NGMsGhost wrote on Mar 6^th, 2010 at 12:02pm:

Some agreement - a basis for a sensible discussion perhaps.
All or nothing?
Any answer to the point about access to Directory Enquiries etc. being used to press everyone to opt-in?

NGMsGhost wrote on Mar 6^th, 2010 at 12:58pm:

I do not seek to defend PhonePay Plus or Ofcom; You and Yours provides them with sufficient opportunity to do so for themselves. I aim only to understand and comment on the broad reality of the environment in which we are perhaps seeking to instigate change for the better. If there is no hope of improvement, because all those who could create it are corrupt, then we are just shouting in a vacuum.

Whilst I do not seek to promote the arguments that are ranged against us, I believe that they have to be discussed and understood so that they may be either overcome, or acknowledged as being unanswerable so that those of us engaged in campaigning may pursue more achievable goals. I accept that some members may not wish to engage in polite discussion with those who hold different views and that some see such discussion as being totally impossible. I am happy to engage in open public discussion in an open public discussion forum.

---

ICSTIS was in existence as a trade body before Ofcom was established. The relevant provisions in the Communications Act were drafted specifically for ICSTIS to continue the role of a self-regulator, although bolstered by Ofcom’s powers. PhonePay Plus is exactly the same organisation, using a different name.

Ofcom’s second principal duty is to further the interests of consumers, where appropriate by promoting competition. Ofcom is not able to ensure competition, it can only promote it.

There is a fundamental problem here in that the only general definition of “the interests of consumers” is their individual ability to consume as they choose. This is most clearly seen in the approach of the Communications Consumer Panel, which presses for little other than more consumption of communications services by more people. Some may view limiting the opportunities to consume PRS as being contrary to Ofcom’s second principal duty. Nobody wishes to be scammed, however, unless deliberate deceit can be recognised by all, what to some may be seen as a scam is to others a stupid purchase.


I suspect we agree that self-regulation can never be expected to be effective. Its only purpose is to create an impression, rather than offering genuine protection to consumers. Any open market, however it is regulated, must leave a burden of responsibility on the consumer, which some may find too great to bear. The difficult question is about what level of wisdom one expects a consumer to have. Where there is a freedom to choose, this must include the freedom to make a mistake. Any restriction of the latter risks denying the former.


The point about limiting the value of PRS purchases is well made. The present limits, of which I was not aware, are clearly inadequate. It seems that they are only discretionary credit checks for the sake of the provider, rather than a protection for the consumer. I would be interested to read comments on my suggestion that application of consumer-set limits by month and item could be demanded by regulation.


PIN-protection for high value purchases by telephone is another interesting suggestion. I am however concerned about the over-use of PINs and passwords, to which we are currently subjected. This readily causes us to lose a proper sense of what needs to be protected carefully. Every time a PIN or password is used its safety can be compromised, so there is good reason not to encourage unnecessary use.


Voice price announcements can offer a useful protection against mistaken use of expensive services. They must however never be used to remove attention from the vital need to provide adequate cost information before one decides to call a number. It is the decision to make the call that must be properly informed. The opportunity to back out of a decision that has been taken should only be seen as a useful additional facility.


NGMsGhost wrote on Mar 6^th, 2010 at 12:58pm:

As this question was quoted, I take it that the point was being addressed.

I believe that this issue warrants serious consideration. I do not believe that attacking the integrity of those who would have to introduce the regulations for a PRS opt-in is the most useful argument that may be used to persuade them to do so. The consultation on such a proposal is unlikely to state that it has been proposed because Ofcom personnel wish to repent of their highway robbery and give up their continuing corruption. More powerful arguments are required to counter the potential accusations of nanny-ism, restriction of choice and failure to separate the bad guys from the good that would arise against such a proposal.

I suspect that many will believe and argue strongly that the problem being addressed exists in only part of the PRS market. This could ensure that opt-in is the default condition if a simple “all or nothing” mechanism is introduced at all.

(All of the above is offered for serious discussion. I hope that I make it clear where I am expressing personal opinions rather than making objective points. The difference is however irrelevant, as I am not the topic of this thread.)

NGM'sG, I must add my concurrence with Barbara to all of your posts in this topic, and agree that the reason I have no longer posted on this forum for some while is due to the dilution of the views now expressed, with too many incognito commercial proponents who are really attempting to justify the continuing scams, and muddling the issues with unnecessary verbosity and Peter Prescription speak.

The old vigour in the campaigners against these abuses seems to have been mostly snuffed out, and replaced by half-hearted discussions, almost accepting the status quo, and the conjuring of Ofcom. No battle will ever be won in this way, as you well know. As you have observed a number of times before, you and I mostly see these things in pretty much the same way, which is not true of some newer members.

Barbara wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2010 at 5:29pm:



May I add my endorsemant to Barbara's and Dorf's posts.

Sums up most of what the members of this forum are thinking.