Thank you, SCV - I have just sent a short email to UWDC suggesting they check OFCOM GC17 as it may be helpful.   I have also received an acknowledgement from CLive Hillier saying my email has been passed to those dealing with 03 numbers.

Why is 03 not yet well known and well used?

There is some chicken and egg here, but I would emphasise the latter.

I will try to avoid going into detail and assigning blame (no matter how well deserved), because I want things to move forward. My reading of the situation is as follows.

Ofcom, an independent body, saw a need for the public sector in particular to be able to use NGNs without befitting from revenue sharing or seeing callers subjected to surcharges. It therefore introduced 03 and the surrounding regulations. Because of its independent status, Ofcom cannot demand that anybody adopts 03 numbers, nor which numbers any particular body must use – it can only restrict. It also could not (or felt unable to) define the terms on which service was offered to those who rented 03 numbers from the start. (It may feel better able to intervene if it could be shown that the market is not working properly.)

Because managers in the public sector are used to being told what to do by those with exhaustive powers, providing justification for “their decision” after the event, they looked to Ofcom to provide specific instructions - I have seen many references to this misunderstanding of Ofcom’s role and powers. There are also suggestions that Ofcom did not completely “toe the line” by prescribing a detailed sub-range numbering structure that fitted precisely with proposals in the Varney review.

Published correspondence suggests that there may have been a bit of a spat between Ofcom and those responsible for guiding the administrative activities of the public sector.

We have therefore enjoyed a lengthy (and not unfamiliar) period of inaction, whilst pressure over 0844 and 0845 public sector numbers has rightly mounted, underneath the continuing annoyance about the drawn out 0870 fiasco.

We may have to await further developments on both of these fronts (and others) before organisations start rushing to use 03 numbers. I believe that the telcos are largely ready for this and that remaining glitches will be swiftly resolved once these numbers are being used widely.

I suggest that campaigners focus efforts on pressuring those who may be (or should be) ready to move to 03 numbers to give this move some momentum. I also suggest that we should be ready to be patient and try to avoid drawing unnecessary or disproportionate attention to any difficulties that may be encountered. I am quite sure that there will be plenty; however these should be expected to diminish as more 03 numbers come into use.

David

NGMsGhost wrote on Jan 12^th, 2008 at 1:32pm:

Yes, but after asking your providers why they seek to prevent you from doing so!

Ofcom rightly expects you to raise issues with providers first to ensure that this is not some administrative error or oversight. Providers are also required to adhere to standards in dealing with customer service matters. This is notwithstanding the fact that low cost providers proudly offer a lower standard than others. If however they fail to meet the minimum requirements, then this could provide grounds for a further complaint to Ofcom.

NGMsGhost wrote on Jan 12^th, 2008 at 4:22pm:

Thanks for the consumer tip.

I have been recommended to use these services, but as the provider is are clearly unwilling or unable to operate properly I will avoid them. I would also strongly advise others not to provide credit card details to any organisation like this, if there was little hope of getting a genuine error (which any business is likely to make) corrected.

I do not see their failure to allow access to 03 as any good reason to discourage 03 numbers from being adopted.

Should there be a saynoto18185.com website and a campaign to put these people out of business, or are some consumers happy to benefit from very low cost services run on very tight margins, which cannot fund overheads that could be thought necessary?

There are many such businesses in many sectors, many of which are celebrated and popular (until they crash). Regulators are reluctant to shut them down (as they probably should) because they fear being accused of being in league with the established industry and stiffling competition.

NGMsGhost wrote on Jan 12^th, 2008 at 4:22pm:

"caveat emptor"


(Perhaps a new thread is needed to develop this discussion, in English)

If as you state providers are charging for 03 numbers and they are not included in the all inclusive minutes in particular Virgin then they need taking to task because I have been informed on a number of occassions by different sales agents from Virginmedia that 03 minute are included in the talk unlimited package.

I have not had cause to use an 03 number as yet but this issue appears to be anther service that has been launched half heartedly. Surely all providers should be bound by the Ofcom rules and if they are providing a telecoms service they should provide it within the guidlines stated.

Baz

moneysavin wrote on Jan 13^th, 2008 at 3:41am:


Yes they might class them as Special Rate Services numbers as technically speaking they are not geographic numbers in their call routing methods.  But what actual prices are they charging on phone bills?  I bet this turns out to be the same as an 01/02 number.

bazzerfewi wrote on Jan 13^th, 2008 at 12:04pm:


According to the rules bringing in 03 numbers it is compulsory to charge the same as for 01/02 calls and to include the calls in inclusive call plans.

Unfortunately Ofcom seems to have made no effort whatsoever to ensure this is universally understood and nor do any of the telcos seem to live in fear of offending Ofcom rules because it almost never fines anyone and when it does those fines are always derisory and laughable.

bazzerfewi wrote on Jan 13^th, 2008 at 12:15pm:

NO NO NO

Is anyone actually being ripped off?

Ofcom has done a poor job (no job at all) in promoting use of 03 and information about it.

Very few numbers are being used and so there is no pressure for telcos to get things right as they undoubtedly would if it became a serious issue.

"Ofcom compliance" is taken very seriously in terms of public reputation by those who rely on it, if not out of actual fear of penalty.