This is for business users of NGN wanting to migrate to 0345/0370/034x/037x numbers from existing a 0845/0870/084x/087x NGN. There's little actual information on how to move from 0845/0870/084x/087x numbers and with telcos often poorly-briefed, spreading mis-information, or plain obstructive on what is possible, there needs to be info on this. Telcos staffers often don't know, or won't tell you.

This doc here is essential to understand and make teh more intractable or plain clueless telcos deal with NGN portings. And forget asking ofcom, 5-6 calls and we never did get to bootom of waht we can or can't do, and the searches around the various telco sites lead you up blind alleys, most trying to sell you anotehr product.

I have mentioned it in another thread, but it's a bit buried there. So here it is again.

Had we known about it, we'd have ported away from 087x long since. It took us forever to find.

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CBsQFjAA&url=http%3A...

But the link is not from ofcom. So suggest, Dear Moderator personage, your Majesty, your Erminess. it needs to be uploaded to here before it goes. 

OK then....


SFX: (Drum Roll) Ladeeeeeezzzz and Genterrrrmen! I bring you....

Non-Geographic Number Portability
End-to-End Process Manual
Version 13  ofcom doc: NGNPE2E

Whoopeeedoo. You want page 26. Don't eat it all at once.

===================================
Note: requesting an 0345/0370/034x/037x NGN prefix will have the port request declined by the rangeholder, if your CP does not send it as a tied request. ie tied to the 084x/087x  number you now possess. Telco porting staffers rarely seem to know this, when they shoud, so bang on about it. Ofcom has allocated these ranges, 037x & 034x only for prior users of the resepctive 084x and 087x numbers. This snippet alone, had we known it - even our CP didn't, would have saved us two months hassle.


It took us months to find this and get clarity.

Then,

All parties concerned, no matter how many hops you are away from your rangeholder, can only give one of two objections to a successful port.
These are:

1. The end-user does not have the existing 087x equivalent in port. (We assume you do)
2. The rangeholder does not have the 084x/037x number as part of their number-block allocation. (they have not applied to ofcom for it yet) - unlikely.

This is becaue, the arrangemnt, however it is met, that gives you the 08 prefix number, will give you the 03, and your existing 08 is proof of it. Don't let anyone tell you any other reason. Anything else aside from no prting agreement between resective telcos 'tis 'kin Telco HOGWASH. Having got that, then you can claim your 037x/034x migration.
Got that?, Now... look what you coulda won, next contestant please.
===============

Sorry to disappoint, but I see nothing in the latest posting with which to disagree.

Given that there are plenty of 03 xx ranges available, I cannot see why Ofcom would ever need to change the use of the 84 and 87 blocks - although some cynics would suggest that this provides the best possible reason for it doing so.


Ofcom has provided 03 and set the regulations, including the position for migration, as well as one could hope. There have however been two significant failures.

Firstly, there was a disaster in its relationship with the Cabinet Office, in arranging the mass migration of all public sector numbers from 084/087 to 03. From my understanding, the fault lay largely with the Cabinet Office. If this had gone ahead, then the second issue would not have been so significant.


The second failure was a decision not to engage in the extensive publicity that was required to make 03 work. As a regulator and facilitator, Ofcom is not good at promotion. It will draw attention to its successes and bold interventions, however it leaves it to others to apply and promote the facilities that it enables.

The problem with 03 is that there is little in it for the providers and their agents, as it is they who would be seen as having the responsibility of promoting facilities in the market. 084 and 087 numbers are cheaper for their customers, so there is little reason for them to put great effort into promoting 03 as an alternative as it yields no greater revenue for them.

The pressure to adopt 03 has to come from callers, most of whom are unaware of the benefits that it offers them. Major organised and formal groups representing the consumer interest have done nothing with this. Many are still calling for a switch to geographic numbers, or their publication as alternatives, when this is not the answer. Some see the only problem with 084/087 numbers as being the high access charges levied by mobile providers.

I cannot claim great success for my own efforts to promote the direct migration from 084 to 034 equivalents (with indefinite parallel operation), as an interim measure for public bodies who are reluctant to incur the cost of extensive individual number changes. I am deeply disappointed that this idea has not been picked up by those with a louder voice than mine.

If service providers were under greater pressure to use 03 numbers then this would generate a demand which competing providers would aim to satisfy. There is however no competition possible with direct migrations, so this would only be promoted as a way of retaining customers who were being pressed to adopt 03 numbers from other providers. Whilst retention is important, there is generally far more to be made from new customers, so the whole industry would tend to play down the direct migration option.


Whilst there are limits to what Ofcom can and should do, there is no question that it should have done far more to develop awareness of 03, including the issues around migration to equivalent numbers for 084/087 users. Ofcom should recognise the detriment that is caused by ignorance and see that it alone has a responsibility to correct this failing.

The "Business Rate", with a declared "Service Charge" of up to (probably) 10p per minute, is exactly what Ofcom is currently proposing.

The level of the Service Charge would be the same regardless of how the call was made - each telco would levy a fixed and declared "Access Charge" on its customers in addition to the Service Charge.


As for regulation of standards in call handling, this would have to be paid for. A levy would have to be imposed on those being regulated, who would have to pass this on in the level of charge. I personally have severe doubts about how this could be made to work effectively. The experiment with PhonePay Plus and 0871/2/3 offers some evidence of this. A proportionate levy does not permit sufficient regulation for it to be worthwhile - there is just not enough money in the pot.

(I personally believe that if one is paying a service charge one has the right to expect the call to be answered promptly, BUT ALSO by an agent with the appropriate communication skills and competence in the matters that they are required to address. Regulation of the latter would not be easy, however a meaningless response or one that requires endless consultation with colleagues is no better than being kept on hold.)


Ofcom currently accepts the market's desire for flexibility in setting the level of charge, up to the 10p per minute maximum for "Business Rate". I personally believe that the number of individual price points will have to be reduced from the present situation to make it workable, despite the disruption that this will cause to existing arrangements. The idea of going much further by reducing this to a single point is appealing, although some would say that this would be heavy handed by the regulator and an unwarranted intervention in the market.


For myself, I would be ready to support a proposal for a single Business Rate Service Charge of 10p per minute (including VAT). The present numbering and regulatory structure (084 and 087) would better support there being two rates - 5p for 084 and 10p for 087. (0870 is outside this structure at present - it is an anomaly which Ofcom proposes to deal with by its "abolition" in its present form.)


Contrary to the position of those who want an overall maximum call charge, I would argue for telcos to retain the right to set their Access Charge at whatever level they wish.

Let us say that in the negotiations of the level of the "maximum", one telco secures the right to levy a call connection fee of 15p plus an Access Charge of 7.5p per minute for daytime calls from some of its customers. If this were permitted as the maximum, I would not want users of Business Rate numbers to have to declare the call cost as being "up to 17.5p per minute, plus a connection fee of up to 15p" when some providers are prepared to include the Access Charge in their Calling Plan (i.e. at no marginal cost other than the 10p per minute Service Charge for calls made when the terms of the selected Plan are in effect).

I would argue strongly that "Service Providers" should only be required to declare the charge which they levy. Telcos must deal with their Access Charges as a separate issue.


If, as is argued and accepted by Ofcom, there is a demand for use of this micro-payment mechanism at such low levels then it must be made to work properly.

Just to finalise this post, we now , at last have our 0370 number. It has taken almost a year to the day to acheve this.

Mis-information, deliberate obstruction,  corporate structures and prodedures, all these things, conspired to impede progress. And worst, plain simple lack of knowledge on the part of the telcos involved.

Had we known it would involve this much time and hassle, frankly, we wouldn't have bothered. The reality is, we have to work in a commercial environment, and the time and effort involved was not warranted.  0870 serves us well.

Would we do it again? Simply put... no. 0870 is good. Which we appreciate, is not what this site is about. But that is the reality.

Whilst we see it from the users standpoint, if only our gripe was £3-4.00 for a 10 minute phone call, life would be grand.

I can see the stack of rotten eggs being hurled our way now.

Our thanks to Xon, all credit to them, for sorting it out. http://www.x-on.co.uk/ Without their help, it would still be in the air now, we recommend them.

03700000000 wrote on Sep 15^th, 2011 at 2:44pm:
I would argue that the public simply wants to be charged for the conveyance of the call (as in t'old days), not for the conveyance of the call plus an additional premium that ends up in the grubby hands of one or more other parties. Why should it be necessary for the recipient to add on an additional fee just to receive a call? It makes no sense. If one writes a letter to, say, British Airways, then one pays only for the transit of the item, say 50p (I do not know the current cost of first-class mail). One does not pay 50p plus an additional subsidy to help BA with its costs of providing someone to read and respond to the correspondence.

On my side of the ocean, where capitalism rules and corporate profits generally come before anything else, calls to businesses are indeed very often free of charge, either through being local calls, or the provision of toll-free service. Using numbers similar to those in the UK would be, quite simply, unacceptable to the public here.

As what should be the situation in the UK, businesses and other bodies over here factor telecom costs into general overhead expenses, such as heating, lighting, air conditioning and other fixed and variable costs.

I would have no issue with NGNs if they were being used to offer a genuine value added service. Unfortunately, aided by the feckless regulator, the numbers are now in use by just about any small or large organization for general purpose contact, often for complaints.

Whenever I see an organization using 0844 or similar, my onlu conclusion is that the person responsible for the telecom policy is an idiot.

This has been a most worthwhile discussion.

It is interesting that X-On have been identified as champions of 03. As Speedy comments, they promote a 03 based system for NHS providers. It would be good for someone from X-On to come forward to take a strong role and perhaps receive some (implicit) endorsement from campaigners. Maybe someone would like to approach them to discuss this.


When Ofcom announces its firm proposals for new regulation of 084/087 numbers, in the next few months, this will be an ideal time for it to strongly draw attention to the ability of users to migrate to 03. This is what all those who need the benefits of a non-geographic number, but will not be prepared to declare a "Service Charge" on callers, will have to consider.

Ofcom cannot direct providers as to how they must promote their services, nor are they bound to offer migration. The fact is that they are able to, and they do.

There is no complex process to be defined, the user asks the provider, the provider applies to Ofcom for the 034 / 037 number and (assuming that they own the 084/087 equivalent) it all goes ahead smoothly. Where the 084/087 number has been ported from the original owner, there can be complications as the original owner has to be engaged. The fact that many such cases have been resolved satisfactorily means that these processes should now be much easier than when they were being encountered for the first time.


On the wider issue of attaching a premium to the cost of a telephone call, there are perhaps three distinct situations.

1. Where the user of the number wishes to benefit from the use of advanced telephone technology at no cost to themselves.

2. Where the user wishes to discourage use of the telephone as a means of contact and also wishes to recover some of the cost of handling telephone calls from those who make them, rather than from customers in general.

3. Where the phone call itself represents use of a chargeable service - e.g. directory enquiries, cricket scores.

The first of these, where the user claims to receive no financial benefit, is what has long been associated with 0845 numbers. There was a genuine desire to encourage the development and use of advanced network services on non-geographic numbers. Oftel / Ofcom price regulation (which could, until very recently, only apply to BT) has ensured that it is BT customers in general who bear the cost, rather than those who actually call 0845 numbers. Because there can be no assurance that other call providers will respect the spirit of this regulation on BT (and because it is dodgy anyway and the technical development issue is no longer relevant) this will shortly come to an end. In effect there will be no difference between this and the second case.

The second case, which is largely what has been discussed above, is the most difficult on which to form a clear judgement as to its acceptability. I take the view that it is totally unacceptable for providers of public services which are funded out of taxation to use this method of subsidising costs to the taxpayer. The vital point is that the charge imposed on the caller must be declared by the beneficiary. This introduces a complication because there are two beneficiaries (the telco and the person called), i.e. two elements to the charge. This is however what is happening ("behind the scenes") at present and if it is to continue, then it must be made transparent, even if at the expense of simplicity.

The third case is more straightforward. The problem with the present regime for "Premium Rate Services" is the fact that the differential charges imposed by the various telcos cannot be readily declared by the provider of the service. They will therefore naturally refer only to the cheapest (currently regulated) rate offered by BT. If we accept that there is to be a diversity of types of telephone call provision and providers, then there must be some freedom for telcos to set their own charges. Given that this freedom will shortly be extended to BT, there is again no alternative other than to have the "unbundled" approach, whereby the service provider declares their "Service Charge" and the telco their "Access Charge".


Ofcom had muddied the waters by defining the 0871/2/3 range as being used for "Premium Rate Services" when it belongs in the second of the categories given above, along with 084/3 numbers. This however reflected a problem that Ofcom had with the application and enforcement of regulation. It now defines all 084 and 087 numbers as "Business Rate" reflecting the (merged) first and second of my categories. The problem with application and enforcement of regulation does however remain and we will have to wait to see how Ofcom proposes to get around that.

speedy wrote on Oct 26^th, 2011 at 12:59am:

The simplest way to quote part of a posting is indeed to hit the "quote" button and carefully select and delete the words you do not need. Standard Windows keyboard tricks, e.g. Shift+Ctrl+Down to select all of a paragraph do help.


With the example you have in mind:

User = GP - TRUE

The provider is the owner of the number. This would technically be Talk Talk (or rather its business services company, formerly known as Opal Telecom). Certain functions can however be performed on their behalf by their appointed "resellers" (agents) such as NEG. Exactly which of them has to approach Ofcom, I am not sure, however it is simply a matter of completing a standard form - once it has been established that this is all that needs to be done.

Porting is another business. Ofcom allocates blocks of numbers to providers, who "own" those numbers. To allow competition it is now possible to retain a number when changing provider. The number is said to be "ported" from the original owner to the provider who takes over provision of the telephone service on that number. Because ownership of the blocks of 034/037 numbers is implicitly with the original owners of the respective 084/087 blocks there is a bit of a complication.

Some companies have tried to use this as a lever to get back customers they have lost, claiming that they cannot migrate without returning. The point is that the 034/037 number cannot be used by another user, because these ranges are reserved for migration only. I believe that after some hairy cases in the early days, Ofcom has now got this sorted, so that the porting does grant ownership of the equivalent migration number.


I hope this makes it clear. The bottom line is that there should not be a problem with migration. If there is, then anyone who is erecting obstructions to this simple process must be identified, named and shamed.

---

Just for the record, two other quick points on porting.

Because mobile numbers are very frequently ported, you cannot know which network a number is on, and therefore what you may have to pay to call it, by looking at the number!

The situation with geographic lines is quite different. Numbers are not "ported" when you sign up to make calls through another company or even pay your rental to them.

I have looked at X-on 03 'Surgery Connect' this seems to be the 'Answer to a GP's Prayer' which appears to be completely Internet based.  I can see a couple of slight problems so far.

1. That there might be an elderly Deep Country GP that  "Dont 'old with them thaaar Electronicy thingys" but he would probable have a 'Geo number' anyway.

2. We all know that the 'Internet goes down from time to time' either local Telephone Exchange based or Area Based - Techies out there know more than I do. (My Yahoo Webmail would do a Yoyo proud lately. ) What say you Techies?

3. How is NEG/Daisy worked - is theirs Internet or Hardwired or both according to local circumstances ?

My final request is if I contacted X-on what would Posters on this Forum like me to find out and would Dave/Admin allow us to invite X-on onto the Forum to answer questions and explain things