Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
SAYNOTO0870.COM

<---- Back to main website

 
Home Help Search Login Register

Poll Poll
Question: Do you believe Ofcom would realistically...

Force migrate ALL 084x/087x users to 09x....    
  3 (33.3%)
Ensure 084/7 numbers r known as mini-premium rate    
  2 (22.2%)
Other (please specify in thread)    
  4 (44.4%)




Total votes: 9
« Last Modified by: bbb_uk on: Aug 18th, 2007 at 3:11pm »

Pages: 1 2 3 ... 5
Send Topic Print
A compromise - Maybe? (Read 45,829 times)
bbb_uk
Global Moderator
*****
Offline



Posts: 2,041
A compromise - Maybe?
Aug 18th, 2007 at 11:10am
 
Edited:
Some of the following posts were split off from the NEG Propaganda thread.



For many, many years now there has been a fight to prevent 08x numbers being used as stealth premium rate numbers.

Over the years, Ofcom released many, many consultations and then finally gave in and decided to stop the use of revenue sharing on 0870 numbers only but allowed a further two years nearly (could be extended by Ofcom as well) in which companies/government departments using 0870 could decide to stay on 0870 or migrate to other number ranges.

At the same time, Ofcom announced it would put 0871 numbers under the remit of ICSTIS (premium rate regulator) and it appears that all ICSTIS wants to do with 0871 numbers is to ensure clearer price transparency on call costs but has no plans at this time on doing anything to prevent us consumers being charged whilst stuck in a queue for which it has been reported that we consumers can be waiting longer than 20minutes for the called party to answer.

This leads me to doing this poll because some forum members quite rightly believe that all 084x/087x numbers should be migrated to 09x and that existing 09x safeguards like being charged whilst stuck in a queue is applied.

Now I would really love for this to happen but given that after so long nothing much has happened as would have liked and the pressure from companies to keep 08x numbers as they are (and some government departments) then this is why I ask the following question:-

(due to field length limitations in creating a poll, the full question and poll options are below)


Do other forum members
realistically
believe that Ofcom will...
  • Option 1: Force migrate ALL users of 084x/087x numbers to the 09x range and ensure existing 09x safeguards are applied?
  • Option 2: Accept a compromise and make it well known the costs involved in 08x numbers and the fact that revenue sharing does exist and these numbers are just a mini-premium rate number and therefore prevent the use of the terms lo-call, local, national, etc?

I use the word compromise and realistically because IMHO I can't actually see Ofcom giving in to option 1 and I believe we stand more of a chance with option 2.

As most of us will know there have been articles highlighting the fact that 0870 is a premium rate and some articles have highlighted the costs involved (although some have incorrectly highlighted the costs involved) and to some limited way this has led to a bit of public outrage and some companies have moved back to geographical numbers or gone for lower costing numbers instead of 087x numbers.

Therefore it could be said that option 2 is in effect (although limited) with regards to 0870 numbers and lately 0844 numbers used by surgeries.

Once you have voted, you have 1 day in which to change your mind.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Aug 18th, 2007 at 2:45pm by bbb_uk »  
 
IP Logged
 
SilentCallsVictim
Supreme Member
*****
Offline


aka NHS.Patient, DH_fairtelecoms

Posts: 2,494
Re: NEG propaganda
Reply #1 - Aug 15th, 2007 at 9:43am
 
Dave wrote on Aug 14th, 2007 at 6:06pm:
he is really on our side.

I am in sympathy with the general objectives of the Sayno campaign, but have a number of qualifications. I am not prepared to "take sides" on every occasion when invited to do so. I will however do so whenever this serves some good or necessary purpose.

Whilst I understand how some could come to believe that the NHS should offer both "choice" and "value for money" to "consumers", I am NOT on their side if invited to support this position in argument. A large part of my earlier posting was intended to cause them to give careful consideration to the implications of applying and pressing this principle.

NGMsGhost wrote on Aug 14th, 2007 at 6:22pm:
I wish he would say what he actually meant

The well-tempered nature of my position on these issues may make it difficult to ascertain, because I do not see society as comprising goodies and baddies. I believe that the points I make are themselves perfectly clear.

I post to forums when I see some potential benefit in contributing points for discussion. I find it regrettable that much of the discussion (in this thread and in all forums) consists of open personal exchanges, exploring the character of the individuals who post, rather than discussion of the points they try to make. This must be seen as intimidating for many readers who would otherwise be keen to contribute.

I repeat my invitation to conduct an extended exchange of views on off-topic matters such as campaign tactics, Ofcom and the significance of the difference between citizens and consumers. Much of the dialogue that has arisen here, including possible responses to this posting, would be better conducted off-line.

David
Back to top
 
WWW  
IP Logged
 
NGMsGhost
Supreme Member
*****
Offline


The Forum Ghost of NonGeographicalMan<b
r />

Posts: 2,720
Surrey, United Kingdom
Gender: male
Re: NEG propaganda
Reply #2 - Aug 15th, 2007 at 10:03am
 
SilentCallsVictim,

I will only say that if several of us had told you that we felt some Silent Calls were perfectly acceptable in a variety of circumstances as long as the calls were not malicious in nature or frequently repeated then you would have been disappointed in our views.

This campaign opposes the use of ALL 084 and 087 covert premium rate numbers and the ones run by NEG doctors surgeries are clearly covert in their nature.

I also noted in passing that an earlier post in this thread that you said a certain amount of dishonesty was to be expected in marketing.  Again I do not agree with you.  It happens but regulators should always try to penalise and prosecute those who use blatant dishonesty to sell goods.

The reason you are encountering flack here, which you are not comfortable with, is because your views are clearly not fully supportive of our campaign and instead you only seem to support us selectively as and when it suits you.

As you appear to find use of 0844 covert premium rate doctors numbers acceptable perhaps you would care to indicate which 084 and 087 numbers you do not find acceptable and on which you therefore look up the geographic alternatives on this website? Huh Undecided
Back to top
 

<div style=
 
IP Logged
 
SilentCallsVictim
Supreme Member
*****
Offline


aka NHS.Patient, DH_fairtelecoms

Posts: 2,494
Re: NEG propaganda
Reply #3 - Aug 15th, 2007 at 6:34pm
 
I remain unhappy about having to communicate in this way.


NGMsGhost wrote on Aug 15th, 2007 at 10:03am:
if several of us had told you that we felt some Silent Calls were perfectly acceptable … you would have been disappointed in our views.

True, my response would have been nothing more than disappointment, given that the line drawn around what was acceptable was reasonably clear. If not, I would have challenged the views expressed.

I accept that Ofcom cannot be expected to take action in anything but relatively serious cases, and have not asked it to do so. I could therefore be accused of sharing this disappointing view.


NGMsGhost wrote on Aug 15th, 2007 at 10:03am:
a certain amount of dishonesty … in marketing.

I see it as foolish to pretend that every piece of marketing material that should not cause its author to be prosecuted must be entirely honest and truthful.

When in the role of a potential purchaser, we must expect hype and misrepresentation and deal with it accordingly. We should also expect those who have a duty to us to do the same.

A GP cannot excuse their decision to levy charges on their patients by citing misinformation from NEG.


NGMsGhost wrote on Aug 15th, 2007 at 10:03am:
your views are clearly not fully supportive of our campaign

you only seem to support us selectively when it suits you

It would be dishonest of anyone to misrepresent their views as being fully aligned with those of others.

We will each effectively determine where our opinions are to coincide as we form them. I aim not to form mine with particular reference to those of any other person or group, and certainly not for the sake of convenience.

I could equally accuse our campaign of not being fully supportive of my views, but I cannot see how that would help anyone.


NGMsGhost wrote on Aug 15th, 2007 at 10:03am:
you are encountering flack here, which you are not comfortable with

I recall expressing my distaste for ad hominem argument. This distaste applies both to what I do myself and what may be done to me.


Reply continues /…
Back to top
 
WWW  
IP Logged
 
SilentCallsVictim
Supreme Member
*****
Offline


aka NHS.Patient, DH_fairtelecoms

Posts: 2,494
Re: NEG propaganda
Reply #4 - Aug 15th, 2007 at 6:35pm
 
…/ Do we really want this in the forum?

NGMsGhost wrote on Aug 15th, 2007 at 10:03am:
look up the geographic alternatives on this website

This is a tricky one for me. I hope not to cause too much offence to those who host this posting.

If the normally published NGNs were best for most callers, whereas geographic alternatives were best only for some particular group (e.g. mobile users or those based overseas), then I would see the publication of such a list as a fully appropriate solution. I understand that this is not the case, as few or none benefit by calling an NGN rather than a geographic alternative under present tariffs.

Insofar as the list helps some to avoid being deceived, it is doing good.

If the list were not part of a vigorous and effective campaign aimed at removing deceit, then I would oppose it outright. Simply offering a choice that some may access does nothing to right the wrong being perpetrated on others. It may even be seen to diminish their grounds for complaint. The Sayno campaign does not however rely solely on this simple approach.

Attempting to compel users of 084 and 087 numbers to reveal geographic alternatives so that they may be published on this website is a different matter. I oppose this tactic. If action is to be taken against harm being done to the public interest by soliciting calls to NGNs, then this must be for the sole purpose of causing the harm to be ceased. I cannot support the idea that a limited opportunity for some to get cheaper phone calls is an appropriate way of addressing the public interest issue.

The website is open to all, it is widely publicised and I am sure that the Sayno campaign would be delighted if everyone used it regularly. There is no intention to limit its use to a select group. The sad fact of life is that it cannot be a proper solution to those cases where use of NGNs presents a problem.


NGMsGhost wrote on Aug 15th, 2007 at 10:03am:
As you appear to find use of 0844 covert premium rate doctors numbers acceptable, perhaps you would care to indicate which 084 and 087 numbers you do not find acceptable

Whilst some complain about the number of digits, this does not cause me to find them unacceptable, and so I would raise no issue with the numbers themselves. I am not able to provide a list of the particular numbers that I would find unacceptable if used in such a manner, as covered below.


I find it unacceptable to sell a service without declaring the price, or by pretending that it is “free”. I find the degree of distinction presently drawn between revenue sharing numbers and premium rate numbers unacceptable. Furthermore, I find it unacceptable that the revenue split between the provider of the service and the carrier(s) is treated as an issue of commercial confidentiality. Given that telecommunications service providers are regulated in the interests of their consumers, their share should be known in all cases.


Most public sector bodies may charge for some services, or make them difficult or expensive to access on account of factors such as location, hours of operation or use of special (e.g., 0845) telephone numbers. Direct charges and notable external costs are actually two quite separate issues, although similar effects are created, enabling obfuscation.

I do not find either to be wholly unacceptable in principle, but find many particular cases to be so. I would find it unacceptable for there not to be appropriate guidance covering exceptional cost paid to third parties, in any case where this is likely to be incurred by a service user. I find it totally unacceptable for there to be any deviation from the principle that all direct charges (not matter how the money is collected) must be explicitly detailed and declared in advance in every case. (The fee collected by a public body from a revenue sharing number cannot be covered by the commercial confidentiality referred to above.)


The NHS is a special case in respect of charges. Dental services and prescriptions are subject to charge. With some difficulty, I find it acceptable for someone in my present position to be required to make a contribution in this way when using those services. I justify this because there are many exemptions (based very loosely around need and ability to pay) and they are capped and controlled.

There are however very many grey areas in respect of these and also with others, such as charging patients for parking on NHS land, which I find unacceptable in principle although I am open to persuasion in particular cases if pragmatic considerations may be sufficiently relevant.

Depending on how the issue of NHS GPs using 0844 numbers may be moved towards a resolution, I may shortly be required to apply this pragmatic approach to some individual cases of this unacceptable practice.

The principle that NHS costs are met through taxation rather than by charging for the use of services remains in force, and I would find it unacceptable if a particular opportunity to reinforce this were not to be taken.

I find it totally unacceptable for GPs to use revenue sharing numbers.

I believe that a sufficient number of others, including those in a position to do something about it, share this view so that this will start to be corrected in the near future. I hope that the Sayno campaign will take credit for its role in such action.

David

Back to top
 
WWW  
IP Logged
 
bbb_uk
Global Moderator
*****
Offline



Posts: 2,041
Re: NEG propaganda
Reply #5 - Aug 16th, 2007 at 5:08pm
 
SilentCallsVictim,

Although some forum members would like to see 08x numbers moved to 09x and in a perfect world then I'd like that as well but I personally think this will never happen.

However, because 08x do have some legitimate uses like network features, etc and I like to believe that big companies/gov departments using 0845 are doing so because they operate multiple call centres and it's easier/cheaper for them to operate a 0845.  I've found that in a lot of the cases, 0845 doesn't provide revenue for the company/gov dept using them - mostly it's just the communication company that owns the number that gets the revenue and it can be argued that this is used to pay for the advanced features the 0845 provides (assuming, of course, the company/gov dept is making use of advanced features and not simple features like simple call forwarding).

I do draw the line on 0844 (especially those costing 4p or higher) and 087x because in most cases, companies/gov depts using these numbers are doing so for the revenue share.

As a compromise, I'd be happy for 08x numbers to stay as they are EXCEPT (and providing) that Ofcom makes it widely known that 08x numbers are not lo-call, local or national and actual pricing information for these numbers is published along with the fact that revenue sharing does take place - ie these numbers are a STEALTH premium rate.

I use the word stealth because many, many consumers have no idea of the costs of these numbers and even less have any idea that the company/gov department using them may be (and is most likely) receiving revenue from the call.

All this information is known on 09x numbers but not 08x numbers even though they are essentially the same except one is lower premium rate but the other is higher premium rate.

I believe that if it was widely known that 08x numbers are charged extra than normal geographical calls and that revenue sharing is taking place then consumer outrage would force companies/gov depts to use lower costing ranges, etc.

However right now, this isn't the case and many companies/gov departments may have even been missold their number as costing local/national rate for their customers whilst at same time providing revenue to them.  For any company, this type of thing is too good to be true and would naturally be hard to say no to.

The problem does lie with Ofcom and its failure to actually stop Communication Providers and their misleading websites/advertising, etc that these numbers are lo-call, local and/or national rate.  This is just one of many areas Ofcom has failed in and continue to fail in.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Dave
Global Moderator
*****
Offline



Posts: 9,902
Yorkshire
Gender: male
Re: NEG propaganda
Reply #6 - Aug 16th, 2007 at 9:00pm
 
Barbara wrote on Aug 16th, 2007 at 2:56pm:
… I pay for a calls package, I expect that to include all my phone calls, I do not expect to have to pay an additional cost to the recipient of my call. …

The point here is that they are revenue sharing calls. They cannot be included in packages because (roughly speaking) they are above the price of a geographical 'normal' call. Thus, if you call a 50p/min 09 number, it is obvious that your call provider cannot stand to this. These types of numbers should be classed as such and that includes all current 084/087 numbers.

The issue is one of transparency and lack thereof. If prices were clear, then it wouldn't be commonplace for companies to revenue sharing numbers as it is now.

As SCV quite rightly identifies, the database is no fix to the underlying problem. He also says that the database is good as it helps us avoid being "deceived". Or to look at it another way, if it were there purely to avoid call charge premiums (revenue sharing) where it's justified, then this would be wrong. Acceptable uses of premium numbers are generally most 09 numbers, cheap call providers, dial-up internet and paying for ringtones. In such circumstances SCV views it as wrong to provide alternatives. These are obviously ones where the caller has a choice and should be able to avoid dialling such numbers all together if they so chose to.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
dorf
Supreme Member
*****
Offline


I hate Qs on Premium NGNs

Posts: 575
UK
Gender: male
Re: NEG propaganda
Reply #7 - Aug 16th, 2007 at 9:39pm
 
I find that completely astounding, bb_uk, that you should in your own words "be happy for 08x numbers to stay as they are EXCEPT (and providing) that Ofcom makes it widely known that 08x numbers are not lo-call, local or national and actual pricing information for these numbers is published along with the fact that revenue sharing does take place". This implies profoundly that you have no fundamental objection to call queuing with revenue-generating calls, nor do you object to the scam term "revenue sharing" which was specifically coined as part of this whole rip-off to try to deceive citizen consumers, and conceal that this usage was in reality Premium calls in disguise with call queuing.

This suggests that you do not begin to understand that the origin and intent of this whole scam of "revenue sharing" with ngns was to deliberately find a way to circumvent the specific prohibition of call queuing with Premium (revenue generating) numbers in the original New Telephone Numbering Plan. The proponents well knew that there was much more revenue to be made if a way of circumventing this prohibition could be devised, than could be extracted legitimately with Premium numbers. (It was because even the regulator at that time, Oftel, understood that if call queuing were allowed with Premium numbers there would always be a propensity for unscrupulous operators to use every possible trick to protract call durations to generate more revenue, that they thus prohibited call queuing.)  I am really surprised that you do not seem to fully appreciate this issue, clearly by your statement here. [GoNGM please note]
Back to top
« Last Edit: Aug 16th, 2007 at 9:46pm by dorf »  

Ofcom are completely ineffectual
 
IP Logged
 
Dave
Global Moderator
*****
Offline



Posts: 9,902
Yorkshire
Gender: male
Re: NEG propaganda
Reply #8 - Aug 16th, 2007 at 9:46pm
 
dorf wrote on Aug 16th, 2007 at 9:39pm:
I find that completely astounding, bb_uk, that you should in your own words "be happy for 08x numbers to stay as they are EXCEPT (and providing) that Ofcom makes it widely known that 08x numbers are not lo-call, local or national and actual pricing information for these numbers is published along with the fact that revenue sharing does take place". This implies profoundly that you have no fundamental objection to call queuing with revenue-generating calls, nor do you object to the scam term "revenue sharing" …

dorf, I think this is a compromise. Perhaps if we fight tooth and nail to get all current "revenue sharing" prefixes moved to 09, then we may fail because of the resistance from the private companies who have their snouts firmly in the trough. But if we accept a compromise we will achieve more.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Aug 16th, 2007 at 9:47pm by Dave »  
 
IP Logged
 
bbb_uk
Global Moderator
*****
Offline



Posts: 2,041
Re: NEG propaganda
Reply #9 - Aug 17th, 2007 at 3:05am
 
dorf wrote on Aug 16th, 2007 at 9:39pm:
I find that completely astounding, bb_uk, that you should in your own words "be happy for 08x numbers to stay as they are EXCEPT (and providing) that Ofcom makes it widely known that 08x numbers are not lo-call, local or national and actual pricing information for these numbers is published along with the fact that revenue sharing does take place". This implies profoundly that you have no fundamental objection to call queuing with revenue-generating calls, nor do you object to the scam term "revenue sharing" which was specifically coined as part of this whole rip-off to try to deceive citizen consumers, and conceal that this usage was in reality Premium calls in disguise with call queuing....
Anyone thinking realistically that Ofcom will actually move these numbers to 09x is unfortunately living in a dream world.  I said in a perfect world I'd like that but I have to accept a compromise but more importingly something more realistic that Ofcom would be willing to do.

For example, and personally speaking, I don't think Ofcom is going to do anything about 0845 even though they said they'd look at it again in the future.

I think its obvious that ICSTIS doesn't want to treat 0871 same as 09x and apply same or similar regulations (like preventing call queuing) so expecting them to do the same to other number ranges would be unrealistic and Ofcom didn't want to do anything about 0870 because it would cost companies money to change numbers (if required), etc.  When Ofcom reluctantely took the route it took for 0870, they gave companies nearly two years to decide what to do (either migrate or stay on 0870) so expecting Ofcom to announce that all 084x/087x numbers will cease and everyone will be migrated onto 09x is, you have to accept this, unrealistic.

The compromise I mentioned could actually be done without any financial impact on companies with regards to migration costs and at the same time consumers would be fully aware the costs involved in these calls and the fact that revenue sharing is (or most likely) does exist hence they are a lower priced premium rate (currently stealth premium rate).

The articles on 0870 and its costs and revenue sharing has made a small dent and some companies have realised that they risk losing customers by using these lower priced premium rate numbers which until recently they've all enjoyed without, in most cases, their customers being aware of it.

This leaves us with two choices:

1. Insist that all 084x/087x numbers are forced migrated to 09x and regulation applied same as other 09x numbers.
2. Insist Ofcom makes all consumers, etc fully aware of the costs involved with these numbers and just as important that revenue sharing does take place and they are known as mini-premium rate numbers or something similar rather than lo-call, local/national, etc.

IMHO and realistically, we have more of a chance with option 2 than option 1 simply because Ofcom can't use the excuse that it would cost billions (or whatever figure) for companies to migrate to 09x.

You could say that to a certain limited way, option 2 is happening now with regards to 0870 and I'm sure everyone on here has noticed a small change because some companies have reluctantly (obviously) changed back to geographical, or at the very least decided on 0845 instead of 0870 which was the 'standard' number most companies took.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Barbara
Supreme Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 598
Re: NEG propaganda
Reply #10 - Aug 17th, 2007 at 10:24am
 
bbb_uk, I know, roughly, the costs of calls to ngns (ie more than the zero if included in my call package), I accept that many people do not and that is an issue.   My point of view is that knowing it costs me more is no help at all if I have no choice but to phone the ngn in question!   This is the case if it is an organisation with which I have dealt and which has failed me in some way or if it is a state-backed monopoly (eg DVLA, govt depts, local authorities etc).  Knowing the cost of the call still means I have to pay it, whereas my point is I DON'T EXPECT TO HAVE TO PAY TWICE FOR THE SAME THING ie for my call package and then certain individual calls as well.   A third option is to force all telcom providers to include calls to ngns in their call packages but I don't think that is likely!   The only points I can see for pushing the transparency of calls costs are to increase public anger and revolt as more people realise about these and to make life so difficult for organisations which use ngns they might think again.   These may be forlorn hopes but that does not mean they should not be pursued.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
NGMsGhost
Supreme Member
*****
Offline


The Forum Ghost of NonGeographicalMan<b
r />

Posts: 2,720
Surrey, United Kingdom
Gender: male
Re: NEG propaganda
Reply #11 - Aug 17th, 2007 at 12:06pm
 
dorf wrote on Aug 16th, 2007 at 9:39pm:
I find that completely astounding, bb_uk, that you should in your own words "be happy for 08x numbers to stay as they are EXCEPT (and providing) that Ofcom makes it widely known that 08x numbers are not lo-call, local or national and actual pricing information for these numbers is published along with the fact that revenue sharing does take place". This implies profoundly that you have no fundamental objection to call queuing with revenue-generating calls, nor do you object to the scam term "revenue sharing" which was specifically coined as part of this whole rip-off to try to deceive citizen consumers, and conceal that this usage was in reality Premium calls in disguise with call queuing.


Here, here dorf.  It is good to see you are sticking to your guns while the moderators in this forum are beginning to shilly shally and lose their way.

The only logical campaigning position is where we demand that all premium rate calls that give revenue to the caller either directly (through a payment to them) or indirectly (by giving them free switchboard equipment or an artificially reduced contract price for handling the call routing) are on a separate range of number codes - preferably on 09.  As a slight compromise I would possibly be prepared to see lower priced recvenue share calls at 10p per minute or less on a separate code such as 06 or 04 but they must not be on 08 mixed up with Freephone and geographic rate 0870.  And worst of all 0871 premium rate must not be right next to 0870 soon to be geographic rate.

Ofcom has now launched 03 so clearly we should demand that all 084 and 087 users make up their minds and migrate to either 03 or 09 depending on whether they pay or the caller pays for their call routing.  Now cynical double talking BT tries to confuse the issue by taking 0845 prices below 01 and 02 calls in the weekday daytime for BT Option 1 users.  This is blatantly being done in order  to muddy the waters, given that 0845 will still not be part of inclusive call packages due to the revenue share at any time.  You can just see HMRC will say if we stop using 0845 it will cost most of our callers more to call us..........................

If our two moderators cannot be guaranteed to take a more robust line on these matters, instead of agreeing to a fudge so unclear that no one will know what our campaign is about, then I think it is high time that we began to look for some new forum moderators of the forum who can more robustly defend the position of our campaign. Angry Undecided
Back to top
 

<div style=
 
IP Logged
 
simond001
Newbie
*
Offline



Posts: 28
Re: NEG propaganda
Reply #12 - Aug 17th, 2007 at 12:09pm
 
NGMsGhost wrote on Aug 17th, 2007 at 12:06pm:
....... I think it is high time that we began to look for some new forum moderators of the forum who can more robustly defend the position of our campaign. Angry Undecided


What exactly is the campaign?

~ Edited by Dave: Quote box tidied up
Back to top
« Last Edit: Aug 17th, 2007 at 10:42pm by Dave »  
 
IP Logged
 
NGMsGhost
Supreme Member
*****
Offline


The Forum Ghost of NonGeographicalMan<b
r />

Posts: 2,720
Surrey, United Kingdom
Gender: male
Re: NEG propaganda
Reply #13 - Aug 17th, 2007 at 12:15pm
 
simond001 wrote on Aug 17th, 2007 at 12:09pm:
What exactly is the campaign?


To bring an end to the covert use of premium rate revenue share numbers that do not admit they are charging a premium rate and instead masquerade as local, lo-call and national rate numbers when they are no such thing.

This basically requires revenue share numbers to be located on a code where they are clearly identified and for all landline and mobile and Voip users who want the facility to be provided with a clear, free of charge, indication of the cost of every call they make both before they dial it and after they dial it.

In other words the same trading standards rules applicable to the pricing of virtually all other goods consumers buy of them knowing the price before they buy them should also apply to the currently mafia controlled UK telecoms industry.
Back to top
 

<div style=
 
IP Logged
 
dorf
Supreme Member
*****
Offline


I hate Qs on Premium NGNs

Posts: 575
UK
Gender: male
Re: NEG propaganda
Reply #14 - Aug 17th, 2007 at 12:18pm
 
bb_uk and Dave,

What you are suggesting here in your posts is different from what bb_uk originally posted and what I posted in reply, I believe. There is the world of difference in being prepared to accept a compromise and being "happy for 08x numbers to stay as they are EXCEPT (and providing) that Ofcom makes it widely known that 08x numbers are not lo-call, local or national and actual pricing information for these numbers is published along with the fact that revenue sharing does take place", and believing that the best compromise is for all NGNs to remain as they are. The previous statement implies that you are also happy with call queuing on Premium numbers as I pointed out. It also implies that you are happy for the scam term "revenue sharing" to continue to be used, when this term was deceitfully introduced to attempt to fool the public into believing that these numbers are not Premium numbers!

Nowhere did I suggest in my post that campaigners should hold out for all Premium (revenue generating) numbers to be moved to the 09 category, although in fact I believe that is the only rational total solution to the current problems and abuses generated by the ineffectuality and corruption of the current regulator, most of all because it was the official regulator who decided to do that in the first place - not the consumer. The official regulator originally took the decision to move all Premium (revenue generating) numbers from the plethora of 08, 03, 05 etc. numbers which they originally occupied to the category 09. It was not the citizen consumer who tried to pressurize the regulator or demanded that this should be done! The regulator took this decision in isolation as a rational and sensible decision. They also similarly decided in isolation that queuing on Premium numbers should be and would be prohibited. These decisions were then enforced in the original National Telephone Numbering Plan (NTNP), and made supposedly binding on the telecoms provider (only BT at that time I think).

BT fearing their monopoly about to end, and the inevitable loss of revenue from calls which they then carried began to look for dirty commercial tricks, to attempt to preserve some of their call revenue. They saw an opportunity with NGN calls except 09. At this time the first call queuing systems were being introduced. These were a great money spinner for BT, even as they were initially on GNs, because BT then received call revenue for the time which a caller was queuing, at the charge rate per minute, rather than nothing for an engaged call. Someone at BT then had the idea of sharing their call revenue on NGNs with the terminating subscriber (initially), although actually this was illegal under the original NTNP. BT was then beginning to experience initial limited competition for the first time with the first new call carrying providers, but this competition was with GNs initially only. They realized that by offering revenue sharing with NGNs (other than 09), since they effectively still had a monopoly with NGNs at that time, they could encourage companies to use NGNs rather than the GNs they were using, and by advising them that they could use the revenue share with call queuing this was the main marketing attraction, and thus enabled BT to get them locked into an NGN with them, preventing any competition from the new market entrant call carriers. This ensured BTs monopoly continuing with large volumes of call traffic then on NGNs instead of GNs.

CONTINUED IN NEXT POST
Back to top
« Last Edit: Aug 17th, 2007 at 12:26pm by dorf »  

Ofcom are completely ineffectual
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 2 3 ... 5
Send Topic Print
(Moderators: bbb_uk, Forum Admin, DaveM, CJT-80, Dave)

Website and Content © 1999-2024 SAYNOTO0870.COM. All Rights Reserved.
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