SAYNOTO0870.COM - Ofcom 2012 consultation on non-geo numbers

Dave

Global Moderator

Offline

Posts: 9,902
Yorkshire
Gender: male

Re: Ofcom 2012 consultation on non-geo numbers
Reply #30 - Jun 25^th, 2012 at 11:45pm

idb wrote on Jun 25^th, 2012 at 11:33pm:

The starting point with respect to campaigning against the use of NGNs should be that the customer should pay only the cost of conveyance of the call and not an additional fee to the recipient. …

The fact that the proposals are to have the fees declared, whereas they are covert now, means that campaigning will be much simpler. They won't be able to pretend that they get no benefit by denying receipt of revenue payments.

Back to top

IP Logged

bbb_uk

Global Moderator

Offline

Posts: 2,041

Re: Ofcom 2012 consultation on non-geo numbers
Reply #31 - Jun 26^th, 2012 at 8:27am

Dave wrote on Jun 25^th, 2012 at 11:45pm:

idb wrote on Jun 25^th, 2012 at 11:33pm:

The starting point with respect to campaigning against the use of NGNs should be that the customer should pay only the cost of conveyance of the call and not an additional fee to the recipient. …

The fact that the proposals are to have the fees declared, whereas they are covert now, means that campaigning will be much simpler. They won't be able to pretend that they get no benefit by denying receipt of revenue payments.

I hope your right. However, unless the unbundling included a clause that stated what, if anything, the SP gets back in actual revenue ppm (ie money paid to them for receiving a call) then I can't see it making much difference as we wont know what the split (if any) is between what the TCP gets and what the SP actually receives.

Like I said in an earlier post, the SP will just say that their 08x provider (the TCP) receives the money and/or the TCP & SP can just say that the cost has gone up because your teleco (OCP) has increased it's AC.

In theory, I do like it but I have reservations that Ofcom will actually do more to ensure things like the AC is clearly mentioned and not hidden away like now otherwise consumer confusion will just get worse.

Back to top

IP Logged

SilentCallsVictim

Supreme Member

Offline

aka NHS.Patient, DH_fairtelecoms

Posts: 2,494

Re: Ofcom 2012 consultation on non-geo numbers
Reply #32 - Jun 26^th, 2012 at 11:50am

bbb_uk wrote on Jun 26^th, 2012 at 8:27am:

… unless the unbundling included a clause that stated what, if anything, the SP gets back in actual revenue ppm (ie money paid to them for receiving a call) then I can't see it making much difference as we wont know what the split (if any) is between what the TCP gets and what the SP actually receives.

Can you please explain why this matters.

Should there also be a requirement to specify the full details of all related contractual arrangements, so that we can know whether the TCP is reflecting the benefit that it receives from the enhanced termination fee in some other way?

I am content to assume that the TCP is not ripping off the SP. This may not be true, but I believe it is fair for the SP to suffer the effect of this assumption - indeed, this may help to ensure that it is not ripped-off.

Back to top

@fairtelecoms (tweets)

IP Logged

bbb_uk

Global Moderator

Offline

Posts: 2,041

Re: Ofcom 2012 consultation on non-geo numbers
Reply #33 - Jun 26^th, 2012 at 5:45pm

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Jun 26^th, 2012 at 11:50am:

bbb_uk wrote on Jun 26^th, 2012 at 8:27am:

… unless the unbundling included a clause that stated what, if anything, the SP gets back in actual revenue ppm (ie money paid to them for receiving a call) then I can't see it making much difference as we wont know what the split (if any) is between what the TCP gets and what the SP actually receives.

Can you please explain why this matters.

I was responding to what Dave mentioned:-
Quote:

The fact that the proposals are to have the fees declared, whereas they are covert now, means that campaigning will be much simpler. They won't be able to pretend that they get no benefit by denying receipt of revenue payments.

I was trying to say that from a consumer point of view, we will not know how much the SP (ie the company were actually calling) gets as the SC quoted is split between what the TCP gets and, if applicable, what the SP gets so the cost is still covert with that regard.

Hope I explained myself a little better?

Back to top

« Last Edit: Jun 26^th, 2012 at 5:46pm by bbb_uk »

IP Logged

bbb_uk

Global Moderator

Offline

Posts: 2,041

Re: Ofcom 2012 consultation on non-geo numbers
Reply #34 - Jun 26^th, 2012 at 5:57pm

I have a feeling the following may happen:-

Overall costs of calls to 08x likely tho go up
The cost quoted by SP will likely be less than now as it's only the SC that is mentioned
Consumers are likely going to have to go out of their way to search their own teleco website to see what the AC is (assuming they can find it)
It's potentially possible (albeit over time) that an 0844 can cost overall more than 0871 but without being subject to PRS like 0871

Back to top

« Last Edit: Jun 26^th, 2012 at 5:59pm by bbb_uk »

IP Logged

Dave

Global Moderator

Offline

Posts: 9,902
Yorkshire
Gender: male

Re: Ofcom 2012 consultation on non-geo numbers
Reply #35 - Jun 26^th, 2012 at 6:04pm

bbb_uk wrote on Jun 26^th, 2012 at 5:45pm:

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Jun 26^th, 2012 at 11:50am:

bbb_uk wrote on Jun 26^th, 2012 at 8:27am:

… unless the unbundling included a clause that stated what, if anything, the SP gets back in actual revenue ppm (ie money paid to them for receiving a call) then I can't see it making much difference as we wont know what the split (if any) is between what the TCP gets and what the SP actually receives.

Can you please explain why this matters.

I was responding to what Dave mentioned:-
Quote:

The fact that the proposals are to have the fees declared, whereas they are covert now, means that campaigning will be much simpler. They won't be able to pretend that they get no benefit by denying receipt of revenue payments.

I was trying to say that from a consumer point of view, we will not know how much the SP (ie the company were actually calling) gets as the SC quoted is split between what the TCP gets and, if applicable, what the SP gets so the cost is still covert with that regard.

Hope I explained myself a little better?

I'm with SCV here. On what basis does this matter?

The TCP acts as the SP's agent, so how is it relevant knowing what proportion of the SC each retains?

Back to top

IP Logged

bbb_uk

Global Moderator

Offline

Posts: 2,041

Re: Ofcom 2012 consultation on non-geo numbers
Reply #36 - Jun 26^th, 2012 at 6:21pm

Dave wrote on Jun 26^th, 2012 at 6:04pm:

I'm with SCV here. On what basis does this matter?

The TCP acts as the SP's agent, so how is it relevant knowing what proportion of the SC each retains?

You mentioned that under the new proposal, nothing is covert anymore compared to now.

I am trying to say from the consumer point of view, they wont care what the TCP gets just what the SP gets and obviously just quoting the SC, what the SP gets is still not known so its still covert whereas you said its no longer covert.

We can guess that some SPs gets nothing in revenue rebate and some SPs may get the upto 4ppm given by the teleco I quoted in an earlier post (maybe even more).

Thinking about it now I think the misunderstanding is that you were referring to what the TCP gets is no longer covert whereas I thought you were referring to, from the consumer point of view, what the SP gets because like I said most consumers are more likely wanting to know what the company they are calling is getting.

Back to top

IP Logged

SilentCallsVictim

Supreme Member

Offline

aka NHS.Patient, DH_fairtelecoms

Posts: 2,494

Re: Ofcom 2012 consultation on non-geo numbers
Reply #37 - Jun 26^th, 2012 at 6:27pm

bbb_uk wrote on Jun 26^th, 2012 at 5:45pm:

I was trying to say that from a consumer point of view, we will not know how much the SP (ie the company were actually calling) gets as the SC quoted is split between what the TCP gets and, if applicable, what the SP gets so the cost is still covert with that regard.

Hope I explained myself a little better?

You appear to think that the consumer may want to know every detail of the finances of a company it is intending to call, so as know if it is being treated fairly. This may indeed be true, but it is rather a lot of information to put on a letterhead or "contact us" page of a website.

(For example, I am probably far more interested in the wages and working conditions of its contact centre staff and in the levels of competence they bring to their work, than in the arrangements it has with its telephone service provider.)

Ofcom proposes that the consumer may be content, at a minimum, to know the cost that is being added to the call charge imposed by their chosen telephone service provider by the company they are calling.

Those who want to understand the exact nature of the financial relationship between that company and their telephone service provider, or any other related information, will have to make other enquiries, respecting the fact that such arrangements may be confidential.

P.S. I prepared the above before reading reply #36. I do not however see any need to change it.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Jun 26^th, 2012 at 6:30pm by SilentCallsVictim »

@fairtelecoms (tweets)

IP Logged

Dave

Global Moderator

Offline

Posts: 9,902
Yorkshire
Gender: male

Re: Ofcom 2012 consultation on non-geo numbers
Reply #38 - Jun 26^th, 2012 at 6:33pm

bbb_uk wrote on Jun 26^th, 2012 at 6:21pm:

Dave wrote on Jun 26^th, 2012 at 6:04pm:

I'm with SCV here. On what basis does this matter?

The TCP acts as the SP's agent, so how is it relevant knowing what proportion of the SC each retains?

You mentioned that under the new proposal, nothing is covert anymore compared to now.

I am trying to say from the consumer point of view, they wont care what the TCP gets just what the SP gets and obviously just quoting the SC, what the SP gets is still not known so its still covert whereas you said its no longer covert.

We can guess that some SPs gets nothing in revenue rebate and some SPs may get the upto 4ppm given by the teleco I quoted in an earlier post (maybe even more).

Thinking about it now I think the misunderstanding is that you were referring to what the TCP gets is no longer covert whereas I thought you were referring to, from the consumer point of view, what the SP gets because like I said most consumers are more likely wanting to know what the company they are calling is getting.

I still don't understand the reasoning behind the need to know the split of the SC.

I've always looked upon this issue as being one of what happens at the point of interconnection; i.e. the level of termination charge.

So let's suppose that you have two SPs to choose from. Both operate on what are currently known as 0844 "g6" numbers, so the SC is 5ppm. One is paid 3.5ppm by its telephone provider and the other is paid nothing.

What is your point? How does this affect you as a consumer? Huh

Back to top

IP Logged

SilentCallsVictim

Supreme Member

Offline

aka NHS.Patient, DH_fairtelecoms

Posts: 2,494

Re: Ofcom 2012 consultation on non-geo numbers
Reply #39 - Jun 26^th, 2012 at 7:16pm

Dave wrote on Jun 26^th, 2012 at 6:33pm:

… One is paid 3.5ppm by its telephone provider and the other is paid nothing.…

With apologies for "ganging up", as two of us are making the same point …

I will add that the difference referred to above typically arises because the former has a less predictable volume of incoming calls and consequently pays a higher fee for its service. In the latter case the telco is more confident in the termination fee revenue it will receive and therefore is able to offer a lower monthly fee, rather than a cashback which is dependent on aggregate call volume.

It is well known that the DWP switched from the cashback "revenue share" arrangement with BT to the lower periodic charge arrangement some years ago. All things being equal, this made no difference whatsoever to its operating costs, as it made no difference to what callers paid to contact it. The DWP however sought to pretend that this made a significant difference and it appears that some would have been ready to accept this.

The other possibility is that the telco is dealing fairly with its customer in the former case, whereas in the latter the customer is being ripped-off.

I can see how a caller may be interested to know which of these four, or indeed other, situations applies, however it cannot think that it would make that much difference to a decision about whether or not to pay 5ppm in addition to the Access Charge to call the company.

Back to top

@fairtelecoms (tweets)

IP Logged

bbb_uk

Global Moderator

Offline

Posts: 2,041

Re: Ofcom 2012 consultation on non-geo numbers
Reply #40 - Jun 26^th, 2012 at 8:28pm

Dave wrote on Jun 26^th, 2012 at 6:33pm:

I still don't understand the reasoning behind the need to know the split of the SC.

I've always looked upon this issue as being one of what happens at the point of interconnection; i.e. the level of termination charge.

Me too generally, but due to my misunderstanding what you meant by the fact that cost of calls will no longer be covert, I was mearly trying to highlight the cost is still covert but not as covert as it is now. It's going from an overall cost ppm, to knowing that our teleco is taking x ppm with the remainder going to the TCP but not knowing how much the SP gets.

I can't explain myself anymore but so long as I know what I mean lol

Back to top

IP Logged

bbb_uk

Global Moderator

Offline

Posts: 2,041

Re: Ofcom 2012 consultation on non-geo numbers
Reply #41 - Jun 26^th, 2012 at 8:53pm

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Jun 26^th, 2012 at 7:16pm:

It is well known that the DWP switched from the cashback "revenue share" arrangement with BT to the lower periodic charge arrangement some years ago. All things being equal, this made no difference whatsoever to its operating costs, as it made no difference to what callers paid to contact it...

It's possible to have an 0844 with no cost to the SP and where it can receive a rebate and another where no (or very little) rebate is paid but other enhanced network features are utilised. This latter one I refer to as benefits-in-kind. ie the SP is getting these network features that it would otherwise have to pay for if it didn't already have such features in their existing (PBX) setup.

So, in this example, you have two companies selling similar things and compete, 'Acme A' and 'Acme B'. Both these companies don't really need the enhanced network features just the plain old divert of call to a geographical.

Acme A, has an 0844 'g6' and receives a rebate of upto 4ppm on calls to it's number.

Acme B, also has an 0844 'g6' but they never looked around and went with the first 0844 provider it found which didn't provide any rebate.

I agree that from the caller point-of-view, the cost is the same except that Acme A is likely to earn more profit overall due to the fact that it gets paid for calls received.

In the grand scheme of things yes it comes under operational costs but if both companies sold the same number of products at the same price and had the same outgoings (ie staff, letting, etc) then obviously Acme A will make more profit as it had more incoming money (ie the rebate).

I don't believe every company out there has a need for the network features a NTS number has. However, I also agree that those that do need the NTS features it can lower their operational costs.

Back to top

IP Logged

SilentCallsVictim

Supreme Member

Offline

aka NHS.Patient, DH_fairtelecoms

Posts: 2,494

Re: Ofcom 2012 consultation on non-geo numbers
Reply #42 - Jun 26^th, 2012 at 10:04pm

bbb_uk wrote on Jun 26^th, 2012 at 8:53pm:

… 'Acme A' and 'Acme B' …

If both companies are paying the same basic price for their telephone service and 'Acme B' follows the same procurement principles in general, then I would probably be wasting my time calling it, because it will very soon go out of business.

The general profitability of a company is likely to have far more to do with the way that it handles telephone calls (a cost which dwarfs the benefit of 5ppm revenue share) than this relatively petty bit of cost saving. It is the effect on the caller, who often pays more to their own telco than to the SP and TCP, which is more significant. (With any 0845 numbers that remain, with a 2ppm service charge, it is likely that this point will remain relevant under the unbundled tariff, as in many cases the Access Charge will be more than 2ppm.)

The availability of 03 flushes out the cases where the enhanced features of non-geographic numbers (including the geographic anonymity) are genuinely beneficial. It also removes the caller from any discussion about the benefit of these features. Because 03 offers a cost neutral option, the Service Charge must be justified in isolation from any argument about benefits which are exclusively available on non-geographic numbers.

I drafted what follows before reading reply # 41, as I believed that the discussion was closing.

bbb_uk wrote on Jun 26^th, 2012 at 8:28pm:

I can't explain myself anymore but so long as I know what I mean lol

I got the impression that you had a quite justifiable interest in knowing more about what happens between the TCP and the SP.

Like any arrangement between businesses, this must remain largely covert, even though customers and the public in general are very keen to know the truth. This is especially true when business let out selected facts which may be seen as being to their advantage - e.g. "we receive no revenue share". This "selective transparency" must be dismissed as worthless, when there is no answer to the inevitable follow-up question "so are you being ripped off by your telco then?".

The Ofcom proposal simply avoids this nonsense by addressing the only point about what happens between the TCP and the SP which is of direct relevance to the caller - the level of the Service Charge.

On the Access Charge.

Unlike the present situation where your telco has hundreds of different groups of non-geographic rates to advise for each tariff, Ofcom proposes that it has just ONE. I have some sympathy with a telco that does not put the rate for calling the particular 0844 number used by someone's GP on the front page of its tariff sheet. If it can find a way of making its Access Charge for calls to every non-geographic number similarly inaccessible, then it may earn my respect for its ingenuity - it could not however find any way of justifying such action.

I hope that all readers of this thread will take a few minutes tomorrow (the deadline) to offer Ofcom some support for its proposals. There are no prizes being offered for those who are able to present an exhaustive and meaningful response to each of the 60-odd questions.

Back to top

@fairtelecoms (tweets)

IP Logged

bbb_uk

Global Moderator

Offline

Posts: 2,041

Re: Ofcom 2012 consultation on non-geo numbers
Reply #43 - Jun 27^th, 2012 at 5:45pm

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Jun 26^th, 2012 at 10:04pm:

If both companies are paying the same basic price for their telephone service and 'Acme B' follows the same procurement principles in general...

Unfortunately companies don't always follow the same procurement principles. In this job and a previous job, I have observed that when procuring a service, you were told you had to use their preferred supplier (who just happened to be internal in both jobs) even though this was more expensive than going to another supplier. However, when a supplier is external you can go with whichever is the most cost-effective.

Quote:

It is the effect on the caller, who often pays more to their own telco than to the SP and TCP, which is more significant.

is there an idea of how much is split between the OCP, TCP and SP?

Going by that 0844 supplier I found, they offered 4ppm (off-peak) and 2ppm (peak) rebate to the SP. I'm assuming the TCP take at least 1ppm (I'd guess more) so based on what the SP gets and assuming what the TCP take, very little goes to the OCP compared to what the TCP & SP get.

This is based on the current method, I guess it will change and the costs rise when unbundling happens.

Quote:

The availability of 03 flushes out the cases where the enhanced features of non-geographic numbers (including the geographic anonymity) are genuinely beneficial. It also removes the caller from any discussion about the benefit of these features.

I agree but the SP would have to pay (more than likely) for such enhanced features which is why, I believe, 084x numbers are generally used.

Quote:

On the Access Charge.

...I have some sympathy with a telco that does not put the rate for calling the particular 0844 number used by someone's GP on the front page of its tariff sheet.

Ofcom guidelines, if I remember correctly, stated it had to give a guide price with regards to calls to 0844 due to number of different ranges. So, BT for example, they could have put "calls to 0844 cost upto 5ppm. Please see PDF for more accurate price". VirginMedia could have put something along the lines of from 10ppm.

Quote:

Unlike the present situation where your telco has hundreds of different groups of non-geographic rates to advise for each tariff, Ofcom proposes that it has just ONE.

Can I clarify whether that is one SC for each number (ie 0845x, 0844x, 0871x, 09x) or one for the entire number range?

Back to top

« Last Edit: Jun 27^th, 2012 at 5:47pm by bbb_uk »

IP Logged

SilentCallsVictim Supreme Member Offline aka NHS.Patient, DH_fairtelecoms Posts: 2,494	Re: Ofcom 2012 consultation on non-geo numbers Reply #44 - Jun 27^th, 2012 at 7:35pm bbb_uk wrote on Jun 27^th, 2012 at 5:45pm: SilentCallsVictim wrote on Jun 26^th, 2012 at 10:04pm: … The consultation (officially) closed at 5 pm. Overnight submissions are usually accepted. I fear that there is no more time for discussion on how to respond.
Back to top	@fairtelecoms (tweets) IP Logged