Hi begginner.  Think you are right. Strange how NGM and sonny suddenly go all coy about the meeting.
NGM has been the most-posted writer in this forum over the last few months (at one stage I remember there seemed to be only him posting - and long posts at that). Since he was invited to the Ofcom meeting he is nowhere to be seen, and it's showing in that the site doesn't have much going on at present. Hope he's not taken the 'king's shilling'!!
A lot of strange goings-on lately.....

Good to see you back, NGM, we were so worried about you!
It sounds as though you may have had quite a lot of influence over matters - let's hope so.
It would be a miracle if they accepted everything we are saying, but even some movement on their part can only be for the good.
Look forward to you full report (and no false modesty when reporting your own contributions, please!!).
Regards.

While I was hoping to delay posting regarding OFCOM's Consultation Workshop last Thursday 24 Nov 2005, until NGM had said his bit, I've decided I cannot hold back any longer regarding one matter that came up.

I am going to mention an informal discussion between myself and the following OFCOM staff:
    Clive Hillier
    Sean Williams
    Gareth Davies
immediately following the formal meeting.  I have already referred to this in earlier posts to SAYNOTO0870, but feel it deserves repeating here, as verbatim as I can get.  In particular, note the very last comment.

I said "An interesting thing for you, gentlemen.  I have found in a survey that people who use SAYNOTO0870 and so forth to avoid making 0870/0845 calls discover that they now spend 3 times as long on their calls to these call centres as they had previously."

The OFCOM gentlemen nodded in anticipation.

"Now, call centres use these calls basically for two purposes - one, to sell to the customer; two, to help with the customers problems."

"Yes", they replied in unison.

"So by avoiding 0870/0845 calls, we, the consumers are doing these call centres a big favour - we're giving them three times as long to sell their products to us and solve our problems."

Vigorous nods of agreement.

"So, if they really wanted to sell their products at all via their call centres, dropping the 0870/0845s could help them, and save them a lot on their marketing budgets."

"If they wanted to sell, yes", one of the gentlemen replied dubiously.

"In fact," I continued, "American Express is a good example, with an 0800 switchboard number, and on their paperwork and web site they always show the 01273 numbers as well as the 0870s.  And they're a joy to talk to......."

Clive Hillier interrupts me, "that's absolutely right".

"You use American Express then, Clive?" I enquire.

"Sure I do" he replies.

Sean Williams interjects "But then, they're American, and they have a totally different attitude to selling and marketing on the phone than we do over here."  They all nod vigorously in agreement with this comment.

"However," I continue, "if companies over here could see things that way, then we might stand a chance of making real reductions to the £1.5 billion these companies and the telcos take from us consumers annually for 0870/0845 calls."

Sean looks doubtful.  "Well, I really can't see that happening" he says.

'nuff said.

Sonny

omy wrote on Nov 30^th, 2005 at 11:24am:


Yes omy, I think you read the conversation I related pretty accurately.  Just to add, though - I did not detect any sense of guilt in Sean Williams's last comment, only an admission that they are forced to allow the situation to continue.  That implies to me that there is pressure from above (albeit on behalf of the telcos &c).

A really, really cynical person might interpret it this way:

The industry want to rip off the consumer.  Of course, there must be a sham regulator in place to supposedly function on behalf of the consumer, meanwhile allowing the rip off to proceed smoothly.  So industry must lobby through government to ensure that the regulator remains toothless, perhaps even replacing it every few years, viz OFTEL -> OFCOM, and of course just in case there is actually someone in the regulator's ranks who is genuinely trying to represent the consumer's interests (a kind of Trojan horse, as industry would see it!).

So, as far as industry is concerned, at the end of this NTS exercise there must still be in place a viable range of NGNs through which industry can continue to make its £1.5 billion p.a. of shared revenue, or preferably more, say £2.5 billion while they're about it.

How do we address that issue, then? 

Sonny

There may just be a ray of hope here? I have been away travelling, but I seem to recall that there has just been a report from Parliament that a couple of the other useless so-called regulators have been warned to get their act together? Didn't the Postal regulator and the Energy Regulator get a sharp rap over the knuckles for being effectively useless, and providing 'jobs for the boys' in very expensive palaces in the most affluent real estate in town?

Maybe they will latch on to Ofcom next?

Quote:


Hello drrdf2

Excellent place to start.  Anyone with further suggestions for governmental / government-influenced bodies that we might approach?

I shall also be contacting at least one national paper this week[tr][/tr].

Sonny

Masterpieces take time.

One more thing that came up during the formal meeting last week - if I don't tell you now, I might forget.

It was a matter of emphasis.

Early on in their presentation, the OFCOM guys started making allusions to micropayments, where I would have thought they could have simply carried on talking about revenue shares.  I put on my best innocent expression and asked Sean Williams to explain for me the difference between micropayments and revenue share.  Sean accepted that there was really no difference.

After that, they stopped using the term micropayments.

£1.8 billion p.a. of micropayments?  Hahaha.

How subtle these telcos can get.  Yes, they've simply got OFCOM in their pockets.  Really...

Sonny