NGMsGhost wrote on Dec 18^th, 2007 at 11:52pm:

I may have been misunderstood, I said:

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Dec 18^th, 2007 at 9:43pm:

It is Ofcom who is offering the briefing. I expect that this will simply provide those who responded to a recent consultation with an explanation of a further development.

I posted an announcement of this consultation, asking more knowledgeable members to offer helpful comments about how one might respond. I posted a final reminder just before the consultation period expired.

I think the answer to the specific question that is posed may be found here:

NGMsGhost wrote on Dec 1^st, 2007 at 10:46am:



If anything that would add to the understanding of those who follow this thread emerges from the briefing, then as I said:

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Dec 18^th, 2007 at 9:43pm:

I say “attempt”, because I might expect that whatever may be said will be violently contradicted by those who have no need of any exchange with Ofcom, nor have anything to gain from reading postings here, as they already know what is going on, e.g.

NGMsGhost wrote on Dec 19^th, 2007 at 2:11am:




NGMsGhost wrote on Dec 18^th, 2007 at 11:52pm:

Basic politeness is sometimes helpful if one wishes to engage in dialogue and gain balanced media attention in respect of  …

Quote:


The abundance of conspiracy theories that are found to be groundless causes many to be suspicious of them. Sticking to more limited assertions that can be supported by indisputable facts tends to give one more chance of a sympathetic hearing in some quarters, even if this understates the truth or one’s sincerely held views. Whilst some may find unrestrained methods to be more effective, I follow this approach. I believe that this is why I have been able to achieve some success in campaigning, but only on a limited scale. I retain an admiration for those who are able to achieve more by being more direct.

Those who are inclined towards conspiracy theory may be tempted to assume that I must have a professional or political interest to draw on, even though they dismiss what I may be seeking or achieving. I know that this is untrue, but cannot offer the amount of detail that would be necessary to prove a negative in a public forum.

Whilst exchanges of this type may provide entertainment, I fear that they do little to advance the cause that we share. Some may believe that we can say whatever we like here as it will not make any difference anyway. I disagree, and would not seek to undermine the efforts of fellow campaigners by publishing inferred claims of dishonesty.

DonQuixote,

I am glad that you can partly agree with my point.

Quote:


However, the excuse given by Ofcom for their "u" turn does not mention auto-dialing "modems" anywhere at all!  Their excuse for their "u" turn on both 0870 and 070 PNS numbers refers only to automated applications using auto-dialers which are used for life critical emergency numbers or security numbers! These do not involve the use of modems of any sort at all! So I do not understand why you are concentrating on modems in your statements? Again I repeat that the ITU published parameter outlines are "recommendations" only - not mandates. Thus they do not have to be followed and more often than not in all EU countries and the USA they are ignored whenever it suits the telcos and regulators, so to quote them here relative to these issues alone is totally inappropriate. Any properly designed auto-dialer even from 28 years ago does not just use a handshake only with a simplistic time-out after dialing unintelligently. Such incompetent rubbish would be the output of schoolboys or amateurs only! At least a proper ring-tone detector is included, and the time-out does not occur until after the normal cycle of dial-tone detection, dialing and ring-tone detection within the cycle time window. The decisions of Ofcom relative to such key issues in the UK telecoms PSN cannot be based on a minority of cowboy produced auto-dialers which are totally inadequate and could have only have ever been sold to fools with no understanding or judgment of the difference between cowboy "products" and those designed by professional engineers. Such rubbish products will not work reliably even with or without PCAs. Any PCA is not therefore a problem to a professionally designed auto-dialer (even a "legacy" product),  whether used for a modem or any other device.

But even if it were, you are still conveniently side-stepping the fact that under Ofcom's announced requirements for 0870, PCAs were only to be implemented on 0870 numbers dialed where they would have been still charged at the current Premium rate  rather than the normal geographic rate. If such applications had been used without the collection of Premium revenues on 0870 there would have been no difference in the situation now and the situation after the introduction of PCAs for continuing Premium uses of 0870 with any auto-dialers. The reality is that this whole scandal is about a refusal to end the collection of Premium revenue with these abuses of 0870 and greed! It is thus all about smoke and mirrors again - in other words deceitfulness, and most of all about permitted call queuing.

The truth is that all along Ofcom have played their usual sort of deceitful game. I had raised this point previously on this forum, that Ofcom had planned with their original announcements concerning the "changes" on 0870, to allow Premium revenue sharing to continue on 0870 numbers, where PCAs were provided, but most members of this forum would not accept what I pointed out to them, and were fooled by Ofcom's smoke and mirrors! It has now transpired that I was correct. Ofcom did clandestinely intend that Premium revenue sharing would be able to continue on 0870 (in one form or another) where there was a PCA, after February 2008. (You have previously posted the same reality within this topic of this forum.) Now Ofcom have decided to welch on their original announcement for 0870 restoration, because of the pressure which has been put on them, from the current government, telcos and other vested interests, not to end call queuing on disguised Premium numbers. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the supposed reason which they state. This is Ofcom - after all!

I have also previously pointed out here that the base and focus of this NGN scam in all its aspects is chargeable call queuing. The original reason for the abuse of all NGNs as disguised Premium numbers was that chargeable call queuing is prohibited on 09 Premium numbers. Once BT had realised that because NTS numbers had been set at a Premium level of per minute charge they could be used as covert Premium numbers but with permitted call queuing rather than prohibited call queuing the scam was born! The principal reason that the vested interests want this scam to continue unrestricted is that enormous revenues may be generated from permitted chargeable call queuing, with all the extrapolation tricks. Ofcom are trying everything they can possibly do to avoid their responsibilities and to allow chargeable call queuing to continue.

So I repeat again, that I believe these "u" turns are part of Ofcom's now established strategy for NGNs, so as to allow per minute chargeable call queuing to continue. I believe that what they now intend eventually to do is to gradually move all these "problem" disguised Premium numbers with permitted call queuing over to the new category of overt Premium numbers with permitted call queuing to be controlled by PayphonePlus; i.e 0871, 0844, 0845, 070 PNS, 0870, and then plus some new 08 series Premium numbers which they have planned. This will enable Ofcom to get rid of the problem which they know they have and do not like, because it is so embarrassing for them. This series of current Disguised Premium numbers will then become overt Premium numbers, but of a new genre - with chargeable call queuing permitted, totally contravening the spirit of the original New Telephone Numbering Plan issued by Oftel, where per minute chargeable call queuing was recognised as potentially bad, and totally against the interest of the Citizen Consumer; so it was prohibited! You will see in due course whether I am correct again in my anticipation of the tricks and deceit of Ofcom. 

This may have already been mentioned/noticed but I just noticed the following:-

Quote:
taken from here.

Now as far as i'm aware, this is the earliest that CPs (not us consumers bear in mind) knew about the delay to 0870 but of course they could have known earlier.

Can someone remind me when it was officially announced to us normal joe public (ie on their website)?

GREAT NEWS - SOMETHING IS GOING TO HAPPEN

The Ofcom workplan for 2008/9, published today, includes the following:



Ofcom plans to publish a statement before the end of June 2008.

No further work on NTS is planned before April 2009. As all that is planned is the issuing of a statement, no consultation, no new regulations. We can assume that the statement will simply explain why Ofcom has changed its mind and is saying "Yes" to 0870.

NGMsGhost wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2008 at 6:39pm:


Maybe this is because Ofcom is/seems to be made up of entirely people from the telecoms industry! The telecoms industry is basically in bed with Ofcom, and Ofcom will dance to their every whim to keep them happy.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2008 at 8:37pm:

I did not start from the position that success was not achievable but after over 8 years of asking high level questions on the subject(starting with the OFTEL and BT CEO's of the time) it has become self evident to me that NTS misuse is not some unintentional accident that a conscientious regulator will naturally correct once the problem is pointed out to them but is instead a deliberate and wholly underhanded conspiracy between a corrupt regulator (yes I do say corrupt not because there any direct backhanders in note and coin but because Ofcom makes policy in the financial interests of the telcos and personnel interchange between Ofcom and those companies on a regular basis at salaries that are then inflated by the knowledge they have acquired of how to pull the wool over Ofcom's eyes) that does nothing to fulfil the duties to ensure competition beneficial to the consumer with which they are charged.  Many years ago a former director of OFTEL admitted to me during a phone call that his only concern on NTS was to ensure a market that meant competitive prices in terms of being able to shop round for the best revenue share for those who run NTS platforms and that they didn't think their role was to worry what the mere public paid for the calls.  It is self evident that this is still the covert Ofcom view today.  If you had been with us for the last several years (instead of worrying so much about the comparatively trivial problem of Silent Calls) and seen promises made by the former Communciations Director, Matt Peacock, on national radio wholly reneged on I am sure you would feel as disillusioned as I do.

You being a man who likes to see success and a final positive product in all your works have naturally confined your main energies to the narrow area of 084/7 misuse by the NHS.  You may achieve success in that area because it is outside Ofcom's final control but I very much doubt that you will be any more succesful than us in battling the rest of 084/7 abuses and indeed you have already admitted in the past that commercial misuse of 084/7 by companies outside the public sector is not something you seem to have a problem with?

Quote:


Hear, hear!