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 45,833 times)
jgxenite
Supreme Member
*****
Offline


Help us to help you -
read the instructions!!

Posts: 1,454
Gender: male
Re: A compromise - Maybe?
Reply #45 - Aug 19th, 2007 at 10:10am
 
mikeinnc wrote on 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!


Yes, I suspect that for a lot of foreign people, the distinctions between 0800, 0808, 0844, 0845, 0870 and 0871 are completely lost on them - especially if they come from the US, where effectively every 1-8xx (except for a few cases) number is "toll-free".

It wouldn't surprise me in the least if the reason for all this is purely to confuse people, make the pricing of such numbers completely obscure so as to acquire as much revenue from the unsuspecting British public as possible. It is completely mind boggling!!
Back to top
« Last Edit: Aug 19th, 2007 at 10:10am 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 #46 - Aug 19th, 2007 at 10:12am
 
SilentCallsVictim wrote on Aug 19th, 2007 at 9:54am:
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.)
Most things mentioned on Competition Bulletins are the fact that they've been unable to negotiate a price for terminating calls, etc.

With regards to the fact that NGN prices should be given equal prominence as geographical numbers (what Dave is referring to), this regulation has been in place for a year now and none of the landline providers (except VirginMedia) comply with it.  That is BT, which still has SMP, still doesn't fully comply with it despite being warned by Ofcom over many, many, many months ago (along with other OCPs).  The only reason I can see why OCPs don't want to do this (especially BT as it probably originates and terminates most calls to 084/087 numbers) is because I believe they possibly make more of a profit on 084/087 numbers than geographical numbers (or at least a significant proportion) and obviously if they (OCPs) made clear the actual call costs involved and the fact that they can cost significantly more than geographical numbers which would become apparent if both geographical call costs and NGNs are displayed on the same page, then this may lead to more complaints about call costs and may question whether 084/087 is local/national rate.

Ofcom have, IMHO, dragged their feet over this despite admitting that many consumers have no idea of call costs but yet other things Ofcom can act very quickly when it wants to.

For example, did you know that at one time despite geographical calls costing less than an 0845, Ofcom only published an 0845 number.  Following complaints, it revealed the geographical number as well then eventually removed the 0845 and just published the geographical number.  Now surely Ofcom in its position would know that most consumers actually paid more for 0845 than geographical number?!?!
Back to top
« Last Edit: Aug 19th, 2007 at 10:21am by bbb_uk »  
 
IP Logged
 
dorf
Supreme Member
*****
Offline


I hate Qs on Premium NGNs

Posts: 575
UK
Gender: male
Re: A compromise - Maybe?
Reply #47 - Aug 19th, 2007 at 10:20pm
 
Dave, I am glad you liked my suggestion. Quote:
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.


It is important though to place the emphasis on this being the only issue that campaigning is needed on. Once this was won everything else would fall into place naturally, because without the scam of call queuing on Premium numbers the principal attraction of this rip-off would be ended. If everyone continues to concentrate instead on what 08 or 07 number should be moved where we will never win!

This would have been more difficult until BT and Ofcom publicly declared that these numbers were being used as Premium numbers. (BT even did and still may list them now as Premium numbers on their price list.) So hand-in-hand with this has to go the reality that there is no such thing as a Revenue Sharing number or a Revenue Generating number or a Special Service number which is not a Premium number. All revenue generating and revenue sharing numbers are Premium numbers and must not be called revenue sharing. That is exactly what a Premium number is - a number which is not charged at the normal call rate and which shares the Premium rate paid (above a normal number charge rate) between the telcos carrying the call the terminating subscriber and/or an intermediary.
Back to top
 

Ofcom are completely ineffectual
 
IP Logged
 
simond001
Newbie
*
Offline



Posts: 28
Re: A compromise - Maybe?
Reply #48 - Aug 20th, 2007 at 12:38am
 
Carriers will lose their rebate from 0870 from Feb 08. This means that everybody who has previously used these will a. lose their incom stream, and b. need to spend money changing numbers on stationary, vehicles, adverts etc. If they do not there will be a cost applied to every call they recieve.

Although this is the type of action that you want, the costs for these changes will be passed to the consumer. That is the nature of economics.

We have already seen the travel industry, which was a heavy user of 0870's, move to 0871 numbers. This is the only way to safeguard the income that was previously recieved.  This gives a nett loss to the consumer as they are now paying more for the call, and the busieness has incurred ditional costs to facilitate the change.

Consumers have the right to choose,  and a more sensible option was always to fully promot ethe call costs and allow the consumer to decide whether they wanted to pay for a 087 call, or find a different vendor. I believe that the more succesful a campaign to change NGN's, the higher the eventual cost will be for the consumer. We have seen this throughout the deregulation of telecoms services, with the average directory enquiries call now costing double the cost for 192.

Education is the way forward. a full and transparent pricing structure that is fixed regardless of carrier or origination (GSM/PSTN). Whether this would come under the guise of price fixing i do not know, but if so a max call cost (ppm) could be applied. 

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 #49 - Aug 20th, 2007 at 7:26am
 
simond001 wrote on Aug 20th, 2007 at 12:38am:
We have already seen the travel industry, which was a heavy user of 0870's, move to 0871 numbers. This is the only way to safeguard the income that was previously recieved.


An industry that relies on now completely deceiving the consumer about the real cost of its products.  For instance why is it that any high street or non travel online retailer charges me nothing at all extra to use a credit or charge card compared to a debit card but the travel industry finds a ripoff £4 or £5 flat rate charge universally necessary (even British Airways now), even if the value of the flight I'm buying is only £60! Shocked

And would any of these travel companies have moved to 0871 numbers if they were not reliant on being able to deceive the average ignorant punter (and most punters who book their holidays on the phone rather than the internet now are either usually old or ignorant) that an 0871 number only costs the same as an 0870 (and therefore in the ignorant consumer's mind a normal priced phone call) and a charlatan regulator that does not require compulsory call price announcements saying these are non standard priced calls and that a proportion of the call price goes to the called party.  And would they have moved to 0870 in the first place had the regulator again not been totally in bed with the telecoms industry by allowing the introduction of covert premium rate numbers, universally misdescribed at that stage as being National Rate calls.

Quote:
Education is the way forward. a full and transparent pricing structure that is fixed regardless of carrier or origination (GSM/PSTN). Whether this would come under the guise of price fixing i do not know, but if so a max call cost (ppm) could be applied.  

What hope of education for the consumer when we have unprincipled and gutless Ofcom in charge of proceedings (the ultimate example of the kids being put in charge of the sweet shop).  If the Office of Fair Trading had a say over telecoms competition matters there might have been some hope.

For instance the only major efforts Ofcom has ever made to educate the public was when it paid for full page newspaper adverts last summer to claims that its de-regulation of BT price controls would actually enhance competition for the consumer.

But what has happened since.  The cost of line rental has gone up by around 5% and the minimum price of an 01/02 call for BT Option 1 customers has gone up 400% in order to lower the difference with and try and force them on to a much cheaper BT Option 3 so they no longer see a major price difference in switching their business elsewhere.  And to top it all and most outrageously of all BT has been allowed to introduce new restrictive contract terms that make it difficult to leave them.  Even though they are still the massively default and incumbent operator.

You refer to the Directory Enquiries fiasco.  With respect this is just yet another example of the spectacular ineptitude and incompetent regulation at which Ofcom is so good/bad depending on your point of view.  Another regulator would have introduced a system that would have driven the price of the product down.

In my view the problem here is actually the regulator as in other industries greater competition and more choice has actually reduced the cost of the product for the consumer.
Back to top
 

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



Posts: 9,902
Yorkshire
Gender: male
Re: A compromise - Maybe?
Reply #50 - Aug 20th, 2007 at 11:11am
 
NGMsGhost wrote on Aug 20th, 2007 at 7:26am:
And would any of these travel companies have moved to 0871 numbers if they were not reliant on being able to deceive the average ignorant punter …

I think that this will eventually become known by the consumer and these companies that use them (especially 0871) will have to stop. More and more people will see expensive entries on their phone bills and will realise. Unfortunately those who make the calls from a pay as you go mobile won't be aware and those who don't get itemised bills will also be unaware.

When this day comes, companies will then have to stop using them as their cover will have been blown, as it were. I feel it will undermine people's opinion of using the telephone (as well as that of the companies which used the numbers).
Back to top
« Last Edit: Aug 20th, 2007 at 11:13am by Dave »  
 
IP Logged
 
bbb_uk
Global Moderator
*****
Offline



Posts: 2,041
Re: A compromise - Maybe?
Reply #51 - Aug 20th, 2007 at 12:41pm
 
simond001 wrote on Aug 20th, 2007 at 12:38am:
Carriers will lose their rebate from 0870 from Feb 08. This means that everybody who has previously used these will a. lose their incom stream, and b. need to spend money changing numbers on stationary, vehicles, adverts etc. If they do not there will be a cost applied to every call they recieve.

Although this is the type of action that you want, the costs for these changes will be passed to the consumer. That is the nature of economics.

We have already seen the travel industry, which was a heavy user of 0870's, move to 0871 numbers. This is the only way to safeguard the income that was previously recieved.  This gives a nett loss to the consumer as they are now paying more for the call, and the busieness has incurred ditional costs to facilitate the change.
The real reason these numbers are used is to gain revenue without the caller, in most cases, being aware of it - ie via stealth methods.

If the travel industry were to use 09x numbers costing exactly the same amount - 10p/min - then we all know there would be an outcry and the travel industry would lose potential customers as well as probably existing customers and therefore they'd be be forced to use lower priced numbers like 0844 or 0845.

As a consumer, I have the right to know if the company I'm ringing is receiving money from the call - ie i'm ringing a premium rate number.

Besides, if ICSTIS wasn't afraid to protect consumers more then being charged whilst in a queue would be prohibited so therefore in most cases it would be cheaper to ring a 0871 costing 10p/min than a 0870 costing 7p/min simply because in most cases the overall cost of the call is due to being held in a queue.

Although I mention travel industry, this really applies to all companies.

NEG, just like most other communication providers (CPs) and companies/government departments using these numbers are exploiting and taking advantage of a weak regulator that has problems enforcing call transparency and stopping CPs from using misleading claims like lo-call, local and national rate to imply the call is cheaper or the same as geographical numbers.  In fact, only the ASA in it's very limited remit is actually doing something although even here the ASA could do better but at least they're doing something.

If 084/087 numbers were known to all as mini-premium rate numbers and being charged whilst stuck in a queue was prohibited just as it applies now to 09x numbers then very few companies would be using these numbers.

Quote:
Education is the way forward. a full and transparent pricing structure that is fixed regardless of carrier or origination (GSM/PSTN). Whether this would come under the guise of price fixing i do not know, but if so a max call cost (ppm) could be applied.
Ofcom cannot willy nilly apply any fixed pricing of anykind unless that telecom provider has significant market power (SMP).  For example, when Ofcom announced it would introduce 03x number range charged at same rate as geographical numbers and included in any inclusive minutes, there was outrage from original communication providers moaning that Ofcom had over-stepped their powers by forcing 03x to be charged the same as geographical numbers.  Ofcom managed to get around this by stating all they're doing is ensuring that 03x is charged at the same rate as geographical and telecom companies are still free to set their own prices for calls to geographicals.

I believe Ofcom does have the power to force all operators to charge the same regardless of whether mobile/landline but I believe that all communication providers would oppose this and take Ofcom to court/European court over it and this is why Ofcom have been reluctant to take this step.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
derrick
Supreme Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 1,124
Re: A compromise - Maybe?
Reply #52 - Aug 20th, 2007 at 12:44pm
 
simond001 wrote on Aug 20th, 2007 at 12:38am:
Carriers will lose their rebate from 0870 from Feb 08. This means that everybody who has previously used these will a. lose their incom stream, and b. need to spend money changing numbers on stationary, vehicles, adverts etc. If they do not there will be a cost applied to every call they recieve.


Didn't stop them doing it in the first place to rip us off did it? No worries about the cost then!

~ Edited by Dave: Quote box tidied up
Back to top
« Last Edit: Aug 20th, 2007 at 12:46pm by Dave »  
 
IP Logged
 
bbb_uk
Global Moderator
*****
Offline



Posts: 2,041
Re: A compromise - Maybe?
Reply #53 - Aug 20th, 2007 at 12:54pm
 
NGMsGhost wrote on Aug 20th, 2007 at 7:26am:
And would any of these travel companies have moved to 0871 numbers if they were not reliant on being able to deceive the average ignorant punter (and most punters who book their holidays on the phone rather than the internet now are either usually old or ignorant) that an 0871 number only costs the same as an 0870 (and therefore in the ignorant consumer's mind a normal priced phone call)...
I don't know if the word ignorant is fair IMHO.  There are just so many places like company websites, telephone bills, telephone providers websites, etc, etc.. that describe these numbers as lo-call, local or national then why wouldn't the average punter (to choose your words) think otherwise?

Quote:
And to top it all and most outrageously of all BT has been allowed to introduce new restrictive contract terms that make it difficult to leave them.
I've actually made a complaint to Ofcom conerning this under possible unfair t&c with regards to customers returning back to BT are now forced to stay with BT for linerental for 12months where previously it was a more acceptable 3months.  I agree that for new customers where BT have to lay cable, connect to peoples homes (if applicable) and route and wire to the local exchange then I believe it was fair to have a minimum term contract of 12months.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Dave
Global Moderator
*****
Offline



Posts: 9,902
Yorkshire
Gender: male
Re: A compromise - Maybe?
Reply #54 - Aug 20th, 2007 at 12:58pm
 
bbb_uk wrote on Aug 20th, 2007 at 12:41pm:
Ofcom cannot willy nilly apply any fixed pricing of anykind unless that telecom provider has significant market power (SMP). …

And here in lies the problem.

What happens if/when there is no SMP? I feel that telcos will then act together (an oligopoly) like we have seen with the main landline providers introducing the connection charge and whole minute charging. Mobile providers have done this by removing 084/087 from inclusive minutes.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
bbb_uk
Global Moderator
*****
Offline



Posts: 2,041
Re: A compromise - Maybe?
Reply #55 - Aug 20th, 2007 at 1:05pm
 
derrick wrote on Aug 20th, 2007 at 12:44pm:
simond001 wrote on Aug 20th, 2007 at 12:38am:
Carriers will lose their rebate from 0870 from Feb 08. This means that everybody who has previously used these will a. lose their incom stream, and b. need to spend money changing numbers on stationary, vehicles, adverts etc. If they do not there will be a cost applied to every call they recieve.


Didn't stop them doing it in the first place to rip us off did it? No worries about the cost then!
Exactly.  Many companies claimed it would be too expensive to change their stationary, etc but like Derrick says it never stopped them doing it when changing from a geographical to a NGN or even from a lower-priced NGN to a higher priced NGN.

On a similar note, OCPs (Originating Communication Providers) claimed that free pre-call announcements were too costly to implement and Ofcom agreed.  The thing is that OCPs already apply somekind of free call announcement for calls to freephone where they advise that the call isn't free and call costs would apply and Ofcom then later said that a call announcement would have to be made for OCPs that want to charge more than the cost of a geographical call to 0870 from Feb 08.

On yet another similar note, dial-up ISPs claimed they couldn't change to other number ranges from 0845 because of the cost involved and the fact that they couldn't inform their customers because not all ISP customers use email addresses assigned by their ISP - in other words they use the likes of hotmail, etc.  Funny thing now is that most ISP have now switched to 0844 numbers and were able to redirect via a webpage, customers signing on via an 0845 and informed them that the dial-up number was changing to 0844 and to download new software or make ammendments yourself.  Not bad going considering they told Ofcom they couldn't do this!
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 #56 - Aug 20th, 2007 at 1:40pm
 
bbb_uk wrote on Aug 20th, 2007 at 1:05pm:
On yet another similar note, dial-up ISPs claimed they couldn't change to other number ranges from 0845 because of the cost involved and the fact that they couldn't inform their customers because not all ISP customers use email addresses assigned by their ISP - in other words they use the likes of hotmail, etc.  Funny thing now is that most ISP have now switched to 0844 numbers and were able to redirect via a webpage, customers signing on via an 0845 and informed them that the dial-up number was changing to 0844 and to download new software or make ammendments yourself.  Not bad going considering they told Ofcom they couldn't do this!


It was obvious at the time of their report to anyone other than the LIARS at Ofcom that by February 2008 that the dial up ISP market would be nearly dead and buried.

Yet Ofcom have used the excuse of inconveniencing dial up ISPs as a way of inconveniencing every government department, council, police force and charity who got an 0845 number mainly for the enhanced call routing features.  Yet under Ofcom's proposals all these organisations now have to get new 03 numbers to avoid ripping their customers off.  I find it odd that Ofcom saw no problem in making it costly for organisations to adopt numbers that lowered the costs of making calls to them for the general public. Huh Shocked Angry

A cynic like me might suggest that the LIARS at Ofcom knew the 0845 dialup market would be dead by Feb 2008 but just insisted that 0845 users had to move over to 03 to avoid over charging their callers in order to let their pals in the NGN number vending and telecoms industries hang on to as much 0845 revenue share as possible for several years longer.

And the fact that BT is now cutting the per minute rate of 0845 calls (but cross subsidised by a higher connection fee and per minute rounding up) below 01/02 calls in the weekday daytime for BT Option 1 customers (but still exlcuded form bundle calling plans like BT Option 3) is part of yet a further development in this deceitful masterplan where the Inland Revenue, Police and others will now claim there is no need to change to 03 numbers as for BT Option 1 customers weekday daytime calls would then be more expensive.

This whole industry is an industry of lies and deceit kept in business by the chief ringmasters and biggest LIARS of the lot at OFCoN.
Back to top
 

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


aka NHS.Patient, DH_fairtelecoms

Posts: 2,494
Re: A compromise - Maybe?
Reply #57 - Aug 20th, 2007 at 3:36pm
 
bbb_uk wrote on Aug 19th, 2007 at 10:12am:
With regards to the fact that NGN prices should be given equal prominence as geographical numbers (what Dave is referring to), this regulation has been in place for a year now and none of the landline providers (except VirginMedia) comply with it.

I recognise that this issue is far from easy, but if VirginMedia is suffering a competitive disadvantage as a result of complying, then one would assume that it could be counted on as an ally in support of efforts to gain compliance from others.

Under Ofcom's formal complaint procedures, complaints from competitors are treated very differently from complaints from individual consumers.

I do not propose that the thread be extended to discuss the issue of Ofcom's complaints procedures, beyond simply noting its relevance to possible ways of making progress with this one point.

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


aka NHS.Patient, DH_fairtelecoms

Posts: 2,494
Re: A compromise - Maybe?
Reply #58 - Aug 20th, 2007 at 3:45pm
 
bbb_uk wrote on Aug 19th, 2007 at 10:12am:
…  did you know that at one time despite geographical calls costing less than an 0845, Ofcom only published an 0845 number.  Following complaints, it revealed the geographical number as well then eventually removed the 0845 and just published the geographical number.  Now surely Ofcom in its position would know that most consumers actually paid more for 0845 than geographical number?!?!

At the time when Ofcom switched over to publication of the geographic number it was somewhat preoccupied in dealing with another issue. Campaigners on that issue had been addressing the general point of how easy it was to raise complaints with Ofcom. This led to considerable improvements to the website.

Matt Peacock, who was responsible, engaged me in discussion over whether it was appropriate to retain the 0845 number, accompanied by a suitably lengthy explanation of how this was actually cheaper for some, including those on the BT light user scheme. I looked into this with reference to the BT tariff that I was on at the time. I noted that the choice of which number was cheapest for me to use to contact Ofcom by telephone was far from straightforward, as it required consideration of the time and day as well as the expected duration of the call. (This was some time ago, so the detail may not be relevant now).

I responded reminding him that telcos may change their tariffs from time to time. This changes the relative cost benefit of using numbers in different groups and may cause the balance to switch over, or cause an equilibrium to be gained or lost (this is where the whole problem with 0845 and 0870 started).

Furthermore, it is an objective of Ofcom for different telcos to have different tariffs, differentiated to suit the differing needs of various consumers, so as to provide choice. My key point was that Ofcom's efforts to regulate the ensuing jungle must be sufficiently robust to accommodate these unavoidable facts of life.


One may question the extent of the responsibility of anyone (such as Ofcom, or even a local hairdresser) who publishes a telephone contact number. Should they consider only what they understand to be the interests of the majority of those likely to use it, even if this majority is perhaps only slender, based on unverifiable assumptions and likely to be affected by movements in the telephone tariff market? Is it fair to publish only one number and leave it to the SayNoTo0870 website to publish alternatives along with a clear and up-to-date explanation of the precise circumstances under which the alternative is preferable?

If the hairdresser publishes two numbers, their small box advert in the local paper may not provide sufficient space to fully explain which number any particular customer should use. Ofcom decided that it was best to disregard the interests of what it understood to be a minority by removing the 0845 number.

Some may find Matt's comments to me at the time to be interesting:

Quote:
While some people will read our careful caveats about calling costs where these are set out in a more discursive FAQ, many more people are likely to be confused by too much information on the Complain to Ofcom landing page and plump for the number which 'looks cheaper' - typically, and mistakenly, the 0845.

I believe he intended to say that it was typically a mistake to see the 0845 number as being cheaper, rather than it being a mistake in all circumstances that was typically made.

(As Matt is no longer with Ofcom, these comments, in a private message, cannot be taken as representing the views of Ofcom.)


It may be that the cost/revenue balance now always favours geographic numbers for every caller and NGNs for the telcos and those who are called. I may need to be convinced that this is true now, and is likely to remain true for the foreseeable future. It certainly has not always been the case. I do not wish to engage in a debate about whether a particular minority group is significant or not.


In summary, I am sure that Ofcom was fully able to understand the complexities of the position. It has a difficult role, in that it must always recognise where the interests of the majority lie, but must not allow this to cause those of the minority to be disregarded. At the same time it aims to keep things as simple as possible. Most of the benefits of what Ofcom does must be delivered through competitive activity in a market, which it is required to promote, but cannot direct. It duties are far from easy to fulfil, but that is no excuse for failure.

I do not seek to defend the improper actions of Ofcom, nor to draw this, already off-topic, thread further away from the point at issue. I offer my own thoughts, but aim to share whatever I may have learned with those who seek to extend what they already know about how to get Ofcom to perform its duties properly.

My campaigning focus is restricted to the issue of public bodies levying "stealth" charges through use of premium rate (no quotes) numbers. NHS GP services is at the front of this, as even if the existence of the charge was declared and the level of the fee was found to be minimal, this would still be totally unacceptable.

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: A compromise - Maybe?
Reply #59 - Aug 20th, 2007 at 4:23pm
 
SilentCallsVictim wrote on Aug 20th, 2007 at 3:45pm:
My campaigning focus is restricted to the issue of public bodies levying "stealth" charges through use of premium rate (no quotes) numbers. NHS GP services is at the front of this, as even if the existence of the charge was declared and the level of the fee was found to be minimal, this would still be totally unacceptable

Yet in an earlier post you said we had to accept that not all NHS services were free at the point of delivery.

Now you seem to say the use of 0844 by NHS doctors is "totally unacceptable".  So which is it? Huh Undecided

Coming back to your alleged victory on Silent Calls I am beginning to wonder if this is not something Ofcom was going to bring about anyway given that it clearly infringed various EU privacy and data confidentiality regulations.
Back to top
 

<div style=
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 
Send Topic Print
(Moderators: Forum Admin, Dave, DaveM, bbb_uk, 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