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 4 5
Send Topic Print
A compromise - Maybe? (Read 45,827 times)
dorf
Supreme Member
*****
Offline


I hate Qs on Premium NGNs

Posts: 575
UK
Gender: male
Re: NEG propaganda
Reply #15 - Aug 17th, 2007 at 12:19pm
 
CONTINUED

This is understandable to some extent, in that BT had never experienced competition previously and the civil-service mentality staff had not learned to think commercially in an honest sense. The problem was that Oftel, the regulator at that time, sat by and did nothing, although what BT was doing, using NGNs other than 09 as Premium numbers, was a complete contravention of the regulations and of the original NTNP. Oftel were then in a quandary. As the complaints rolled in from consumers about NGNs other than 09 being used as Premium numbers with queuing they panicked, and invented the term "revenue sharing" so that they could reply to all the complaints with the response "No they are not being used as Premium numbers. It is Revenue Sharing and that is different"!

Once subsequently Ofcom and BT were forced to admit that "Revenue Sharing" was exactly the same as use as a Premium number the current idiocy commenced. Like the pigs in Animal Farm Ofcom then changed the NTNP to attempt to cover their tracks and allow the abuses to continue. That is where we are now. I am sorry to have to repeat this at such length, but this is the problem. People who have come into the campaign at this late stage do not seem to understand the history of how and why this has all come about, and they continuously neglect the issue of call queuing with revenue generation as being the foundation of it all. This is what Ofcom are now desperate to preserve and deceive the public about. You will note for example that call queuing and the tricks with call queuing are always glossed over by Ofcom in all statements and in all consultations. The smoke screen is always "What shall we do with the numbers?" I believe the key issue is "What should be done about call queuing on Premium numbers?".

I thus believe that the only acceptable compromise is that all call queuing must be abolished with all revenue-generating numbers. This would be enforcing the regulator's (Oftel) original decision which they took themselves without any consultation. They understood at that time what would happen if call queuing were allowed with revenue-generating numbers - and it now has!!! That was thus the decision which they originally made and I believe that the focus of this campaign should be for the regulator to enforce the original decision. With that compromise all numbers could stay where they are, with revenue sharing continuing and no one would have to change their number, even though we are back to the total confusion which existed prior to the attempt by Oftel in the NTNP to end the chaos with Premium numbers in different categories, due entirely to their complete failure to enforce their own plan.

So once you understand the history of these scams, there is no way in which any intelligent citizen consumer can ever "be happy" if call queuing on any Premium numbers is allowed to continue. I believe the best compromise is as I have stated - to insist that all call queuing on Premium numbers is prohibited and enforced with heavy fines for offenders. That after all is not a demand from citizen consumers. It is just a matter of Ofcom enforcing the regulator's own original decision so as to end the current abuse and profiteering resulting from call queuing being allowed with Premium numbers.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Aug 17th, 2007 at 12:30pm by dorf »  

Ofcom are completely ineffectual
 
IP Logged
 
simond001
Newbie
*
Offline



Posts: 28
Re: NEG propaganda
Reply #16 - Aug 17th, 2007 at 1:15pm
 
Dorf,

Firstly thank you for such a clear response. It was probably the most sensible post i have seen on here, without the mindless tirades that i have become accustomed to. (NGM's "mafia" comment springs immediately to mind).

Why this campaign (which i have some support for) is listed under the heading "NEG propoganda" i do not understand. Maybe if it is to be taken seriously you should consider starting again with a clearer and less emotional team.

Unfortunately once insults and general denegration appear to be the main purpose of a forum respect is lost, focus moves away from the original ambition, and any serious contributions are ignored.

As i have stated previously, i do support the correct use of NGN's, both at  lo-call (0845) and national call (0870) rate with their respective 0844 and 0871 24/7 charged alternatives. I do however believe that they shouldonly be used where there is a benefit in kind i.e you have a value to justify the increased cost of the call.

I do not believe that they should be used in an instance where the caller is required to hold for more than 30seconds, and in this instance it shold be mandatory for the call to terminate and an automatic call is placed back to the caller.


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 #17 - Aug 17th, 2007 at 1:25pm
 
simond001 wrote on Aug 17th, 2007 at 1:15pm:
As i have stated previously, i do support the correct use of NGN's, both at  lo-call (0845) and national call (0870) rate with their respective 0844 and 0871 24/7 charged alternatives. I do however believe that they shouldonly be used where there is a benefit in kind i.e you have a value to justify the increased cost of the call.


But doesn't the value of 084/7 calls virtually always accrue to the called party and the way they are able to lower their own costs by more efficiently handling the call.  And often that so called extra efficiency is actually deemed to be a more orderly queue, which the caller then pays for even though the called party is actually at fault in generating the queue.

About the only legitimate use of 084/7 numbers that the caller is actually happy with are dial thru numbers for low international call routing services.  In that rare case the extra value of the 084/7 number almost all accrues to the caller.  But anyhow those numbers could function just as well on overt but lower rate 09 premium number codes

Quote:
I do not believe that they should be used in an instance where the caller is required to hold for more than 30seconds, and in this instance it shold be mandatory for the call to terminate and an automatic call is placed back to the caller.


On that point I am in 100% agreement with you and would even go further and suggest the caller gets an additinal flat rate compensatory payment from the called party of 25p put on their phone bill if the call is not answered in 30 seconds.  If call centres were penalised for bad service instead of profitting from it then they would soon start to smarten up their act.
Back to top
 

<div style=
 
IP Logged
 
mikeinnc
Full Member
***
Offline


Ofcom - quis custodiet
ipsos custodes?

Posts: 225
Perth Western Australia
Gender: male
Re: NEG propaganda
Reply #18 - Aug 17th, 2007 at 11:38pm
 
Quote:
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.


Thank  goodness someone has said this at long last! It is what I have long suspected. It appears that the incumbent telco will do just about anything (selling grannie springs to mind!) to maintain its - previous - monopoly position. Off topic, I admit, but Telstra in Australia is playing exactly the same sort of tricks as BT as it sees line rental and call revenue disappear due to competition. The only saving grace is we have a strong and fiercely independent competition commission that is up to all these slimy tricks.

And - this might not be too far of subject, as I seem to recall that NEG may have some sort of tie-in with Telstra? Hmmmmm........now why wouldn't I be surprised?  Angry
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Dave
Global Moderator
*****
Offline



Posts: 9,902
Yorkshire
Gender: male
Re: NEG propaganda
Reply #19 - Aug 18th, 2007 at 12:11am
 
dorf wrote on Aug 17th, 2007 at 12:18pm:
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. …

So BT should just sit back and let competition take the business. Is that not the point of competition?  Roll Eyes

What's more, if BT does it, it is a "dirty commercial trick", yet if others had done it, it would (presumably) be acceptable?

dorf wrote on Aug 17th, 2007 at 12:18pm:
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. …

When was the first network based answering service introduced? I don't think it was BT that started it off. I guess it was a mobile network thing. That's also a form of charging for a call which does not terminate on the subscriber's instrument. The engaged tone and even ringing out unanswered becomes a thing of the past in the same way that it does so with many NGNs.

dorf wrote on Aug 17th, 2007 at 12:18pm:
… 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. …

If BT had not done it, do you really think that no one else would have done it?

dorf wrote on Aug 17th, 2007 at 12:18pm:
… 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.

But revenue was only paid on 0990 ("national rate"). Receivers had to pay for receiving calls on 0345 ("local rate").

The fact is that the competition in NGN providers has come about because of the way in which BT was only allowed to retain on a cost-basis, an amount for originating the call. If this had never been put in place, then we would never have as many NGN providers as we do now.

What's more, the more competition, the more providers want to set themselves apart from one another. Sharing call revenue is one such attraction and the more one pays out, the more others do. Indeed, it tends to be providers other than BT who pay out more revenue, a scheme which we oppose. Yet, these companies are not considered to be engaged "dirty commercial tricks", unlike BT who are apparently the only bad guys in all this.

The increased payment of revenue where it is possible is only the opposite effect of the driving down of call charges to callers.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Aug 18th, 2007 at 12:11am by Dave »  
 
IP Logged
 
simond001
Newbie
*
Offline



Posts: 28
Re: NEG propaganda
Reply #20 - Aug 18th, 2007 at 1:18am
 
Dave wrote on Aug 18th, 2007 at 12:11am:
Yet, these companies are not considered to be engaged "dirty commercial tricks", unlike BT who are apparently the only bad guys in all this.


I find this hilarious as this post is called NEG Propaganda.

Reading from the same hymn sheet would help your cause.

~ Edited by Dave: Quote box tidied up
Back to top
« Last Edit: Aug 18th, 2007 at 1:13pm by Dave »  
 
IP Logged
 
idb
Supreme Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 1,499
Miami, Florida, United States
Gender: male
Re: NEG propaganda
Reply #21 - Aug 18th, 2007 at 1:33am
 
simond001 wrote on Aug 17th, 2007 at 1:15pm:
[...]
Why this campaign (which i have some support for) is listed under the heading "NEG propoganda" i do not understand. Maybe if it is to be taken seriously you should consider starting again with a clearer and less emotional team. [...]

The wikipedia entry on propaganda starts:

"Propaganda is the deliberate, systematic attempt to shape perceptions, manipulate cognitions, and direct behavior to achieve a response that furthers the desired intent of the propagandist." Source: Garth S. Jowett and Victoria O'Donnell, Propaganda And Persuasion, 4th edition, 2006.

Propaganda [from modern Latin: 'Propaganda Fide', literally “propagating the faith”] is a concerted set of messages aimed at influencing the opinions or behavior of large numbers of people. Instead of impartially providing information, propaganda in its most basic sense presents information in order to influence its audience. The most effective propaganda is often completely truthful, but some propaganda presents facts selectively to encourage a particular synthesis, or gives loaded messages in order to produce an emotional rather than rational response to the information presented. The desired result is a change of the cognitive narrative of the subject in the target audience.


Given the first contribution in this thread, which I will repeat below for the sake of clarity, I believe that the term propaganda is wholly appropriate.

What is Surgery Line?

“Surgery Line is a cost-effective way for forward looking surgeries to improve the service that they offer to patients, reduce stress levels for staff and self-fund a state of the art phone system,” explains NEG’s CEO, Richard Chapman. “As you can see, this case study focuses on one of the hundreds of surgeries that have already switched to Surgery Line. By doing so, they have saved money, improved the service that they offer patients and relieved the pressure on busy staff.”

You and your staff benefit When a surgery switches to an 084 number, NEG will install and maintain the most efficient communications system on the market. You specify exactly what equipment you want to receive (from handsets to switchboards) for no extra charge. With your own 084 number, you keep about 2p from every call to re-invest in your practice, instead of BT making all the profit from calls to your surgery.

How your patients benefit Patients benefit by having their calls answered more quickly. The engaged tone becomes rare – even at peak times - because you are able to handle incoming calls more efficiently, whilst patient calls are spread out during the day. Calls to 084 or ‘lo-call’ numbers cost patients 4p per minute, the same as the first minute of BT’s standard call rate between 6am and 6pm. This means that many patients will actually pay less in total because their call is answered and processed more quickly. Significantly, the cost of calls from mobiles remains unchanged - these account for around 30% of all calls to surgeries.

The phone system that won’t test your patients “I’ve met a number of practice managers who think that Surgery Line sounds almost too good to be true,” says Chapman, “but after it’s been installed, they realise that NEG delivers everything we promise, and more.”

Back to top
 

As from November 21, 2013, I no longer participate in the forum and am unable to receive private messages.
 
IP Logged
 
dorf
Supreme Member
*****
Offline


I hate Qs on Premium NGNs

Posts: 575
UK
Gender: male
Re: NEG propaganda
Reply #22 - Aug 18th, 2007 at 9:05am
 
I am beginning to wonder whether some of the moderators on this forum have accepted some sort of "retainer" from BT? !!! Even Ofcom reluctantly accept that BT still have "SMP". This propensity to support BT in whatever tricks they pull does any campaign against these abuses no good whatsoever; in fact it is a severe impediment to the cause.

In the context which I was describing a dirty commercial trick is one based on SMP. That is what BT are continually doing - to abuse their SMP with dirty commercial tricks, and the inept, corrupt regulator lets them get away with one after another, in fact condoning their abuses as acceptable. A commercial enterprise in their position with SMP could in fact compete most effectively due to their economies of scale, if this remnant of the Civil Service was properly managed - which it is not. This is the root problem. They have kept all their old dross civil-servant staff, commercially unqualified "managers" (I use the term loosely) and they have no idea how to run a commercial enterprise. Instead of competing as they could properly on a commercial basis they can only think of dirty commercial tricks to attempt to maintain their previous government-given monopoly. Take Tesco for example. They have SMP in their market, but nothing like as significant SMP as BT have in their market. Yet Tesco can use their economies of scale to slaughter the competition; they do not resort to dirty commercial tricks to do it because they are an effectively-run enterprise managed by professionals. Now you may like them or hate them, but you have to admit that they dominate the market, and they do this on a proper commercial basis, mainly because of their economies of scale.

Dave states:
Quote:
When was the first network based answering service introduced? I don't think it was BT that started it off. I guess it was a mobile network thing. That's also a form of charging for a call which does not terminate on the subscriber's instrument. The engaged tone and even ringing out unanswered becomes a thing of the past in the same way that it does so with many NGNs.
I do not even intend to answer that as it is such a ridiculous question. However, I must observe, what on earth has that got to do with the present abuses with NGNs and queuing. I really don't see the connection.

The Dave asks:

Quote:
If BT had not done it, do you really think that no one else would have done it?
If any other carrier had done it Oftel at that time would have come down on them like a ton of bricks and you know it! It seems you just cannot understand why BT introduced so-called "revenue sharing" at all? The only reason that BT were allowed to get away with it was that their ex-BT mates at Oftel felt bad about them loosing their monopoly and wanted to help them retain it. There were possibly other considerations too, but we had better not mention those here for reasons of potential libel accusation, since I cannot prove anything. This cosy relationship between BT and Oftel first then, and now Ofcom is the root of many of the problems and why Ofcom do not fulfil their primary statutory duty - which is to protect the interests of Citizen consumers.

I could address the other issues which Dave raises, but I really think there is little point. I would be wasting my time. The only other thing I will mention is that this post of Dave's really does the campaign cause no good at all. This sort of myopic viewpoint in my opinion weakens the cause and shows remarkable and pronounced dissension, which as simond001 has pointed out dissipates the cause.

Lastly I would agree that this has all gone horribly off topic since started by bb_uk's post. This is not about NEG's propaganda at all any longer, and probably these posts since bb_uk's post which led it all off topic should be moved elsewhere?

Back to top
 

Ofcom are completely ineffectual
 
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 #23 - Aug 18th, 2007 at 9:17am
 
dorf,

May I congratulate you on your masterly exposition of the fallacies in the reasoning of one of our esteemed forum moderators in so readily springing to the defence of the underhanded and anticompetitive commercial practices of BT.  Of course BT's latest decision to cut the price of 0845 calls in the weekday daytime below the cost of embryonic and fledgeling 03 calls is yet another example of the disgraceful dirty tricks of which you speak by this company and shows why the goons at Ofcom should not have ever released their price controls on BT's main line rental or call tariffs.

I am happy to see that despite the imminent arrival of your 70th birthday that there is no sign that this is any way impacting on the acuteness of your always highly atuned powers of analysis.
Back to top
 

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


Help us to help you -
read the instructions!!

Posts: 1,454
Gender: male
Re: A compromise - Maybe?
Reply #24 - Aug 18th, 2007 at 2:32pm
 
I think (and have voted as such) that the pricing of 08 numbers should be made more clear. None of this "blah pence from a BT landline" - it should be "maximum cost from any landline, blah pence; maximum cost from a mobile, blah pence" (and really, they shouldn't be that much more expensive from a mobile - maybe double but not up to 4 times more!!)

I've made a list of a few points I think that should be considered also:

  • If people knew exactly what they were paying for a call, I feel there would be less consumer "dislike" towards them. A free "price information message" should be made at the start of every call that is not charged at geographic rates.
  • Price should be directly linked to the "range" the number falls in. For example, the cheapest 0844 number might be 1/2p (not sure if there is cheaper) - that should be 08440; following that trend, the most expensive 0844 (5p?) should be 08449. Also, to make it clear of the price, numbers should be formatted 0844x xxx xxx (not 0844 xxx xxxx).
  • Indeed, considering the "price ranging non-geographic", why not allocate an unused number range (04 for example) to be non-geographic, revenue sharing numbers, ranging from 1/2p (low 0844) to 10p (0871). Leave 08 numbers for free phone. That would stop confusing between free 08 numbers and revenue 08 numbers.


I'll add anything else I think of later on  Grin.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Aug 18th, 2007 at 3:23pm by jgxenite »  

I don't mind helping you with your request as long as you read the instructions!
 
IP Logged
 
bbb_uk
Global Moderator
*****
Offline



Posts: 2,041
Re: A compromise - Maybe?
Reply #25 - Aug 18th, 2007 at 2:38pm
 
Barbara wrote on 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!
I agree but it is your telephone provider (BT or whomever) that decides what type of calls to include.

Calls to 08x aren't generally included as we know and I also hate that as well but the reason these calls aren't included is as Dave mentions - these calls cost your telephone provider more to carry the call which would then mean either paying an extremely high price for your inclusive tariff or having other costs increased to subsidise the cost of carrying calls to 08x.  For example, did you know that there could be two, three or even more communication providers involved in carrying calls on 08x hence why they're generally not included.

VirginMedia do have tariffs where calls to 08x are included however it obviously costs more, a lot more, for the tariff and there is a maximum amount of minutes that are included in any one month.  This is to prevent VM going into more debt because if VM had an no maximum inclusive minutes set then most people would be better off on that tariff to save paying for 08x calls but then VM would slip more and more in red (just as they are now).

Like I said earlier, I'd love for 08x numbers to be force migrated to 09x but the reality is that after years of trying, Ofcom have only done a little bit to help by removing revenue sharing from 0870.  ICSTIS has no intention of properly imposing regulation over 0871 numbers that it currently does for 09x.  This, along with the fact that it is obvious beyond any doubt that Ofcom have no intention of sorting these issues out to our (us consumers) benefit.  Instead, and as usual, Ofcom generally always side with that of their telephone provider friends which they all enjoy nice meetings to discuss things without us end consumers being present - even though in some cases decisions are made that directly or indirectly effect us consumers.

If I thought for one second we stood a chance then yes, continue.  However, I don't believe that any other forum member can honestly say that they do 100% believe that Ofcom will give-in and force migrate 08x users to 09x.

Although not ideal, a compromise could basically be to rename the 08x range from lo-call, local/national rate lies, etc to something along the lines of mini-premium rate and then if us consumers are fully aware of the costs involved and the fact that the company (and government department) they are ringing is earning revenue and this fact was advertised/well known and published then I believe that consumer outrage (that is happening to a limited degree now with 0870 numbers) will stop or at least make companies/gov departments think twice before getting one of these premium rate numbers.

This way, consumers are fully aware of the costs (ie call announcements, etc to be introduced) and the fact that they are lower-end premium rate numbers and can then choose whether to do business with a company using these numbers.

Under such pressure, I think most companies would go back to geo or switch to 03x, or at the very least have a 0845 instead of 087x number.

Quote:
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!
So why do you think that forcing telecom providers to include calls to ngns is unlikely but yet you believe that Ofcom will actually do something and force migrate 08x users to 09x?

My point I was trying to make is that I believe realistically pushing for force migration from 08x to 09x and enforcing ICSTIS safeguards is never going to happen although I DO wish it would hence the reason for my post regarding a compromise.

Remember that we are on the same side and ideally all want the same thing but to actually stand a chance of achieving something then I believe a compromise of some kind is needed although not what I'd like.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Aug 18th, 2007 at 2:43pm by bbb_uk »  
 
IP Logged
 
NGMsGhost
Supreme Member
*****
Offline


The Forum Ghost of NonGeographicalMan<b
r />

Posts: 2,720
Surrey, United Kingdom
Gender: male
Re: A compromise - Maybe?
Reply #26 - Aug 18th, 2007 at 2:47pm
 
I think all 084/7 users should be forced to migrate to 09 if they wish to continue to revenue share or alternatively to 03 if they are prepared to pay themselves for the convenuience of their enhanced call routing facilities.

The poll seems to currently have a mistake in talking of all 08 numbers migrating to 09.  It should be all revenue sharing 084/7 numbers that the consumer pays the revenue share on being forced to migrate to 09 as clearly we are content for 0800 and 0808 numbers to stay right where they are.
Back to top
 

<div style=
 
IP Logged
 
bbb_uk
Global Moderator
*****
Offline



Posts: 2,041
Re: A compromise - Maybe?
Reply #27 - Aug 18th, 2007 at 2:57pm
 
NGMsGhost wrote on Aug 18th, 2007 at 2:47pm:
I think all 084/7 users should be forced to migrate to 09 if they wish to continue to revenue share or alternatively to 03 if they are prepared to pay themselves for the convenuience of their enhanced call routing facilities.
But what do you realistically believe Ofcon will give in to because that's what the poll is about - not what you or I would like!

Quote:
The poll seems to currently have a mistake in talking of all 08 numbers migrating to 09.  It should be all revenue sharing 084/7 numbers that the consumer pays the revenue share on being forced to migrate to 09 as clearly we are content for 0800 and 0808 numbers to stay right where they are.
I only meant 084x/087x by stating 08x but you are right and I've amended it accordingly.
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: A compromise - Maybe?
Reply #28 - Aug 18th, 2007 at 3:01pm
 
bbb_uk wrote on Aug 18th, 2007 at 2:57pm:
I only meant 084x/087x by stating 08x but you are right and I've amended it accordingly.


Thanks.

But I think you also need to do this for Option 2 as well. Wink
Back to top
« Last Edit: Aug 18th, 2007 at 3:02pm by NGMsGhost »  

<div style=
 
IP Logged
 
bbb_uk
Global Moderator
*****
Offline



Posts: 2,041
Re: A compromise - Maybe?
Reply #29 - Aug 18th, 2007 at 3:12pm
 
Remember this poll is what you realistically believe Ofcom are more likely to do and NOT what you'd like
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Send Topic Print
(Moderators: Dave, bbb_uk, DaveM, Forum Admin, CJT-80)

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