Dave wrote on Dec 16^th, 2010 at 11:36am:


Sorry to say I am already disappointed and dissatisfied with this Consultation and I haven't even opened it yet.

The title alone gives the game away --- a "Simplification...".  Not a proper fundamental re-axamination of this sector, a radical or intellectual review of the ethics and legitimacy of a very shady business which has been carried on for many years.  

The title of this CON--sultation indicates that the fundamentals of ripping-off the Great British Public are to be continued but perhaps simplified in some way.  The Banking, Insurance, Retail and other industries, even Government Departments and of course chiefly the Telecomms Industry itself will be given free rein to continue exploiting the public.  

The public have been conditioned over many years into thinking that taking money out of their telephone accounts and handing it over to all these avaricious industries is in some way a normal or legitimate business practice whereas it is in fact nothing but a massive scam to carry out daylight robbery from their accounts.

Will OfcoN address this fundamental issue and look at taking action to correct this wrongdoing?  Will it carry out its obligations to serve the public interest and protect telephone users from HARM, their euphemism for robbery?   No, it will look at ways of "Simplifying" the regime, making it easier for the scamming and rip-offs to continue.  What are we paying OfCoN for?????

There is perhaps one good thing which may emerge from this enormous failure by OfCoN -- and that is that the future need for SayNoTo0870.com will continue well onto the future.   Thank God and three cheers for  .... SayNo...!!!  

From The Daily Telegraph
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/mobile-phones/8207327/0800-numbers-should-...



By Matt Warman, Consumer Technology Editor 5:31PM GMT 16 Dec 2010

Comment

Communications regulator Ofcom has launched a consultation that could force mobile phone companies to make calls to 0800 numbers free, as well as regulate the way call charges for directory enquiries and phone voting are advertised.

Ed Richards, Ofcom’s chief executive, said that the current environment was “opaque, confused and uncertain” as he announced that the regulator was proposing to make all calls from mobile and landlines to 0800 numbers free by 2012.

The regulator has also added that it would like to introduce a transparent system of pricing for all phone numbers. The move could mean, for instance, that phone voting on popular televisions shows such as The X Factor would display common symbols to indicate how much a call would cost.

Calls to 01, 02 and 03 numbers would be charged at standard “geographic” rates as they are currently. This means they are usually part of a mobile phone contract "bundle".

Research by Ofcom has suggested that the public routinely underestimate some costs to premium rate numbers beginning 09, while they overestimate the costs of calling 08 numbers from both mobiles and landlines.


Under new proposals, the regulator would force phone companies and service providers, such as banks and electricity companies, to indicate how much a call costs to make and how much the recipient charges. The result could be on-screen messages that tells users how much as call costs, and indicates that it was also subject to a mobile company’s “access charge”.

I have attempted to start a discussion on one highly publicised aspect of the proposals, often covered in this forum although not a core issue  - Making Freephone Free.

An excellent comment in The Telegraph which makes the point very succinctly that I have been promoting.

Pericles
12/17/2010 10:01  
All non-geographic numbers should cost the caller the same as from a land-line (01/02/03).

Where businesses, government departments &c. — for their own convenience or any other reason — choose to use a non-geographic number, any additional cost ought to be borne by those organizations, not by the caller.

Very well said, Pericles  

Ofcom --- please take note.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/mobile-phones/8207327/0800-numbers-should-...

loddon wrote on Dec 21^st, 2010 at 9:50am:

This is not the Ofcom proposal - the two elements exist at present, with the caller paying both. Ofcom proposes that the charge for the business element which is paid by the caller is presented as such - it is the presentation of the two elements as separate which is the key of the Ofcom proposal. This proposal treats "Business Rate" calls in exactly the same way as "Premium Rate".

What this means in practice is that those who are unable to present their numbers as including a passed on charge will have to cease using "Business Rate" numbers. We must also remember that every business will always have to recover its costs somehow - if not from telephone callers, it will be from the shareholders or taxpayers who fund it, or perhaps its customers. There will be shareholders, taxpayers and customers who think that callers should carry some of the cost of dealing with the calls they make. All that Ofcom is doing is proposing that when this happens, it is transparent.

---

(Noting the quoted comment from the telegraph)
I believe that Ofcom has taken note of this point. The requirement to state the added charge means that it must be justifiable.

loddon wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2010 at 11:47am:

Given the present design of the telephone network, the flaw is in allowing call centres to hold queues of people waiting to speak to someone. This is based on the principle of having a number (whether geo or no-geo - it makes no difference) that does not connect to a single line. A proposal to ban such facilities under the present design of the network could be put forward, but is unlikely to achieve widespread support as this facility is valued by many callers.

A wholly new method of charging for telephone calls, so that the receiving party pays for the call whilst the caller is on hold is an interesting suggestion. It would be interesting to hear what proposals may be presented for how this could work and what regulations could be introduced to compel such a mechanism (once developed) to be deployed. Would I have to pay for the call whilst I asked my caller to wait so that I could move over to speak on another extension?

If metering of calls were to be deferred until live conversation were taking place, this would make calls to recorded information and answering services free of charge. This and other solutions that did not place the charge on the receiving party would simply make connected calls more expensive.


A more sophisticated approach, which is perhaps aligned to the point being made, is for the "service charge" element of a "Business" or "Premium Rate" call not to kick in until the service is actually being delivered. Again, it would be interesting to hear suggestions about how this could be achieved in practice and how the telcos should recover the cost of the sizable amount of development in metering and billing that would be required.

My own view is that when making such a call one has to judge whether the benefit being delivered is worthwhile for the total cost. The likely duration of the call, including waiting time, is obviously a factor affecting both the quality of the service and the cost. The same is true for a restaurant, even though the waiting time does not actually affect the cost. As with any chargeable service, that can only be matter to be resolved between the service provider and the service user.


I firmly believe that if the idea of "Business Rate" calls, with an identified service charge as part of the call cost gets properly established, then we will be able to look on such calls in a proper light. This must mean that many who presently use 084 numbers will have to move away to "Geographic Rate" (01/02/03) numbers.

---

There is of course another possible remedy.

Call centres could be compelled to stop answering calls if there is no agent available to speak immediately, or perhaps within a certain defined time limit. Imposing such a requirement is outside the scope of Ofcom's present powers, so new legislation would be required - from a government that has a ban on new regulations.

My preference is to encourage busy call centres to deploy the automated callback technology which many already use at busy times.

Ofcom should note that their proposals are NOT "Simplifying" the call charges but are making the whole regime much more complicated.   People I have spoken to about this have said immediately that they don't like this idea and would find it harder to understand and they don't have the time to waste in going into detail with every phone call they make and then trying to work out how they should react.

In my view this illustrates the point.   These proposals just will NOT work.   Fundamentally the Ofcom proposals are seeking to continue forcing callers to pay for services that benefit the companies rather than the callers, and it is far too complicated.