SilentCallsVictim wrote on Aug 20^th, 2007 at 2:45pm:
Do you agree that greater call transparancy and the fact that 084/087x are (according to the dictionary) premium rate numbers and should be known as such?  I don't mean, and to be fair, that 084/087 should migrate to 09x but just that misleading terms like lo-call, local/national are stopped and that instead a term such as mini-premium rate (or any such similar name) be used to describe these numbers.  A term that lets consumers know they are ringing a premium rate number albeit lower amounts than that of 09x and that call costs are known.

To stop abuse of these numbers then somekind of call queueing whilst being charged be prohibited or limited, or at the very least, your position in the queue and how long left before it's estimated they can answer be introduced.  The latter I proposed to both Ofcom and ICSTIS and of course nothing was mentioned in their consultation statements/proposals.

NGMsGhost wrote on Aug 20^th, 2007 at 3:23pm:

One example of NHS services not being free at the point of delivery is the totally unacceptable use of 0844 by NHS doctors.

Some find this acceptable, being happy to pay a modest charge for an improved service. Others question the modesty of the charge and the nature of the improvement. Some may find it acceptable for charges to be made for NHS services if a majority of those who pay are happy to do so. I recognise this argument and see how it can carry weight in a consumer society.

In my view, this is totally unacceptable. I see consumerism as only being valid within limits, and I see NHS services as falling outside these limits. I invite those who address this issue from a consumerist perspective to question whether they also see a need for there to be limits on the application of consumerist principles, although I do not expect us all to agree on where the line should be drawn.

(This invitation was simply an attempt to give focus to campaigning effort on "the NEG issue".)

To anticipate a further question - I am, somewhat reluctantly, prepared to accept prescription charges and charges for dental services, although not on the simple basis of "consumer satisfaction".

I answer the challenge by expressing my personal view. It is however what Alan Johnson and Ben Bradshaw are prepared to accept and defend that is of greater relevance.


NGMsGhost wrote on Aug 20^th, 2007 at 3:23pm:

I would be happy to go through the correspondence, which is still in progress, between myself, the ICO, OFcom and the former DTI regarding the UK implementation of Article 13 of 2002/58/EC. The DTI position seemed to have been finalised early in 2003 (in conjunction with the late addtion of the persistent misuse powers, that also had a broader purpose, to what was then the Communications Bill). Although the Statement of Policy prepared by Oftel in 2003 seemed to recognise that some duty was left to it and Ofcom to fill the gaps left in regulation 19 of PECR through use of the persistent misuse powers, it made no reference to this, partly because the PECR had not been finalised at that point. Subsequently Ofcom failed to implement that policy and then moved further away from filling the gap through the weakening of the relevant provisions in the 2005/6 Statement of Policy. I have also failed to persuade Ofcom to incorporate suitable provisions in the recent revisions to the General Conditions covering Sales and Marketing activity. I recall a recent Commission report raising no issues with the UK implementation of the 2002 Directive. As I see Ofcom continually moving in the wrong direction, I do not claim "victory" on this, nor on many other points. I also find it hard to see how one may conclude that Ofcom is on some other course. I am not aware of any other "EU privacy and data confidentiality regulations" that may be directly relevant.

It is hard for any campaign that has not achieved 100% of its objectives to talk of victory. We must not however be unwilling to recognise what we do achieve, as this may help us to refine our efforts in order to maximise future achievement. I am ready to "come back" to history as I have in responding above, but would seek only to use this to see how it may help us to move forward.

I am prepared to defend challenges to my integrity, if necessary, but would rather spend the time I have available moving matters forward.

Perhaps any further discussion of this particular issue would be better undertaken outside this thread.

David

Apologies if the sequence of the thread is getting a little messy due to a time lag in responding to points addressed to myself.

bbb_uk wrote on Aug 20^th, 2007 at 4:06pm:

Thanks for the direct answer.

If it is to be relied upon in external discussion, it is imperative that this position may be sustained. Otherwise it must be qualified to avoid undermining an otherwise valid dependent argument.


bbb_uk wrote on Aug 20^th, 2007 at 4:06pm:

I will be selective in putting revenue taken by the Passport Agency in a quite separate category. There is a major political issue behind this, so matters of pricing fall away into insignificance. If the issue of the national ID database is settled (either way) on the basis of arguments about what consumers are prepared to pay for a "passport", with this subsidised through fees paid by commercial organisations able to access the database, then some of us will be deeply disappointed. Please keep me well away from this issue.

With that said, I refer not just to central government departments, but all public bodies, including agencies (departmental and non-departmental), national and regional governments and their agencies as well as local government and the others which any citizenship student could list for you. I would also include services directly commissioned by those bodies (e.g. NHS GPs) where control over charges to users is, or should be, covered in the terms of the contract.

(Not very selective).


The level of revenue taken in charges by any one body and the propriety of the varying levels of contribution made are valid topics for political discussion with reference to that body. Where telephone call revenue is a significant part of the total, it may be difficult to separate this out as a separate issue.

There may however be cases where the charges are generally so high that the amount earned from telephone calls could be dismissed as being relatively insignificant. The DVLA could be an example of this.


In general I see a two-stage process. Firstly, I see it as vital that users of services provided by public bodies are aware of what they are paying to the provider for the service. The general failure to do this in respect of charges raised through telephone charges must be corrected.

We know the level of vehicle excise duty that we have to pay. We are told that there is a £2.50 surcharge for renewing on a credit card. We are not told what we are being charged by the DVLA for renewing it by telephone.

Once the level of charges is in the open then stage two may take place - a debate about the level and propriety of each and every element of the charge.

As campaigners on the issue of telephone charges we may all be together on the first of these. There may also be the possibility of some co-ordinated action across the various bodies involved, although I am not aware of any simple means by which this could be "ordered".

The political issues raised at the second stage belong elsewhere.

David