bbb_uk wrote on Aug 7
th, 2013 at 12:27pm:
I must have missed the bit where they clearly state 084/087 are prohibited when I scanned through it.
None of the four categories of permitted number covers 084/087 - nor any other similar number range that may arise in future. If 0845 were to be re-designated to have the same characteristics as 03 (should Ofcom change its mind again!) then it would become permissible, however for now all 084/087 numbers are prohibited. (Note that the NTNP will be revised before these draft regulations come into force).
bbb_uk wrote on Aug 7
th, 2013 at 12:27pm:
So it's only a wish that the regulations will apply to all equally and us consumers have to hope the goodwill of the government will enforce this equally across the board rather than exempt themselves, financial instiutions (banks, insurance companies), airlines and other users who are generally the biggest users of these number ranges anyhow.
There may be a serious prospect of removing the exemption for passenger transport from these particular regulations. I believe that the FCA is a better shot than the Treasury in respect of Banks etc., but this would be through a separate instrument. The Cabinet Office is currently addressing the situation with the government - which is not generally subjected to statutory regulation by the UK parliament. These particular regulations could never be expected to have universal application.
Happily there are some who engage in active campaigning and dialogue, rather than hoping that the goodwill of the government will make all things right. It is also possible for organisations to abandon 084/087 numbers without being compelled to do so.
bbb_uk wrote on Aug 7
th, 2013 at 12:34pm:
It just doesn't make sense to exclude the largest users of these numbers, leaving only a small minority that this directive will eventually apply to.
I have not taken the trouble to explore just why the EU Directive offered member states the opportunity to exempt passenger transport, or how the balance of use of non-basic rate numbers between sectors falls across the EU, so as to make sense of the original Directive. I do not accept the suggestion that (for the sake of being sensible) BIS should have dropped the proposal because it failed to secure the support of the Department for Transport. Regulation of the financial services market is always undertaken separately, but I do not wish to debate the logic of that fact of life.
My personal view is that it is best to attempt to get a more sensible outcome by pressing for completion of the process, by whatever means this may be achieved. I am not given to assessing whether the glass is ½, ¼ or ¾ empty or full. I will celebrate any worthwhile content for what it is. If I see the possibility of adding more of the right material to the glass, then that is where I will direct my attention.