Yes but hold on,

What "service"? This exactly what the scam is about.

We must re-emphasize until Kingdom Come - talking to other subscribers using the telephone IS NOT A SERVICE! It is what the telephone was invented for!

Do you know what I find so insulting and offensive about the sort of garbage peddled by Mr Nick Velissarides (see the comment to Ofcom a couple of posts back)? It is that somehow all these poor companies will go to the wall without the "revenue share" they collect from calls to a help desk. Well, Mr Velissarides, perhaps you could explain to me why virtually EVERY help-desk number here in the United Staes is 1-800. Free. Nothing. No cost. Nix. Do I hear bleating and whining from the companies here? Is the service any worse for the free calls. No - I tell you for nothing - it is generally a d**ned sight better than it EVER is in the UK!

Do I see revenue share numbers for help desks in Australia? No - usually 1300 - a REAL untimed local call charge no matter where it terminates - and no matter how long you are on the call. Do I see Australian companies going to the wall because they "only" charge a local call? Not on your life!! If the economy of Rip-Off Britian was one tenth as good as that of Australia, there would be parties in the streets of London!!

So get real, Mr Velissarides - and come clean! It's not the often paltry revenue share given to the end subscriber that you are worried about - it's the fact your dirty little scam has been rumbled, and you face an uncertain future. Well, rest assured - the regulator in the UK is so weak there are bound to be other unethical scams you can get your grubby hands into......

Re Nick Velissarides submission I actually agree with nearly all that he says, in particular the reason for the split usage between 0800, 0845 and 0870

BUT he misses the point that both Beginner and Non Geographic Man have so concisely identified. That is the majority of people don't actually realise what they are paying for by using 0870 or 0845 because it has been so well disguised by the use of terms like 'national' and 'local' and no price info provided.

Nick points out that consumers will punish those that abuse their use of these numbers. Normailly this is true but it won't in this case because the misinformation is so ingrained in the public mind. This is the classic requirement for a scam to work.

People who provide 0870 numbers know what they are doing and there are perfectly vaild reasons for doing so as Nick identified in his submission. In which case use 09 numbers. Those that are using them for legitimate reasons will come to no harm by doing so and scammers will be elliminated.

It is that simple isn't it?

People who provide 0845 numbers I believe generally do so for the reasons that Nick gives, like the Inland Revenue. At least anyway the call centre staff on the phone believe the caller is getting a cheap call. However as this number no longer gives any benefit and is generally more expensive than a geographic number then it should be removed or treated as a geographic number.

What is the point of an 0845 number that provides no benefit to the caller. Certainly a large number of the population incorrectly believe it does.

But bbb_uk,

In your statement here you seem to be agreeing with Ofcom's proposal that 0844 should be charged at a Premium rate of 5 p per minute? I believe most of us on this forum do not agree that 0844 should be so charged, but that it should be charged at the same rate as a geographic number, at the rate for the intitiating telco for the call, (i.e. not BT's old rate or new rate).

BTW, I notice that ofcom's list of responses does include 2 replies from the same person.

If people like Velissarides send these ill-judged posts to ofcom, surely it is perfectly reasonable for us SAYNOers to send second posts in our names to the Consultation site to answer the assertions he now makes.

We can't be sure that Velissarides or ofcom will come to this site to see what we think of his comments.

I'm a bit confused, AJR, (nothing new there then!) as I can only see 8 'withhelds' on the response list.
How do you find the 22 ?
Well done for keeping track of the additions - very helpful when 'viewing' the new ones.

I can only see 8 with-held responses, too.
Can somebody tell me where the other 14 can be found?  Can find all the new responses, as per AJR list, but not the with-helds.

On reading some of the responses I have been struck by ones similar to D. Pitts, where the answers simply say, "I agree, I agree, I........", to ALL the questions.  No comments , nothing other than "I agree" .
This smells.  How can anyone read this document and not have some qualms about something in there??  I think we should be prepared for an influx of 'sponsored' replies in full agreement - so that in their final analysis Ofcom will be able to say "x percentage agree with us, unconditionally."
It's a dirty commercail world out there.