Dave wrote on Feb 1^st, 2011 at 8:22pm:

AMD was designed for the purpose of detecting mechanical answering machines by listening to the sound made when the call is answered. When use of an answering machine was clearly and promptly indicated by the clicks and whirrs of a tape starting up, this was very effective. It has been adapted to try to detect different speech patterns thought to be used when preparing answering service announcements as against anwering the phone in person. Clearly this approach could never be expected to be reliable - therefore live people are commonly mistaken for recordings.

Ofcom has now decided that these inevitable mistakes should be limited to one per caller per person per day.

AMD also causes "supposed Silent Calls". The period of silence at the beginning of every call when AMD is deployed commonly creates the impression that the call will remain Silent. Even though an agent would have spoken eventually, the effect is exactly the same as a Silent Call.

The revised Ofcom policy, implemented today, signifies approval of both of these types of Silent Call.

There are acceptable alternative approaches available to avoid all Silent Calls without impacting on the effectiveness or efficiency of the call centre industry.

Those interested in the campaign to stop Silent Calls may wish to follow my comments and noted coverage of the topic by viewing and perhaps subscribing to this feed. (Note - this is currently being updated to reflect many developments today - please email or PM me with suggestions of items for inclusion.)

Page 11 and 12 mention silent calls and some stats:

http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/consultations/draftap1112/summary/ap20...

So, if Ofcom and the general public are unable to find the source of these silent calls, the threat of all these fines that Ofcom promise, seem very hollow to me. How can they fine these outfits if they do not know who they are?

Dave wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2011 at 11:11am:

Forget about fines and the Silent Callers that Ofcom cannot identify ...

Ofcom's first power, which it has a duty to use whenever it can, is to issue a public Notification to anyone found to be engaged in persistent misuse of an electronic communications network or service (Communications Act S128). The imposition of specific enforceable requirements and financial penalties may follow (under the terms of Sections 129 and 130). Ofcom is actually misusing the powers which it has been given by parliament.


According to an analysis of Silent Calls complaints received by Ofcom in 2009 (see section 2.3, pdf page 10), 82% of these complaints included evidence from which the caller could be identified. This is hardly surprising, seeing as there would be appear to be little point in taking the trouble to make a complaint unless one is able to provide information that could lead to action. Furthermore, the instances of misuse which generate complaints to Ofcom are also likely to be those where the nuisance has been intense. Ofcom's apparent failure to take a balanced view, developing policy based on dubious statistical analysis of complaints, is a disgrace and a neglect of its duty.

A public body acting to further the interests of citizens should not behave like a consumer complaints department. It must however use the information that comes to its attention in the performance of its wider duties. (The first complaint about Silent Calls that Ofcom received reported only 2 Silent Calls to one person. The subsequent investigation revealed 1.5 million Silent Calls having been made in a three month period.)


The other information in this report is hard to process, but it seems that the complaints being analysed each related on average to around 20 calls (some were only about one, but others about over 200). A simple extension, assuming that the sample was representative, indicates that from the 6,648 complaints received in 2009 Ofcom had evidence of the originators responsible for over 100,000 Silent Calls.

Ofcom has confirmed that it undertook secret investigations into 22 unnamed companies around this time. Not one of these companies was considered by Ofcom to have misused an electronic communications network or service.

There will always be people who break the law and Ofcom's resources to conduct investigations must be finite.

Ofcom however fails to confirm that hanging up in silence as a matter of habit will be considered as "persistent misuse", whenever Ofcom becomes aware of it. It is also seen to have treated 100% of the information it is given by citizens (over 15,000 cases in 2009 and 2010) as worthless with respect to use of its statutory powers. In response to criticism from the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee, an Ofcom representative appears on national TV to announce the implementation of a new policy which will allow one Silent Call per recipient per caller per day (see this comment).


I have always argued that Ofcom should deal with companies like British Gas and BT, which are prepared to admit to making Silent Calls (see their comments here), first. When we have cleared out the nuisance of Silent Calls from reputable companies, then we can see what needs to be done about the rest.

Source:

http://davidhicksonmedia.blogspot.com/2011/01/new-ofcom-rules-for-silent-callers...

Quote:

So does this mean that when the AMD thinks that a person has answered, and there is a silent call because no agent is available, the company in question is permitted to make multiple silent calls to the same person in the same day?

If so, then the "rules" only prevent repeated silent calls to any number when it is thought that an answering machine answers?  

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/bills/article-2012258/Npower-HomeServe-facing-O...

Those interested in following this topic may wish to view (and perhaps subscribe to) a feed of my digest and links to news items and bloggings - no charge, no advertising on my sites.

If anything is thought worthy of discussion, it could be brought into the forum with comments.