SilentCallsVictim wrote on Aug 19^th, 2007 at 8:54am:
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?!?!

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. 

NGMsGhost wrote on Aug 20^th, 2007 at 6:26am:

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).

simond001 wrote on Aug 19^th, 2007 at 11:38pm:


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

bbb_uk wrote on Aug 20^th, 2007 at 11:41am:

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.

bbb_uk wrote on Aug 20^th, 2007 at 12:05pm:


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.

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.

bbb_uk wrote on Aug 19^th, 2007 at 9:12am:

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:

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