bbb_uk wrote on Mar 31^st, 2011 at 11:58am:

Reading back what I put, I don't think I explained what I'm thinking well.

It would be the SP's operator (TCP) that would play the message, and not the OCP (mobile network). The OCP would have to keep the line open for long enough so as to let the caller hear the message. This will be (assuming that it can be enforced by regulation) free to caller and will (I assume) work on much the same principle as the network based number change announcements (those that give out a party's new number).


bbb_uk wrote on Mar 31^st, 2011 at 11:58am:

If they do provide parallel freephone and 01/02/03 numbers, then they really should promote the 01/02/03 number for mobile callers. The announcement I'm talking about will be intended as a way of informing those who don't know about (or don't appreciate why) the 01/02/03 number is given. So SPs won't simply promote the 0800 number, leaving mobile callers to hear the message.

Dave wrote on Mar 31^st, 2011 at 1:05pm:

It makes a little more sense in the revised form, but I still cannot see why the mobile companies need to treat these cases differently from any other. They should just connect the call and leave it to the recipient to decide what to do with it. I cannot think why someone worried about cost would want to pay for calls to their number to be handled differently by originators.

Network based number change announcements are given out to all incoming callers, not after calls have been filtered at the discretion of the recipient.

I am now yet more confused on reading about the promotion of 01/02/03 numbers to mobile callers. This is a workaround for the present situation where 0800 numbers are not free to caller. For those who retain 0800 numbers after they become free to call from mobiles, there will be no issue.

Once landline and contract mobile users catch on to the fact that geographic rate numbers are free to call, if they choose the correct package, then the need for 0800 numbers will diminish. They will however be needed for those on PAYG mobiles - assuming that PAYG mobiles (in the sense of pay per call as you go) survive the upcoming change to mobile charging!

This sort of "rubbish" makes my blood boil (the BMA response).

It appears the author of the letter wouldn't know a "local call" if it walked up to him and smacked him in the face.  Pity for him that a "local call" technically does not exist.

The sooner Ofcom/DH/NHS and anyone else stops spouting about the cost of a "local call" the better off we shall all be, and we can start to properly educate people on call costs.

loddon wrote on Dec 21^st, 2010 at 9:37am:

Members may be interested to read the following from the Ofcom Draft Annual Plan 2012/13 on pages numbered 28 and 29 (31/32 of the pdf).

Quote:

For those looking for the difference between the two consultations, and potential regulations, it is found in the second requiring the involvement of "industry". Ofcom itself can regulate the telecoms providers and, through PP+, users of numbers that are classified as being used for PRS. I believe, and have argued strongly, that to get effective cost declarations in place for 084 calls, this is better done through alternative channels of regulation, direction and standard setting.

I may be premature, we will see what happens in the new year.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Dec 8^th, 2011 at 7:52pm:


If that was a verbatim quote, there are errors.

083/4 - I assume this is meant to say 0843 and 0844?

0871 - what about 0872?

188 - Is this meant to be 118?

Minor detail perhaps, but it is not particularly engouraging to see that the Ofcom minions can't even type a simple list of eleven number ranges without making three errors.

There has been a further development, indicating that a further statement and consultation by Ofcom is imminent. It also provides a valuable clue as to what the consultation is going to include.

PhonePay Plus has issued a Call for inputs around the extension of PhonepayPlus regulation to remaining revenue-sharing ranges.

N.B. Readers of this document should note that references to 087x exclude 0870, and that the term 08xx often means only 084x[/b] - there is no intention to include 080x within the definition of PRS!

This covers one of the possible ways that Ofcom could use to achieve enforcement of the requirement for Service Providers to state the level of "Service Charge" involved in a call to their 084 number, as part of the unbundled approach. This will be addressed by Ofcom in the second of its forthcoming consultations, as I highlighted above -

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Dec 8^th, 2011 at 7:52pm:

The first of these will address the (potential) implementation of the unbundled approach by direct regulation on telecoms providers, using clear powers available to Ofcom. The second will cover users of non-geographic numbers, especially those using 084 numbers, who are not currently within the scope of Ofcom regulation.


Members may have different views on whether it is appropriate for Ofcom to classify 084 numbers as being used for "Premium Rate Services". It is only by their inclusion within the definition of providers of "Premium Rate Services" that Ofcom itself, through its agent PhonePay Plus, may regulate users of telecoms services.

(Moderators may think it appropriate for discussion of this specific issue to be the subject of a separate thread. This may depend on how many members wish to contribute their views on this particular topic.)


Given that alternative, more effective ways of achieving the desired result may be used, I do not advocate this approach for 084, or indeed 087, users.

The proper nature of PP+ is as the self-regulator of those who earn revenue from expensive telephone numbers, rather than those who simply use them to offset the costs incurred in providing services. In the "call for inputs", PP+ acknowledges this important difference, and the fact that 084 and 087 users fall into the second of these categories. It claims however that the experience of having had its remit (improperly) extended to cover 087x numbers has been more successful than expected.

I take issue with the basis on which this determination is made and do not believe that there is any reason why equal "success" would be experienced if it were extended to apply to 084x numbers. PP+ is quite entitled to view the provision of paid-for services by telephone as a market and to look on that "market" in isolation from other markets. In the case of 087 and 084 numbers however, callers are not paying-for but simply subsidising the cost of providing the service as part of a much wider relationship with the person called. PP+, quite rightly has no interest in this full relationship and the impact of a charge for telephone access as part of it.

PP+ also indicates a possible degree of reluctance to get involved with 0845 numbers, even though the latest  published Ofcom proposals cover these as well as 0844/3. The tiny nature of the revenue share, along with the relatively vast number of users / uses would make the current funding structure of PP+ inappropriate. The probability of mass migration from the 0845 range once unbundled charging and proper Service Charge declaration would make it very difficult for PP+ to plan in the way that is necessary for its charge determination to be made. This would upset all of the operations of PP+.

I hope that other respondents to the "call for inputs" will join me in highlighting these points as reasons why PhonePay Plus should not be involved in the regulation of users of 084 and 087 numbers.

On purely pragmatic grounds however, I acknowledge that compliance with cost declaration requirements for 087x numbers is not so poor as some may have expected, and I am not sure that a strong case could be made for removing 087x from the scope of PRS.

I would be delighted to hear the arguments that may be set against my views, as I am very ready to change my position.


There are further clues about Ofcom's intentions which are found in the PP+ document. I cover them below.