable services exist, which wouldn't do without the current setup.

The only possible third option would be to create another prefix for geographical rates, in addition to the current 084/087 numbers. However, there would be little incentive for companies to move over if consumers weren't aware of what the difference between existing and new prefixes were.

NGM, your point about moving all RS numbers to prefix(es) where it is clear is covered by point 1). The reason I posted these two options was to point out that choosing 1) means affecting businesses and their plans and choosing 2) means upsetting consumers by charging more than geographical calls. Of course, 2) could be implemented with more pricing information, but this will only wake up more consumers to the fact that 0845/0870 costs far more than geographical. As idb points out in a far more succinctly way than I ever could, "there's little middle ground"!
Back to top
« Last Edit: Dec 12th, 2005 at 3:47pm by Dave »  
 
IP Logged
 
NonGeographicalMan
Ex Member


Re: Responses to Ofcom consultation hit 1,055
Reply #233 - Dec 12th, 2005 at 4:33pm
 
Dave wrote on Dec 12th, 2005 at 3:43pm:
but this will only wake up more consumers to the fact that 0845/0870 costs far more than geographical.


Well I will be interested to see that day ever come for 0845 and 0870 and interested to see Ofcom stop even BT from continuing to cynically peddle the lie on all its 100 million+ phone bills a year that 0845 is Lo-Call and that 0870 is National Rate.

In the last three days I have had several people at HP (Hewlett Packard) customer services all confidently assure me that their 0870 number is either "local rate" or "national rate" (depending on the employee) and a rather public school educated sounding lady in Debenhams public relations department assure me that 0844 was Local Rate and that was why they used it.

So in my opinion the 084/7 Local/National Rate has been so deliberately peddled for so long to every dullard at the companies that run them that it can only be unpicked by making all the lower priced 084/7 revenue sharers move to 09 or 06 and the non revenue share 084/7 to 03.  Such a change will then make the public realise something has changed (especially if accompanied by proper publicity about what 06 and 03 and the whole NTNP is about.  Are you old enough for instance to remember the "LSD shops have LSD prices, LSD shops give LSD change and "Decimal Shops have Decimal Prices, Decimal Shops give Decimal Change" little ditties that constantly appeared on television in the months before decimal switchover (and I was only 8 or 9 then but remember it).

The only reason that no one understands the NTNP or the call charges associcated with it is because it is not currently logical and OFTEL/Ofcom have never undertaken any publicity for it.

If 08 Freephone, 0845 and 0870 geographic rate and 0844 and 0871 revenue share numbers are all allowed to stay together on an illogical 08 it will continue not to be understood and the 0844ers and 0871ers will be able to rely on past urban myths that all 084 and 087 numbers are charge as Local and National Rate calls.

Seems obvious to me and I feel disappointed Dave that you seem to be trying to field Ofcom with excuses for leaving the current disgracefully confusing arrangements in place.

Sure all this will cost the companies who run these numbers some money but that will be some small redress for all the money it has cost us the consumers who have had to dial them over the last few years.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Locked-out
Newbie
*
Offline



Posts: 7
Re: Responses to Ofcom consultation hit 1,055
Reply #234 - Dec 12th, 2005 at 6:23pm
 
I am afraid I do not agree with the last comment. I do not believe there was anything wrong with the original NTNP. The problem was that as telcos started to disobey it the regulator just changed it continuously until now it is in a complete mess full of conflicts even within itself!

According to the original NTNP your ideas of new 06 and 03 are nonsense and will just confuse the position still further. All Premium numbers should be in the 09 section only and regulated by ICSTIS. Even the current NTNP as mutilated by the regulators still states that very clearly.

The problem is that the regulators do not want to do what they know is right!
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
NonGeographicalMan
Ex Member


Re: Responses to Ofcom consultation hit 1,055
Reply #235 - Dec 12th, 2005 at 7:13pm
 
Locked-out wrote on Dec 12th, 2005 at 6:23pm:
I am afraid I do not agree with the last comment. I do not believe there was anything wrong with the original NTNP. The problem was that as telcos started to disobey it the regulator just changed it continuously until now it is in a complete mess full of conflicts even within itself!

According to the original NTNP your ideas of new 06 and 03 are nonsense and will just confuse the position still further. All Premium numbers should be in the 09 section only and regulated by ICSTIS. Even the current NTNP as mutilated by the regulators still states that very clearly.

The problem is that the regulators do not want to do what they know is right!


Who are you Locked Out?  You sound very familiar to me.  Also why would the forum management lock anyone out?  When they threatened to lock me out I told them I would set up my own anti 0870 forum if that happened after which I heard no more on the matter.

You need to remember that politics is the art of the possible.  And unfortunately in my view expecting 1p to 10p per minute NTS to move to 09 is not possible as this implies ICSTIS regulation and the ICSTIS levy which seem to be a sledge hammer to crack a nut at this level of revenue share (at least that's how Ofcom sees it).

What is needed is to get 084 and 087 off 08 to return 08 clearly to Freephone.  Ofcom are only likely to go for this if they can be persuaded that it is lack of public awareness of pricing that is the key problem on NTS/PRS.  Thus using 06 for low priced NTS with price disclosure and call price announcements but without ICSTIS regulation overcomes the Ofcom objection about the heavy handedness and then when 0845 and 0870 move to 0345 and 0370 the public understand that there is a class of non geographics that now costs the same as 01 and 02 and are in inclusive calling plans.  This makes them more unwilling to use the 06 premium NTS numbers which they now realise cost extra and are outside inclusive calling plans.

This whole scam relies on 084/087 being thought of by 95%+ of the public as local and national rate when they are not and the number class being overlapped with Freephone.  Dogmatic isistence on all revenue share being on 09 will lead to Ofcom saying that this will damage the business of low cost NTS carriers by negative connection with sex chat lines etc.  You can argue Ofcom is wrong but I know Ofcom won't agree to put the 1p to 10p stuf with the other 09 numbers.

Anyhow I am sorry to hear about your forum lockout.  I hope that this soon gets rescinded.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Locked-out
Newbie
*
Offline



Posts: 7
Re: Responses to Ofcom consultation hit 1,055
Reply #236 - Dec 12th, 2005 at 11:15pm
 
I did not say I was "locked out". That is just my handle (a bit like the old Geraldo song).

Whether Ofcom agree that all Premium numbers should be moved to 09 where they should be or not is irellevant. That is why the scam exists because Ofcom have gone along with it. The NTNP still states that is where they should be! So, I still do not agree with you.

It seems to me that at your recent meeting with Ofcom you may have been swayed in some way by their lies, since you did not seem to express the same idea previously?
Back to top
« Last Edit: Dec 12th, 2005 at 11:21pm by Locked-out »  
 
IP Logged
 
Dave
Global Moderator
*****
Offline



Posts: 9,902
Yorkshire
Gender: male
Re: Responses to Ofcom consultation hit 1,055
Reply #237 - Dec 12th, 2005 at 11:52pm
 
Locked-out wrote on Dec 12th, 2005 at 11:15pm:
It seems to me that at your recent meeting with Ofcom you may have been swayed in some way by their lies, since you did not seem to express the same idea previously?

That is my impression too. Perhaps Ofcom categorically stated that 084/087 numbers would not be moved to 09, so another solution would have to be developed.

It would be nice to have 089, although that would bring back into being 0891 and 0898, which might not be such a good idea.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
kk
Senior Member
****
Offline



Posts: 354
Gender: male
Re: Responses to Ofcom consultation hit 1,055
Reply #238 - Dec 13th, 2005 at 12:44am
 
Locked-out - I agree with your argument.  

We must have a clear and understandable division between Normal Rate calls (customers normal rate, including 0p/min on Option 3 etc) and calls at a premium to the normal rate (however small) should be placed in a single “09" classification.  This simple solution is the only one that is transparent and the one that will work in the long run, no matter what the short term difficulties are.

If a call is at a premium to the caller’s Normal Rate why hide that fact?  The sooner Ofcom come to terms with this basic idea, the better.  All other solutions will only complicate matters and the unfairness to consumers will continue.
Back to top
 

KK
 
IP Logged
 
omy
Full Member
***
Offline


I came - I saw - I went
home.

Posts: 129
Re: Responses to Ofcom consultation hit 1,055
Reply #239 - Dec 13th, 2005 at 6:51am
 
Yes, kk, this is the only sensible and sustainable position.  Any (and ALL) Premium rates must be under 09 - if further numbers start to be used the waters will be muddied even more and consumers will be at a disadvantage once again.
But then, this is Ofcom we are dealing with, 'mud makes money for their salaries ( and their commercial cronies!)'.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 ... 14 15 16 17 18 19
Send Topic Print
(Moderators: Dave, Forum Admin, DaveM, bbb_uk, CJT-80)

Website and Content © 1999-2024 SAYNOTO0870.COM. All Rights Reserved. (DE)
Written permission is required to duplicate any of the content within this site.

WARNING: This is an open forum, posts are NOT endorsed by SAYNOTO0870.COM,
please exercise due caution when acting on any info from here.


SAYNOTO0870.COM » Powered by YaBB 2.5.2!
YaBB Forum Software © 2000-2024. All Rights Reserved.


Valid RSS Valid XHTML Valid CSS Powered by Perl Source Forge