I realise this isn't the most technical of responses and doesn't deal with many of the issues raised in the consultation, but I share the sentiment of the response below (cut and paste from Ofcom's site with personal details removed) and is my main motiviation for responding.

When people already pay extra to have free calls then it seems wrong in principle to have to then have to pay again for 0870/0845 etc!

What do others think about this?

Quote:

However, of course that sort of response will achieve precisely nothing, because it does not address the real issues of the abuses.

That is exactly why that is the type of simplistic response from Citizen Consumers that Ofcom likes. They can then easily claim - "This consumer clearly does not understand all the issues, so we can ignore their views completely". Then of course they do exactly that!

Quote:


Thanks for you replies.

I must urge Dorf to remember that whilst I appreciate your frustration on this subject we are on the same side! 

I don't pretend to having the expertise and knowledge that many of the superior users have but I have picked up quite a bit from this site.  Besides the response quoted above may not be calling for an end to revenue sharing on non-premium rate numbers nor criticising deviations from the National Telephone Numbering Plan, but it does, however, address the central problem that



From what I understand this applies to virtually all callers whatever tariff they are using, but it clearly applies to people like myself who already pay extra for free local and national calls but are then expected to pay again for the privelege of calling 0870/0845!!!

In any case, it's perhaps unrealistic to expect the public at large in their hundreds and thousands to appreciate the finer details involved in Number Translation Services and Non Geographic Numbers.  And, as I said in my initial post, I realise that this doesn't address other issues raised in this consultation, but in my opinion this response is nevertheless a equally valid response and true to many of the concerns of users of this site.

Quote:


Thanks for the explanation, Dorf, and for the apology even though I'm much thicker skinned than that! 

However, Ofcom being Ofcom, wouldn't you say that they could equally ignore a more informed response as a less informed one?  And maybe I'm naive, but I can't (or don't want) to believe Ofcom has an underlying motivation to protect telco's revenue streams - this would render the whole consultation just a pointless excercise

Leaving that aside, are you saying, you would encourage all responses to include reference to the fact that Ofcom has failed to meet its duty to protect citizens by not adhering to the original National Telephone Numbering Plan.

Surely there other key issues too?

What I'm getting at, perhaps this forum should develop a clear, accessible and succinct thread called something like "Guide to Responding to the 0870 Consultation".  This could be a resource which some of us could refer to but which also we could also add our own contributions when responding.

Such a resource could also be utilised as part of a mass e-mailout that I've suggested in another thread.

Quote:


Dorf,

You and I are as of one mind on the issue of how Ofcom are failing Parliament (that is all MPs in Parliament compared to Tessa Jowell who we know actually runs the show on telecoms but then pretends letters sent to her by MPs must instead be passed on direct to Ofcom as it allegedly only accounts officially to the whole of Parliament!) and thus in turn uk citizens and consumers who Parliament told Ofcom were its primary concern.

I am interested in your point about one dial up ISP in particular being affected if the 0845 revenue share scamming was ended at the same time as 0870.  Do you by any chance mean AOL where Ofcom Communications Director Matt Peacock used to work?   You surely have to mean either them or  the Freeserve/Wanadoo/Orange ISP?

It really is shocking how Ofcom has been hijacked by the interests of the telecoms companies and even the FSA is nowhere near as bad.  For instance if one makes a complaint to the FSA about something they have done it is subjected to very thorough and serious internal investigation at a high level but make such a complaint to Jackie Caspary and her mates in the Ofcom contact centre and it is effectively laughed off and dismissed.

Quote:


Dorf,

Surely you cannot mean BT for it is none other than BT, who after years of milking the 0845 and 0870 cash cows, made a very clear submission to Ofcom in the previous consultation stating that they believed all 0845 and 0870 revenue share should now be ended by Ofcom and the call prices for 0845 and 0870 returned to geographic rates.

The only deficiency in their proposal was recommending that 0844 and 0871 revenue share be retained, since whilst I would allow revenue sharing at 1p to 10p per minute on phone calls per se to continue, for those that felt they needed it for genuine micro payment services, I would force all such companies to switch to 09 and be subject to ICSTIS regulation, a queuing ban and hopefully the addition of call price announcements. Of course the useless OfcoN have absurdly suggested that 0871 changes to ICSTIS regulation but does not have to change prefix to be an 09 series of numbers.

One of the scandals under the current Ofcom NTS setup is that if you only want to legitimately share revenue at 1p to 10p per minute, to provide a true added value service whilst not hiding the revenue share, you currently have to do it on an 084 or 087 number, unfortunately also cynically used by most uk scam call centres providig no value added services at all.

So the excellent dialthough call services provided by services like http://www.dialaround.co.uk or http://www.bestminutes.co.uk (essential for customers on Wholesale Line Rental products who have their indirect access to services like 1899 and 18185 blocked off) have to use 08 prefixed numbers for their 1p to 10p per minute rates even though they do just as happily use 09 prefixed numbers for their rates above 10p per minute.  This is because the bankrupt and corrupted variation of the NTNP implemented by Ofcom actually forces you to use 084 and 087 special services numbers at 10p per minute or below.  There is no 09 number series available for a 1p to 10 per minute revenue share.

One of the few other true value added 087 services I am aware of that is not a dial though discount call service is fax to email and voice to email and again it seems fair that the companies concerned should be able to charge something extra for this service if they want to but again a device to make the caller aware of the revenue sharing involved must be provided.  I suppose because 09 numbers have such a generally bad image I might be prepared to see 1p to 15p per minute revenue shares allowed to move to a number prefix range starting 04 or 06 (seemingly unused at present) and the education of the public that these numbers supply not adult services but value added telecoms services of one kind or another where they know the call cost is the payment mechanism.

But 084 and 087 must be returned to geographic call rates and as soon as is humanly possible rather than in 2 or 4 years time as Ofcom want.

Quote:


I think there is much in what yoy say Dorf but it also seems that BT is not the only telco or ISP that Ofcom is secretly in bed with due to now having former senior empoyees of the said company working at senior level at Ofcom.  The same is undoubtedly true of BT, AOL and NTL plus numerous other telcos if only I had access to the full CVs of all senior Ofcom staff.

If I had my way I would have very specific limits on the total proportion of telecoms professionals who could work at Ofcom or hold Ofcom senior management positions or sit on its Board.