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 45,828 times)
NGMsGhost
Supreme Member
*****
Offline


The Forum Ghost of NonGeographicalMan<b
r />

Posts: 2,720
Surrey, United Kingdom
Gender: male
Re: A compromise - Maybe?
Reply #30 - Aug 18th, 2007 at 3:28pm
 
bbb_uk wrote on 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


Dear bbb,

Thank you for also correcting the error in Option 2 of the poll.

The problem is your idea and Dave's idea of what is "realistic" and mine and dorf's ideas of what is "realistic" are completely different.

You seem to be suffering from that usual problem that many forum moderators eventually seem to suffer from of believing that your understanding of what is possible is the only correct one.
Back to top
 

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



Posts: 2,041
Re: A compromise - Maybe?
Reply #31 - Aug 18th, 2007 at 3:31pm
 
NGMsGhost wrote on Aug 18th, 2007 at 3:28pm:
The problem is your idea and Dave's idea of what is "realistic" and mine and dorf's ideas of what is "realistic" are completely different.
Well what would you realistically believe Ofcom would give-in to as a compromise bearing in mind Ofcom's reluctance to do anything at all to upset their teleco buddies and cosy meals?
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 #32 - Aug 18th, 2007 at 4:06pm
 
bbb_uk wrote on Aug 18th, 2007 at 3:31pm:
Well what would you realistically believe Ofcom would give-in to as a compromise bearing in mind Ofcom's reluctance to do anything at all to upset their teleco buddies and cosy meals?


I believe Ofcom will continue on the present sorry basis with 0871 numbers transferred to ICSTIS but then not subject to premium rate regulation and allowing 0844 and 0845 as a complete unregulated revenue share trojan course. Also mobile phone companies will continue to scam on 0871 by failing to include them in bundled minutes and charging extra for them by adding a price announcement thanks to Ofcom's deliberate scammer's loophole.

It is our job not to complacently accept this and roll over with our feet in the air but to take the moral high ground by continuing to campaign for a total move of all covert premium rate numbers to 09.  Then as a compromise Ofcom may eventually at least require full call price announcements and disclosure for all 084/7 numbers.

If we only campaign for full price disclosure on 084/7 our campaign will not capture the imagination of journalists and so will not work at all.

For instance the idea that doctors are running covert 09 rate premium services that stupid Ofcom has failed to act in the public interest to protect us from is of much more news value to a journalist.

If our cause can be trivialised as just people carping about only a few p per minute then we will never win.  We have to make it emotive by calling it premium rate numbers by the back door and £100 extra on the average UK domestic phone bill and £100 extra on the average mobile phone bill that people shouldn't be paying in order for us to get anywhere.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Aug 18th, 2007 at 4:06pm by NGMsGhost »  

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


aka NHS.Patient, DH_fairtelecoms

Posts: 2,494
Re: A compromise - Maybe?
Reply #33 - Aug 18th, 2007 at 5:01pm
 
bbb_uk wrote on Aug 18th, 2007 at 11:10am:

Do other forum members
realistically
believe that Ofcom will...

As I have voted for option 3, I am obliged to comment.

I believe that because 084 is presently such a mess, Ofcom has decided to wait to see what happens as a result of the relatively simple provisions that it has put in place. I believe that it will come back to review 084 in the light of:

- How the telcos go about providing and supporting 03 numbers

- How much take up there is of 03 (taking away current 084 usage)

(these two are inter-related and largely outside Ofcom’s direct control)

- How quickly dial-up internet access (a major use of 084) dies, as broadband is universally adopted (an Ofcom objective).

- How well its subcontractor (ICSTIS) copes with the considerable growth in the scale and scope of its responsibilities caused by the reclassification of 0871.

- Representations received and a general perception of public attitudes


Ofcom and the government believe that the premium rate industry should be self-regulating. The Communications Act made specific provision for Ofcom to sub-contract the operational aspects of its statutory duty to ICSTIS. ICSTIS is made up of those who earn a living from premium rate services. There is no obvious affinity between such organisations and those, like the DVLA, who recover part of their call centre costs by imposing charges on callers through use of a 0870 number. The concept of a self-regulating industry cannot be extended beyond the realms of common interest.

It is also significant to note that Ofcom’s statutory powers to impose and enforce regulations may only be applied to those who provide telecommunications services. Whilst “chatline” providers fall within this definition, the DVLA does not (although if it switches to 0871 before next February, from then it would).


If Ofcom allows revenue-sharing (as distinct from “premium rate”) to remain, then I cannot see how it could enforce the transparency about the fee element (as opposed to the total cost) that we rightly seek. In the commercial sector there is some entitlement to commercial confidentiality regarding how an originating telco distributes the money it collects from its customers.

The telcos are already under a very strong obligation to be transparent about the total cost. (Users of non-premium rate NGNs cannot be made subject to such a requirement by Ofcom.) Any failure to comply with Ofcom’s requirements must be the subject of a formal complaint. Any competing telco would be very quick to endorse or even submit such a complaint.

Our right to demand information from public sector bodies is different. I wonder if anyone has considered a FOI request to the DVLA regarding the revenue it obtains by charging fees for calling its call centre. To obtain a resolution, we may have to address this with each public sector body separately, although assistance may be provided by the COI and the No 10 Delivery Unit, who are both involved.


If I have the opportunity to study these matters further I may be ready with suggestions about how Ofcom could address all of the issues that arise. For now I am focussed on the public sector and the NHS in particular. I therefore have to disappoint those who may wish to see a total answer.

I hope these observations are helpful to the discussion – that is my only objective here. My work to actually resolve the issues is taking place elsewhere.

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


I hate Qs on Premium NGNs

Posts: 575
UK
Gender: male
Re: A compromise - Maybe?
Reply #34 - Aug 18th, 2007 at 7:18pm
 
Thank you GoNGM for your kind comments concerning my evidently somewhat delayed senility !! And thank you bb_uk for sorting out the original topic and moving the off topic material to a new thread.

I have voted for the third compromise option in the poll. I have already explained what I feel that option is and why I believe it is the only feasible one from the consumer's point of view. However, I did anticipate that someone if not several of you knowledgeable people would spot the sting in the tail and realise why it is the option which I recommend. It is a subtle strategy.

Firstly, it was Oftel who originally decided to ban call queuing with premium numbers as I have emphasized already, so citizen consumers are only asking Ofcom to keep to a decision which the regulator has already made previously and failed to enforce. But the key part of this strategy is that by now demanding that they keep to and enforce their own original decision we would be aiming a fatal blow to their Achilles Heel. This is because they have tried desperately all along to conceal and parry the fact that this is really the only reason that they, the telecoms providers and companies using NGNs as Premium numbers want the status quo to continue; so that they can have queuing on Premium numbers. Once queuing was prohibited again on all Premium numbers there would be little point in using NGNs except for their original purpose, because the big money is made from queuing. I believe so far we have played into their hands, by going along with them, and concentrating on which numbers (0870, 0871, 0844, 0845 and 070PNS) should be moved where. This has been their red herring to avoid the real issue. Once call queuing was banned again they will have lost to us. They would probably then gradually rationalize these numbers themselves in time without any pressure from the citizen consumer, as the regulator (Oftel) did previously. It would be common sense.

So I believe that is the key strategy. Its great strength is that it is quite difficult if not impossible to produce complicated, verbose, smoke screen, garbled consultation documents in perpetuity concerning call queuing on Premium numbers. There are only two possibilities - call queuing on Premium numbers is either good, or it is bad. Oftel had decided rationally before that it was bad, because it will always be open to abuse as we can see only too well at present. If Oftel had previously decided that it was bad it is going to be extremely difficult for Ofcom to argue that it has all changed now, and it is not bad any more. After all they accept that it is prohibited on 09, so now that Ofcom and BT have publicly admitted that what they previously tried to pretend was "revenue sharing" is in reality use as a Premium number, they do not have a leg to stand on against an onslaught on that one issue, most of all if there is a co-ordinated voice of the citizen consumer from now on agreeing with their decisions about where the numbers should be! I believe this strategy will pull the wool from under their feet, particularly if MPs and MEPs are supporting it and making representations about it. It is nice and simple and impossible to use any smoke screen against.

So I believe our position should be, that we agree that these non-09 NGNs may be used as Premium numbers and we don't mind where Ofcom put them (although there is one place we would like to see them put them which would satisfy us the most, but we can't be rude here), so long as they keep to Oftel's original decision that queuing on all Premium numbers must be prohibited, because queuing on Premium numbers is bad - Oftel already said so. I rest my case.
Back to top
 

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



Posts: 9,902
Yorkshire
Gender: male
Re: A compromise - Maybe?
Reply #35 - Aug 18th, 2007 at 9:58pm
 
I write the following in response to comments made about my point of view and accusations that I have a somewhat “myopic viewpoint”, which some view as being supportive of BT.

dorf wrote on 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.

That is because I post on here because I believe that the central issue is one of having decent telecommunications services in this country. Privatisation has allowed competition to be introduced and has also created the necessity for such companies to make money (for shareholders).

I do not see how a company like BT can reduce its market share (and revenue) whilst increasing profit and still having to maintain the network, regardless of how many subscribers it has. The point is that the network infrastructure is paramount to the country for telecommunications and therefore BT can't simply close bits down to reduce costs.

This is happening with the Post Office, where rural branches are closing, because in this “modern” time, the necessity to make profit is now being put before the necessity to have a telephone service or postal service. This was, presumably, not an issue when the networks were created.

Cable is an example of a network that has been built since privatisation and we can see that the providers only want to cable areas where they know they can get a return. On the other hand, companies like BT and Royal Mail, must provide a service to all places, whether they be urban or rural.

Another example is with mobile telecommunications, where we have four principal GSM networks. The technical aspects of getting the best coverage should be paramount for mobile telecommunications. However, what we have is the completely crass solution of having four competing providers who each go and build their own networks which cover the same areas!

There are other areas that either have no coverage at all, or aren't served by all providers. Thus, whether I can get a signal or not is not defined by the whether any signal is present in my current location, but whether my provider covers that area.

I introduce this into the topic because it illustrates the difference between BT, the state run service which covered everywhere and the cable and mobile networks which have been built from square one by private finance. The better way of, creating/running the infrastructure at least, is surely the GPO/BT one, or at least to have one body that works as one. This has been proven to be the case with the railways.

There was talk about 'inefficiencies' and that competition and privatisation would drive these out. But all the extra mobile phone masts because each operator must have its own to cover the same area, I think is a sure sign that inefficiencies remain!

dorf wrote on Aug 18th, 2007 at 9:05am:
In the context which I was describing a dirty commercial trick is one based on SMP. That is what BT are continually doing […] 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.

But the point is surely one of introducing competition to the market versus the SMP that wishes to keep/increase its market share. If we imagine that the ex-government operated telecommunications network has been run in a ‘Tesco-like’ manner since privatisation, what difference would this make with regards to introducing competition?

With 084/087 NTS numbers, BT only retains a small amount (on cost basis) for originating the calls. The amount left is paid to the NTS provider, as decided by the regulator. But NTS providers have no interest in reducing the price to callers. It is this which is the reason for saying no to 0870, along with the “local rate” et al lies which emanate from some telcos when marketing these numbers.

The scales are improperly balanced, whereby there are many providers who terminate calls but don't originate them. This is not the case with 01/02 calls and may help explain how the prices of these has been driven down. To me, this is the key sticking point and why calls to 0845 and 0870 remain high at (broadly speaking) the same as local and national rate when there was only BT.

Continued....
Back to top
« Last Edit: Aug 18th, 2007 at 9:58pm by Dave »  
 
IP Logged
 
Dave
Global Moderator
*****
Offline



Posts: 9,902
Yorkshire
Gender: male
Re: A compromise - Maybe?
Reply #36 - Aug 18th, 2007 at 9:58pm
 
....Continued from previous post

dorf wrote on Aug 18th, 2007 at 9:05am:
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.

I mentioned this because NTS numbers are not the only type of numbers/service that charge calls even though they are not connected to an end subscriber, a point which you have raised. The fact is that since competition has been introduced, there are now many more instances where callers are charged even though they are not connected to the person they are calling.

On a similar note, I see no earthly reason why, in addition to ringing, busy (etc) states, which are not chargeable, we couldn't have another one which asked the caller whether they would like to be put through to the receiver's voicemail. If the caller were to hang up, they wouldn't be charged and if they pressed whatever to go to VM, then they would be charged.

However, as I've already mentioned, some technical possibilities/benefits are seemingly at odds to competition and profit making.

dorf wrote on Aug 18th, 2007 at 9:05am:
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! …

I am not convinced that the regulator would have stopped such payments as they would be seen as "commercial arrangements". I agree with you that 070 personal numbers are covert-premium. They go up to 50p/min from BT (five times higher than 0871), however, BT has no 070 numbers allocated. So the idea of revenue sharing and more so, the allowance by the regulator to let it continue on 070 has nothing to do with BT!!!

dorf wrote on Aug 18th, 2007 at 9:05am:
…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 would not be surprised to hear that decisions have/are taken by the regulator to favour the telcos, if for no other reason ex-telco people make up the regulator.

dorf wrote on Aug 18th, 2007 at 9:05am:
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.

The campaign is about the abhorrent use of 0870 and other covert-premium telephone numbers. This is a public forum and everyone is entitled to their own views. I think that the most important point of any sensible discussion is the reasoning behind one’s views.

I believe that blaming any one party (or parties) does no good. It does not identify what positive steps we can take and is very unlikely to achieve any positive results.

This means that a lot of my post is actually irrelevant, just like blaming BT or whoever for all the wrongs. But I have made this post in response to previous postings by other members who seem somewhat blinkered in their thinking. They see that if one disagrees with their view that something (in this case BT) is bad or dislikeable, then he/she must be supportive of it. I believe that whether I like one party’s decisions or not does nothing for the cause.

The whys and wherefores of the current state are, therefore, to quite an extent, irrelevant, as we are where we are and that’s it.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Aug 18th, 2007 at 9:59pm by Dave »  
 
IP Logged
 
Dave
Global Moderator
*****
Offline



Posts: 9,902
Yorkshire
Gender: male
Re: A compromise - Maybe?
Reply #37 - Aug 18th, 2007 at 10:00pm
 
SilentCallsVictim wrote on Aug 18th, 2007 at 5:01pm:
… ICSTIS is made up of those who earn a living from premium rate services. There is no obvious affinity between such organisations and those, like the DVLA, who recover part of their call centre costs by imposing charges on callers through use of a 0870 number. The concept of a self-regulating industry cannot be extended beyond the realms of common interest.

How can a such a line between these two types of service be drawn? Where do you put it?

I refer to a previous post of yours:
SilentCallsVictim wrote on Aug 15th, 2007 at 6:35pm:
… I find the degree of distinction presently drawn between revenue sharing numbers and premium rate numbers unacceptable. …

These two seem to contradict one another. Huh

Perhaps the next bit helps to explain:
SilentCallsVictim wrote on Aug 18th, 2007 at 5:01pm:
It is also significant to note that Ofcom’s statutory powers to impose and enforce regulations may only be applied to those who provide telecommunications services. Whilst “chatline” providers fall within this definition, the DVLA does not (although if it switches to 0871 before next February, from then it would).

So what you’re saying is that Ofcom (under the law, i.e. Communications Act) must make this distinction?

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Aug 18th, 2007 at 5:01pm:
The telcos are already under a very strong obligation to be transparent about the total cost. (Users of non-premium rate NGNs cannot be made subject to such a requirement by Ofcom.) Any failure to comply with Ofcom’s requirements must be the subject of a formal complaint. Any competing telco would be very quick to endorse or even submit such a complaint.

Currently, quite a few telcos don’t provide pricing information for 084/087 NGNs alongside that for 01/02, as decreed by Ofcom following the consultation last year. Why would a telco put in a complaint against another? All that will happen is that they will all put in complaints against one another. When they want to, they stick together and, in this case, they keep schtum.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Aug 18th, 2007 at 5:01pm:
… I wonder if anyone has considered a FOI request to the DVLA regarding the revenue it obtains by charging fees for calling its call centre. …

This has already been addressed and has been discussed in parliament. See the Parliamentry Update thread, specifically this post where it can be seen that the DVLA ‘earned’ £2,894,284 during 2006/07.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Dave
Global Moderator
*****
Offline



Posts: 9,902
Yorkshire
Gender: male
Re: A compromise - Maybe?
Reply #38 - Aug 18th, 2007 at 10:06pm
 
dorf wrote on Aug 18th, 2007 at 7:18pm:
… There are only two possibilities - call queuing on Premium numbers is either good, or it is bad. Oftel had decided rationally before that it was bad, because it will always be open to abuse as we can see only too well at present. If Oftel had previously decided that it was bad it is going to be extremely difficult for Ofcom to argue that it has all changed now, and it is not bad any more. …

dorf, I feel that we are in agreement. This sounds a good idea. Other than the suggestion by SilentCallsVictim that Ofcom must (by law?) draw the distinction between “premium rate” and “revenue sharing” numbers and therefore it may argue that they are not the same, meaning that call queuing is apparently bad for one and not the other.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Aug 18th, 2007 at 10:06pm by Dave »  
 
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 #39 - Aug 18th, 2007 at 10:42pm
 
I thought Ofcom had connived with its subcontractor ICSTIS to come up with a Consultation document on 0871 that suggests that there is not enough consumer detriment to bother to ban call queuing on these up to £6 per hour numbers.

At least I distinctly recall responding to such a consultation recently at quite some length.

So it sounds to me like Ofcom has recanted on the idea that call queuing is not allowed on Premium Rate numbers.  Bearing in mind that ICSTIS is the premium rate regulator. Wink Roll Eyes Undecided
Back to top
 

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



Posts: 9,902
Yorkshire
Gender: male
Re: A compromise - Maybe?
Reply #40 - Aug 18th, 2007 at 10:47pm
 
NGMsGhost wrote on Aug 18th, 2007 at 10:42pm:
I thought Ofcom had connived with its subcontractor ICSTIS to come up with a Consultation document on 0871 that suggests that there is not enough consumer detriment to bother to ban call queuing on these up to £6 per hour numbers.

At least I distinctly recall responding to such a consultation recently at quite some length.

The responses to which have yet to appear on ICSTIS' website.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Aug 18th, 2007 at 10:47pm by Dave »  
 
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 #41 - Aug 19th, 2007 at 12:04am
 
Dave wrote on Aug 18th, 2007 at 10:47pm:
The responses to which have yet to appear on ICSTIS' website.


I don't think they liked what most of the responses had to say about their proposals.

Perhaps they are having urgent internal talks with Ofcom about what to do before they publish them and the press get hold of the total numbers against their proposals and the strength of that opposition. We may yet see a limitation on the length of call queues to 0871 numbers.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Aug 19th, 2007 at 12:06am by NGMsGhost »  

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


Ofcom - quis custodiet
ipsos custodes?

Posts: 225
Perth Western Australia
Gender: male
Re: A compromise - Maybe?
Reply #42 - Aug 19th, 2007 at 5:39am
 
Quote from jgxenite

Quote:
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.


But isn't this one of the major issues? Surely, the very reason that the whole sorry mess is so bad is precisely because the telcos WANTED to create as much confusion as possible between 0800 numbers and revenue share numbers. Even today, given all the negative publicity, I would guarantee that many - possibly even a majority - of British people think that there is some "connection" between 0800 and 08xx - and that these revenue share numbers are also 'free'. Just this week, whilst searching for a number on a web site for a major (non-British!) electronics supplier, I saw the British contact phone number as 0870 xxxx annotated quite incorrectly as 'Free Call'. Since the corresponding US contact number was a 1-800 number - also (correctly) annotated as 'Free Call', is there any surprise that the confusion continues? (And, should there be any surprise that the US customers get a free call and the Brits pay through the nose!  Angry)

I would suspect that Telcos will fight tooth and nail against EVER allowing revenue share numbers to be given either their own range (04) or be moved to 09. The similarity between 0800 and 0870 / 0845 etc is very much in their favour!
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
bbb_uk
Global Moderator
*****
Offline



Posts: 2,041
Re: A compromise - Maybe?
Reply #43 - Aug 19th, 2007 at 9:43am
 
NGMsGhost wrote on Aug 19th, 2007 at 12:04am:
We may yet see a limitation on the length of call queues to 0871 numbers.
I would love to see that but I think the lack of responses online is because ICSTIS only has a limited number of staff (compared to Ofcom) so maybe they haven't had time to go through all the responses and mark down what they need to before it going online.  If I remember correctly it took ICSTIS a while to do the pre-consultation which only had a few responses most of which by the industry.


Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
SilentCallsVictim
Supreme Member
*****
Offline


aka NHS.Patient, DH_fairtelecoms

Posts: 2,494
Re: A compromise - Maybe?
Reply #44 - Aug 19th, 2007 at 9:54am
 
Dave wrote on Aug 18th, 2007 at 10:00pm:
SilentCallsVictim wrote on Aug 18th, 2007 at 5:01pm:
… ICSTIS is made up of those who earn a living from premium rate services. There is no obvious affinity between such organisations and those, like the DVLA, who recover part of their call centre costs by imposing charges on callers through use of a 0870 number. The concept of a self-regulating industry cannot be extended beyond the realms of common interest.
How can a such a line between these two types of service be drawn? Where do you put it?

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Aug 15th, 2007 at 6:35pm:
… I find the degree of distinction presently drawn between revenue sharing numbers and premium rate numbers unacceptable.
These two seem to contradict one another.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Aug 18th, 2007 at 5:01pm:
It is also significant to note that Ofcom’s statutory powers to impose and enforce regulations may only be applied to those who provide telecommunications services. Whilst “chatline” providers fall within this definition, the DVLA does not (although if it switches to 0871 before next February, from then it would).
So what you’re saying is that Ofcom (under the law, i.e. Communications Act) must make this distinction?

Sorry, I raise more problems than solutions here.

Ofcom uses ICSTIS to administer self-regulation of "premium rate" numbers, on behalf of the relevant industry, assuming that members would wish to protect the reputation of their industry by ensuring high standards. (Yes, I can see the joke.) I would see the line around the industry being drawn to include only those who "earn a living" from premium rate numbers. Ofcom would find the self-regulatory approach hard to defend if organisations such as the DVLA were to be seen as part of the same industry as "chatline" providers.

There are also the issues, which I have not explored, of how the arrangement with ICSTIS works in terms of funding and the level of resource that the ICSTIS management structure can support to do its work. The delay in giving effect to the reclassification of 0871 was largely caused by the need for ICSTIS to prepare for a massive change in the scope and scale of its operation. How much more could it take?

Ofcom will be reluctant to change the way in which this arrangement works, as it has been seen to be successful (by Ofcom and others, not by me).


I am not a lawyer. I can only suggest that reading section 120 may lead one to agree with me that (in this respect) Ofcom can only regulate those who provide telecommunications services, and that Ofcom may determine this according to whether or not they rent a "premium rate" number. One may read more of the Act to find the same limitation applying in respect of all its other regulatory powers.


The present distinction is unacceptable, but it may not be easy to get this removed.

Any suggestions (other than that of placing a bomb under Riverside House) would be very welcome.


NGMsGhost wrote on Aug 19th, 2007 at 12:04am:
I don't think they liked what most of the responses had to say about their proposals.

Perhaps they are having urgent internal talks with Ofcom about what to do before they publish them …

We must remember that ICSTIS is a private body. Other than specified duties imposed through its contract with Ofcom, it is responsible only to its members. Why would it publish critical responses to a consultation? Ofcom admitted to suppressing publication of 164 out of 235 responses to its consultation on its Silent Calls policy.



Dave wrote on Aug 18th, 2007 at 10:00pm:
Why would a telco put in a complaint against another?

Have a look at the "Competition Bulletins" to see a bunch of kids snitching to teacher.

If some are gaining a competitive advantage by not publishing prices properly, one might have thought that those who may be suffering as a result would be keen to see this corrected. (There may be evidence to prove me wrong.)

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Aug 18th, 2007 at 5:01pm:
… I wonder if anyone has considered a FOI request to the DVLA regarding the revenue it obtains by charging fees for calling its call centre. …

Apologies, I missed the extensive postings in another thread showing that written ministerial questions have been asked, and answered.

A good follow-up question would be to ask how many of those who contributed to these legitimate earnings were advised in advance of the fee they would be paying to the DVLA (or other body) for the chargeable service that they choose to use.

Back to top
 
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 
Send Topic Print
(Moderators: bbb_uk, Forum Admin, DaveM, Dave, 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