Quote:
Glad to see we are making a lot of progress. Ofcom will need better excuses this time round if they plan on not doing much.

Quote:
That is true.  It's probably because of the clever way they have written their summary report.  Unless you read the 200+ document you don't know the whole truth and ofcom knows that most people aren't going to read a 200+ page document.

There are 96 new submissions on the Ofcom website at 5pm today (Nov 9), making a total of 281. The new ones are listed below.

(And here's a reminder of where you can read the comments: http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/nts_forward/responses/)

Abayomi-Cole B
Allely N
Alton WS
Anderson A
Anderson C
Ansell J
Archdale G
Ashton M D
Atkins A
Baker T
Bassett Herron
Bell C
Birkin R
Bligh S
Bobroff D
Borrinsky J
Brewer H
Buckland Q
Catlow Dr R E  (but listed alphabetically as Dr R E Catlow)
Chamberlain B
Chambers K
Clark P
Cline P
Coady T
Cohen I
Cooke K
Coughlan T
Cox D
Cunningham D
Dakin N
Darkwolf K
David E
Dawson A
Dunning A
Dyer S
Emery L
Fawthrop L
Foy D
Garland R
Gaselee J
Giles D  (again)
Grossman R
Hamilton-Meikle G
Hartley B
Heaps D
Hough B
Hubbard J
Jay SA
Kaltz M
Kirkham R
Lopiate D
Lowden I
Macdonald A
Marriott J
Masson T
Mccarten J
Morris-Coole M
Murphy V
Name Withheld 5
Nethersole P
Newton M
Ormerod A
Peacock K
Pedrick C
Pitts D
Radford C
Raja M
Reilly S
Richardson K
Robinson G
Russell S
Seale I
Scott G E (but listed alphabetically as G E Scott)
Sedman C
Sim N
Skerrit R
Smith J
Solanki K
Stocking Z
Syree L
Taylor C
Taylor P
Terry A J
Thomas T
Trimmer BJ
Trotter M
Tuttle G
Tye C
Waldman P
Walker C
Warman BM
West H
White BJ
White T
Whittles P
Wilson G

Quote:


Thanks again for your useful posts, Ajr!

The total number of responses increased by nearly a hundred since last count - quite a jump. Hope it continues and some more!!!!

It seems to be heading for the thousand that I was hoping for, rather than a bit over a hundred as others suggested.

Quote:
Indeed. Five hundred would be good, but a thousand is certainly more than I envisaged.

One encouraging aspect is that the responses are not all boilerplate replies.

I know I've raised this before  (CLICK HERE)

and at the risk of sounding impaitent, does anyone know how close we are to sending something out? I understand Forum Admin is intending to look at an e-mailout once he's completed the software upgrade (which I appreciate is a BIG job).

This is an interesting one:

http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/nts_forward/responses/mr/rapport.pdf

Includes the following (note this is not the complete response) [my bold]:

<<
The proposal seems ill thought through and as usual with such cases, is driven by a highly vocal but minute lobby group who are totally unrepresentative of the general population.

As Marketing Manager at Cable & Wireless in the mid 90's, I was the first to introduce such a revenue share scheme as part of the "TeleBusiness Addvantage" pricing package for non-geographic numbers.

It was my view at the time, and still is, that in industries where the customer and competition is increasingly driving down costs of products and services, that some of that 0870 revenue should be returned to the company who was ultimately generating it (the corporate user).

In conditions nowadays when margins are even thinner in e.g. the travel industry, the small revenue shares available are barely sufficient to justify keeping helpdesks etc in operation. It's my firm view that abolishing revenue share on existing 0870 numbers will have a direct impact on the viability of such businesses along with companies that are currently able to provide complete services on the back of National rate numbers.

In conclusion, I do not believe it is Ofcom's remit to decide how Telco's distribute the profit they make from services that they provide to a public that is (generally) completely happy to use them.
>>