bbb_uk wrote on Jun 24^th, 2012 at 10:13am:

I may have over-simplified the situation, however I believe that 5p will continue to be 5p, or perhaps something greater (7p has been mentioned as a possibility). The actual amounts have yet to be determined, however I believe that every effort will be made to ensure the minimum possible change both to TCPs arrangements and call charges that are currently advised.

The amount which BT is allowed to retain is (relatively) miniscule - a small fraction of a penny per minute. Furthermore, there has to be some allowance for the effect of the call setup fee and BT is allowed to engage in commercial arrangements so the amount paid on is not always the same, even though the call charge is constant.

"g6" is the more widely used example of the "5p per minute" call type. The table in this document does indeed demonstrate how those who compete directly with BT mirror its charges.

Whilst the "NTS condition" remains in place, keeping down the BT rates for calling NTS numbers, this has the effect of artifically deflating the retail cost of these calls, causing telcos to cross-subsidise. Ofcom is at the very end of its legal justification for this regulation - it has to go. I am not sure if an argument for its retention is being advanced!

Because BT does not operate in the mobile calls market (now slightly more than 50% of the total for non-business calls) its tariffs have no effect there.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Jun 24^th, 2012 at 10:47am:
Does this mean that Ofcom is expecting call charges to possibly rise?

Quote:
BT and other OCPs may cross-subsidise things but there has been no evidence that I can think of that once regulation is removed that prices fall or even out across the board. 

The first thing that I think of is what happened when most of BT regulations were removed, costs of geographical calls and line rental rose to very high signifcant levels as can be seen now.

Now I realise that competition is meant to keep these things low but I dont think there is much in way of competition between OCPs (more so landline OCPs) because once one OCP increases charges, the rest just follow suit albeit some more quickly than others.

bbb_uk wrote on Jun 24^th, 2012 at 1:50pm:

The current situation allows users of 084/087 numbers to quote BT's abnormally low prices as if they were the norm. This has led to SPs being able to effectively mask the degree of their Service Charge. It has also meant that some are not aware of the Service Charge they impose. It also allows some call providers (mainly the mobile ones) to add huge ACs.

Those who do not wish for clarity to be introduced with respect to their Service Charges are likely to argue for the status quo. It is for this reason that I believe that changes must be made.

What do you think should happen?

Quote:

Just taking the role of devil's advocate for a moment. You passed the test.

bbb_uk wrote on Jun 24^th, 2012 at 1:35pm:

The first thing that will be seen when the "NTS condition" is removed is that the cost of calling NTS numbers will increase.

If you believe that businesses simply charge the most that they are allowed to by regulation then you may not be wrong. If that is a bad thing, then the only answer is full state control of all business. It is EU regulations which demand that Ofcom remove the NTS condition and also demand an open market approach. Those who may share the view that all business must be rigidly controlled by the government will therefore be leading the calls for us to leave the EU!

Ofcom proposes to use powers granted to it by the implementation of an EU Directive to impose clearer regulation on the way in which charges for calls to NTS numbers are made by ALL providers, including those who do not have "Significant Market Presence" - which is now all telcos providing call services.

---

bbb_uk wrote on Jun 24^th, 2012 at 1:50pm:

As stated above, I believe that “The issue of cost declaration for 0870 was a mess”. I hope I explained why I see the present proposals as being very different.

Ofcom has to primarily rely on a market to serve the consumer interest. This is why it has had to go to such lengths in its current consultation to demonstrate that the market has failed, so as to justify the radical intervention which it proposes. Contributors to these threads who believe that Ofcom is fundamentally corrupt, rather than founded on ill-considered principles, under resourced for the job which many of us think that it should be doing and too often self-serving on account of its independent status will undoubtedly believe it to be incapable of delivering a proper result on any issue. Despite my many disagreements with Ofcom and intense criticism of many of its policies, I do believe that the current proposals on the "unbundled tariff" are worthy of support.

That is not to say that there are not many points that need to be made about the way in which the proposals will be implemented. Of course the requirements will fall short of what we may wish for, of course there will continue to be abuses, of course enforcement action will not satisfy all. The fair telecoms campaign seeks for change in the real world, properly aware of these realities, but not consumed by them.

idb wrote on Jun 24^th, 2012 at 5:40pm:

So far as 0845 is concerned, we cannot easily return to the situation where BT is a near monopoly provider with distinct local and national rates. It was in this situation that the option to have national calls at local rates whilst also providing subsidy to service providers to enable investment in enhanced telephony was introduced.

BT is no longer a near monopoly provider, so the NTS condition cannot be sustained. The end of BT Standard has meant that the concept of subsidy to SPs without cost to callers cannot be resuscitated. We must move forward. The way in which we return to the desired position must however take account of where we are now. This means that it cannot be as direct as we may wish.


It is my belief that the obligation to declare any service charge will ensure that calls to most businesses, govt agencies, health services and non-profits will become included in standard call bundles. I am thinking of those who have a genuine need for a non-geographic number. Ofcom has decided that this should be achieved by having only one range of non-geographic numbers (03) which are charged at geographic rates, thereby requiring many number changes - although only one digit of the number needs to change.

The proposed alternative approach, of having only range to which premiums may be applied (09, notwithstanding some other particular cases) has been rejected. One possible justification for this is the distinction between a premium which serves to simply offset the costs of a Service Provider, as against that which delivers income.

No operator of a contact centre with a 084 or 087 number hears the cash register ring when the phone rings. They have simply taken what seems to be the best option offered by a telephone service provider, often based on false statement about what callers pay to call. (There may be some who can handle incoming calls at a cost of less than 10p per minute, e.g. dialup ISPs and some other providers of particular telecoms services, but I do not believe that they are the main focus of our concern here.)

Providers of "Premium Rate Services" on 09 numbers understand that they must declare the cost of their service and offer value for money to their callers. Although this could never work in the same way for most users of 084 and 087 numbers (because the cost incurred by the caller is way short of the cost of the service) it does no harm to subject them to the same discipline in terms of cost declaration.


Ofcom states a belief that there will continue to be demand for 084 and 087 numbers when the cost is made transparent. It will take some time to see if this is true, however it is my belief that there will be mass migration to 03.

The fact that many have remained on 0871/2/3 numbers after them being designated as PRS suggests that I may be wrong, however I believe that this owes something to the general degree of confusion and misunderstanding. If a general move to 03 takes place, then it is likely that many present 087 users will get drawn into it.

I repeat, it will take time for these effects to be seen.



Ofcom is shifting the problem, but I believe that it is right to make it an issue between the Service Provider and their caller, with a relatively minor role for the telco. It is for the coop bank to decide whether the cost of its contact centre operations is met fully as an overhead, reducing the profit that it distributed to its members, or if it is to ask for a contribution from those who call them. The effective level of this contribution should not depend on who the caller chooses as a telephone service provider, albeit that their other telephone costs must do so.

I accept that many believe Ofcom should deny the coop bank, and others, the opportunity to be able to make this decision, or to somehow decide who is and is not able to make such a decision. In very many cases the option to make this decision will be withdrawn by the implementation of Article 21 of the Consumer Rights Directive.


It may be that, by a somewhat devious route, we will be able to return to a golden past age.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Jun 24^th, 2012 at 7:12pm:
Personally all I think will happen is that SPs will just state the SP part of it as Ofcom proposes which could potentially be actually lower than the current price guides and if us consumer complain they can just say that nothing has changed their side as in they (the SP and TCP) still get the same amount per call and it's the consumers telco (OCP) which is adding extra on to the call so complain to them.  So the SP & TCP will just name & shame the OCP as the reason for the price hike.

Quote:
I disagree.  Whilst some operators may not actually get a rebate as its used for call diversion and other telephone features, there are also some SPs that choose it because of the actual rebate possible without being subject to actual PRS but I also agree that some SPs may have been misled.

Just a quick search found this and for an 0844 they say it's possible to have a rebate of upto 4ppm.  The cost of the number can be got for free and can come with no monthly charge.

It's my belief that if a contact centre needed the features that a NGN brings and didn't want this paid for out of profit/general running costs then they could choose other number ranges like 0845.  Personally, I'd prefer the 03x range but I accept that the 0845 is a happy medium as it must be possible to get this number range without the additional costs of an 03 number and it's rare if not unlikely that an 0845 teleco provider actually passes any rebate to the called party (SP).

Quote:
It is my belief that there will be no or hardly any change like there was with 0871 when it came under PRS.