NGMsGhost wrote on Jun 16^th, 2008 at 5:39pm:
It seems to me that they do as they please (or shall I say as the teleco's want) anyhow.

I firmly believe that if it wasnt for the fact that they have to have consultations then there wouldnt be any where they would be frightened of responses from us consumers!

Dick_Fowler wrote on Jun 17^th, 2008 at 6:09am:


I always meant to take matters up via the Parliamentary & Health Service Ombudsman but never quite got round to it.  The difficult thing with Ofcom is that since one is not a customer or patient it is hard to ever reach deadlock with them.  Their most senior staff generally avoid all attempts to engage in correspondence so it is hard to reach deadlock with them.  Their main technique is to suggest that they Ofcom are not responsible for anything and that your resolution lies with your telecoms company, Otelo (telecoms ombusman) or anyone but them in terms of making a complaint.

I was a little pessimistic about the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman's likely attitude on the matter given that she still uses an 0845 telephone number for contact in spite of the recent blandishments of Sir David Varney's report and the Central Office of Information's Better Practice Guide For Government Contact Centres plus Ofcom's launch last Autumn of 03 numbers.

See www.ombudsman.org.uk/contact_us/index.html

It usually takes a lot of energy to follow through one of these complaints with an ombudsman and the process usually goes on for many months or years.  I also have some personal issues about having to get my MP involved on this as I know him for other reasons and he would probably see this as a petty matter as he has no record of ever speaking up against the misuse of 084 and 087 numbers.

People should consider approaching both their MP and their MEPs over this matter.  MEPs are often rarely approached by constituents (so are not overwhelmed with work) and you have a choice of between around 7 and 10 (depending which area you are in and your own party political affiliations) so you might be able to find one covering your constituency who is hot on competition matters.  An MP should be able to introduce your complaint to the Ombudsman and an MEP should be able to escalate matters within the EU Commission if they see your complaint as legitimate.

One of the most interesting points is that many Labour backbench MPs are now very exercised indeed on this matter over things like the DWP's Jobcentre Plus service using 0845 numbers but still nothing is done about it.  It still seems more important to the new Labour supremos not to upset their commercial allies and benefactors like Sky and Capita.

idb wrote on Jun 25^th, 2008 at 11:44am:

Intersting bunch. All informed respondents (no disrespect intended to non-experts) are critical in one way or another.

BT appears to be restating its desire to drop its rates to match those for geo numbers and also expresses a desire to do the same with 0845.
The UKCTA expresses the views of BT’s competitors who clearly show their intention not to take this option as they only quibble over how their premium prices will be declared.

idb wrote on Jun 25^th, 2008 at 11:44am:

Could we open a competition to guess the redacted words or phrases?
I would offer “larcenous” and “intending to profit from the confirmed levels of consumer ignorance that Ofcom so helpfully brings to their attention”.

sherbert wrote on Jun 25^th, 2008 at 1:23pm:

I am sure that many others could have explained that it is your telephone company that charges you a premium for calling "revenue sharing numbers. It then shares this revenue with the receiver's telephone company through the higher "termination rates" referred to in the consultation. This extra money is either used to provide discounted services to the receiver or handed over as cash.

Thanks for reminding us that many who follow the forum are not fully "in the know". It is a sign of intelligence, not naivety, to have the courage to ask what some may see as a stupid question.

Please could one of you experts fill in some big gaps in my understanding too?

Is it true that
(a) Number Translation is a service that honest companies can reasonably want, but there was and is no technical reason for fronting it by special numbers? They could (maybe actually can?) get it fronted by an 01 or 02 number, but obviously they would then have to pay the market price for whatever NT they require -  as they will on the new 03 numbers?
(b) the historic 0345 was well-intentioned, in the days when people paid more for non-local calls? (Companies using it had to pay to receive calls, didn't they?)
(c) Once 0345 morphed to 0845, 0845 and 0870 were sold as numbers companies could rely on keeping, while Oftel/Ofcom fooled around changing 01 to 071 to 020 7 (etc etc) By that time, there was such a huge profit margin in the retail price of landline to landline calls, that Telcos were able to sell 0870, and latterly also 0845, numbers to large users with cutprice NT technology, or cash rebates, or both.
(d) Ofcom failed to spot, or deliberately overlooked, that allowing revenue sharing on 0870 and 0845 would fossilize their high prices. Meanwhile, the market price of call from a landline to an honest 01 or 02 number has dropped to 5 pence (most of which goes on logging the call, sharing the pitiful revenue, and putting your itemised bill on line?

Nicholas

nicholas43 wrote on Jun 25^th, 2008 at 3:10pm:


Yes it is true all the same facilities can be provided on 01/02.  The Foreign & Commonwealth Office has an 020 based phone system with all the features you suggest on a geographic phone number or numbers.

Quote:


I think OFTEL allowed the whole system to come in to being always knowing that it was a wonderful opportunity to separate retail phone call pricing from business phone call pricing and protect phone company margins by cutting headline retail call prices while allowing calls to businesses to become ever more expensive protecting telco revenues.  I campaigned against 0990/0870 and 0845/0345 as long ago as 1998 and it was clear even that they cost me more to call than other numbers and that OFTEL was fully in bed with the telecoms industry to orchestrate this scam even at that stage.  The numbers were marketed to the Police etc by the telecoms companies knowing full well it was a way to earn hidden revenue share on the numbers.

Quote:


By the time Ofcom came in to existence the problems with 084/7 ripoffs were blatant and widespread and should have been dealt with by their predecessors OFTEL.  Ofcom has persistently failed to act against these scam numbers under pressure from powerful friends of New Labour like Sky and Capita that they do not wish to see profitable 084/7 revenue share scamming brought to an end.  Ofcom consut, consult and consult and the end result is no action and the consumer still being blatantly ripped off and subjected to misleading price indications.  084/7 numbers even continue to be misdescribed as Lo-Call/Local Call and National Rate on phone bills, even though Ofcom's General Conditions govern what must be shown in phone bills.

I see that the top man at Ofcom is going next year