SilentCallsVictim wrote on May 6^th, 2013 at 5:08pm:



This is where I find myself in disagreement with SCV.   I have been away for the last week and so have not been able to respond to post #29 until today.  The suggestions of “waiting” and “moaning” are utterly unfair and constitute gross misrepresentation.   I was campaigning long before SCV joined this Forum and have written to Ofcom, Ministers and Authorities and engaged the press over many years so these scurrilous allegations are totally rejected. 
   
I ask, who is going to be the judge of whether the Ofcom scheme will be satisfactory or not?    I venture to suggest it should be the citizen consumers rather than any “campaigner” or special interest group.  You seem to give unqualified backing to these Ofcom proposals whilst I want proper regulation now because I foresee them failing to resolve the problems because, as Magrathea pointed out Ofcom have not analysed the problems correctly .   I wish that my expectations for widespread dissatisfaction are wrong but we will see after the introduction whether these Ofcom proposals are effective or not.    I don't want to see the need for endless campaigning in the future, I would prefer regulation now.

I have already said that this Ofcom scheme is wrong, even unethical, in concept and is likely to be a failure and I have explained exactly why.   I  have asked Ofcom to think again but it appears that Ofcom is determined to provide legitimacy for the telephone service industry to scam the public with “micro-payments” whilst they are making and paying for their “regular” phone calls.   I have seen others on this Forum give support to my position on this but have seen no-one give any support, let alone full or enthusiastic backing, to the Fair Telecoms unqualified support for Ofcom's proposals on this Forum or in any public discussion site such as newspapers readers comments. 

I say the introduction of  access and service charges, while providing some “transparency”, is a poor substitute for proper regulation.   It is akin to “hiding in plain sight” a phrase which seems to have  been gaining currency in various contexts recently.   I am not decrying your campaigning efforts in general SCV but I do feel that your backing for Ofcom in these proposals is unfortunate because the ultimate goal of elimination of “Service Charges (and the consequent incurring of Access Charges) in all cases where it cannot be justified” will depend on consumer pressure and campaigners efforts rather than regulation and will never be achieved, but might or might not be reduced.   This is a grossly inefficient way to stop rip-offs and scams.   Magrathea Telecom pointed out that there will be insufficient competitive pressure to effectively protect consumers from harm and I feel you are mistaken in dismissing the Magrathea response as “contradictory and bizarre”.    Magrathea pointed out quite correctly that charges for 084 and 087 calls are a subsidiary matter for consumers if they are considered at all when a phone package is being chosen.   Many consumers are often subject to all sorts of sales pressure and sleight of hand when they are looking to buy a package.

You SCV suggest that Ofcom are limited in the scope of their powers when designing and introducing schemes and so are unable to take more substantial action on these matters, but I would remind you that Ofcom prohibited revenue sharing on 0870 numbers recently and I see no reason why they could not continue along this path and take similar action with all 084 and 087 numbers.  Unfortunately they have decided, and are determined not to be persuaded otherwise, while you misguidedly support and endorse Ofcom in failing to deal with the real problems by proper regulation.

Thread #28 focuses on the true issue - transparency being a poor substitute for proper regulation. The public has, over many years and through many consultation responses, made its views perfectly clear - it does not want to see the imposition of additional fees or charges while making a call to a regular, normal organization or individual. There has not, as far as I am aware, been any public crusade to split the cost of a telephone call into separate elements - in simple terms, a fee for the telephone company and one for the recipient. The concept is utterly bizarre. The regulator created this monster and it is unwilling to remove it as there are too many vested interests. The public viewpoint is well understood by the regulator. It chooses to ignore this opinion and impose a solution that protects the prevailing situation where the telephone user will still be subjected to scams and rip-offs, and those of us who live overseas will still have difficulty and expense in maintaining telephone relationships with UK organizations. UK residents do not want transparency in charges, they just want the charges eliminated as such fees are unjust. The regulator knows this and fails to act, instead preferring to use some complex conjuring trick to express one rip-off in the form of another one.

The general argument against allowing a third party to collect money through our telephone bills is well made. If this is an argument about prohibiting the practice, thereby causing the withdrawal of directory enquiry, dial-up internet and other premium rate services, then that is fair enough.

If however it is focussed only on those cases where the public feels that a Service Charge is not justified, then surely it is for the public, not Ofcom, to decide which those are.


Some suggest that Ofcom should prohibit imposition of a Service Charge of 13p per minute or less, i.e. for those services which are accessed through 084 / 087 numbers. This is suggested as being what the public has clearly stated. I am inclined to believe that every consumer simply objects to paying more than they can argue that they should for everything. That is fine, however I do not think it fair to attempt to draw so refined a conclusion about the terms of a regulatory measure from such expressions of opinion.

Ofcom believes that there is a demand for such services to remain. I argue that in a new situation, where public confusion about call charges can no longer be exploited, it would be minimal, although I cannot produce the extensive evidence necessary to show that my rough judgement is sound. We cannot be certain of how many 084/087 users will be taken out by the provisions of the Consumer Rights Bill, as announced in the Queens's Speech, will do so under pressure, as HMRC has done, or will simply be unwilling to declare a Service Charge when confronted with this as a serious prospect.


The other great uncertainty, which will have a significant effect on the general position, is over how BT will react to removal of the NTS condition. This will provide it with the opportunity to rebalance its charges, correcting the appalling distortion to public perceptions which its present situation creates. There are however reasons why BT would not seize this opportunity in the way that we might expect, so it is very difficult to be sure that all of the confusion will be removed.

Although BT is no longer as big a player as many believe - that is why the regulation must be removed - it and its tariffs still have a disproportionate effect on public perception, for probably false reasons. This is exploited by those who sell business telephone services, and thereby by their customers.


The opportunity for anyone who holds the necessary evidence of lack of demand to present it, and engage in the necessary battles, has been around since the first Ofcom consultation on this subject. Such a submission would have to address the three possible consequences of the suggested prohibition of Service Charges of less than 13p per minute: 1) withdrawal of the telephone service, 2) continuation with a higher Service Charge, 3) continuation without a Service Charge. One could not assume (without evidence) that the latter consequence was the only possibility. Had Ofcom made such a proposal, it would have had to address the potential impact of all three and the likelihood of each.

Ofcom's actions are open to challenge in law. Had such a proposal been carried forward, any 084 / 087 user who wished to contest Ofcom's determination that consumers should be denied the opportunity to pay a Service Charge of 13p per minute or less to access its services by telephone would be able to have their day in court. One would expect that their arguments would be focussed on the first two of the consequences given above!

Ofcom's approach is always to be well protected (I believe, often over-protected) against the possibility of such actions. Losses undermine enormous amounts of work, as well as damaging the credibility of all its efforts. Some may believe that Ofcom would be bound to win any such case, however it is has passed this particular argument to be conducted in the court of public opinion.


I commonly find myself arguing against the consumerist approach, as it is too often extended to areas where it has no place, because clear values may be applied arbitrarily. In this situation, I find myself on the other side of the argument, competing with those who believe that Ofcom should be able to make a judgement, on behalf of the people, about which applications of a Service Charge are justifiable and which are not.

Unless all cases are unjustified, I cannot see any clear objective and defensible basis for a demarcation line. People know what they find unacceptable and they can make their arguments about each particular case, or class of cases.


I do not believe that all cases of 13p per minute or less are inevitably unjustified, nor do I believe that Ofcom is the right body to make any more refined determination, or to sit in judgement on the balance of public opinion in any particular case. I do not believe that Ofcom has the powers or resources to engage in such matters, and if it did, I am damned sure that I would disagree with many of its determinations!

Can anybody see a realistic prospect of DCMS giving Ofcom (a barely accountable QUANGO) the power to tell HMRC, an agency of the Treasury, or the DWP (Departments of State) what to do? There is to be no new Communication Bill to even begin its process in the current session, so we are probably looking to the next parliament to change Ofcom's powers.

Ofcom seem throughout their document to be rather surprised that consumers are not well aware of call costs to 084/7 and make no mention at all as far as I can see of the way call costs are displayed by Talk Talk and others, which are just as complex and obscure but very different.    One strongly suspects that the small minority who told Ofcom they are confident that they know the cost of calls to 084/7 are actually seriously deluded schizophrenics who have no idea what they are talking about.    Of course Ofcom base their analysis and understanding of consumers and the market on this sort of information.

I am afraid that this does not encourage me to be optimistic about the outcome of the current consultation and the way in which the phone services industry will implement a new regime and interpret the new regulations whatever they are.

loddon wrote on May 16^th, 2013 at 4:45pm:

The fine was for exceeding the allowance of silent calls permitted by Ofcom. It was for a breach that occurred two years ago. TalkTalk need only 'learn' to make no more calls than are allowed in order to avoid a fine. It does not have to make no silent calls.

---

loddon wrote on May 16^th, 2013 at 4:59pm:

The Unbundled Tariff will mean that the different rates are quoted by the Service Providers. Each call provider will have one Access Charge which will be far simpler to convey and understand.

Of course each sub-prefix may have a different Service Charge associated with it, but this will be common to all originating providers.

Has anyone else noticed that Ofcom have estimated the Access Charge to be 16ppm???

It is referred to by the THA (Telephone Helplines Association) where Ofcom quote the THA who were in turn quoting Ofcom's previous consultation in para A19.58 :---

"A19.58 THA also said it was not convinced that the unbundled tariff would necessarily lead to improved transparency for callers, because not all callers would be aware of their AC at the point of call. In particular it argued that if the AC was not lower than Ofcom’s estimate of 16ppm, the advertising requirements on the SC could be misleading, as they would detract from the real cost of the call."

This implies that a typical call to a 0845 number will be 26ppm plus the call set-up fee.    I say this because Ofcom were on BBC Breakfast TV this morning and Markham Sivak of Ofcom gave an example where he said in future under Ofcom's proposed regime a caller would see that a call to a 0845 number would be, say, 10ppm plus your network charge.  I guess he meant "access charge plus set-up fee" when he used the new term "Network Charge".

It doesn't seem that Ofcom expect the new regime to result in an improvement in call costs for consumers as a result of all this consultation.   

Thanks sherbert for providing this link.   

There is one glaring mistake in the BBC report :---

"Under Ofcom's proposals, the charges will be split into two sections so consumers know what they are paying and where the money is going.

Callers will be told: "This call will cost x pence per minute, plus your standard access charge."

The access charge is a fixed fee that will go to the telephone company. The service charge, quoted in pence per minute, goes to the company being called."

Ofcom have made it clear that the access charge will ONLY be  a ppm charge and NOT a fixed fee., as the BBC have wrongly reported.

This is another example of Ofcom's erroneous (rip-off) thinking because there is no justification for the AC being ppm.   The service being provided by the originating phone company (OCP) is to put the call through; once that is done there is nothing more for the OCP to do so why should they continue to rake in a charge on every minute of the call??   This is what most people will call a RIP-OFF !!   Just one aspect of how Ofcom are proposing the system to work.   Unfortunately this exposes yet again that Ofcom are not trying to regulate the market they are blatantly assisting the phone service industry in continuing their RIP-OFFs.   

Again we have to conclude that Ofcom is either incompetent or deliberately malicious in failing to protect the public, consumers, from harm.   This whole review and consultation process can be seen to be yet another scam perpetrated by the regulator.   This is not a partial or biased view because if you look at the comments on this BBC report you see they are coming in thick and fast and almost every one is deeply critical of Ofcom and its proposals, for example ;---

" 133.itsdavehere
26 Minutes ago
Ofcom should be looking companies that have these automated queues/options menus etc... as these are a real money spinner for the phone companies and the companies that use them.
They are open to abuse as an easy way to rip off the consumer.

The law should be changed stating that, if a company uses these automated services, then the call MUST be free! Why should I have to pay to wait in a queue?

132.spam spam spam spam
27 Minutes ago
Some people are "put off" making important calls because of confusion over the amount they will be charged,

CORRECTION - Some people are "put off" making important calls because they know so many "customer service lines" are blatant extortionate rip offs, designed to maximise profit & even if you were the 1st to phone 1st thing in morning "sorry we are experiencing high call volumes",

131 16.rememberdurruti
4 Hours ago
"The service charge, quoted in pence per minute, goes to the company that you are calling"

Make this illegal, pass a law and fine companies that charge you. Why should you have to pay these companies when you ring them to complain about their lousy service."

When I started writing this post there were 127 comments and it has now grown to 157 and they are all deeply critical and unhappy with Ofcom.   I have only found one comment that is slightly in favour.   So if Ofcom does not think again and change these proposals radically it looks like the disaster I fear and have predicted is likely to happen.

85.RDG
3 Hours ago
Ofcom should have addressed this issue several years ago, but it chose to ignore it.
Why do we have to put up with Government Regulators that are not fit for purpose?

84.cathinscotland
3 Hours ago
I recently got stung by an 0844 number and sworn never to call another one! Making it simpler will help business and the rest of us. Doing a voice over that tells us, what the cost will be in we continue the call is a great idea. I for one, will hang up, at the point!

83.Colin2108
3 Hours ago
Ofcom, like all regulators, is a smokescreen shielding the companies. It does not protect or serve the customers. It should be illegal for any call recipient to make money just for receiving the call. That is simple but it will not happen, Ofcom and the government will see to that. But worst of all are doctors' surgeries using 0844 numbers to take money from ill patients.

82.Michael Lloyd
4 Hours ago
Why on earth should any calls (inside a gien country) cost any more than any others, dependent upon number? Why can we not have a simple, straightforward cost per second for the use of line and equipment? Similarly, why can we not have a simple cost per mile for train fares? And a cost per unit for gas/electricity? All these "tariffs" exist to screw us, as ever. I'm sure "simplification" will, too

113.WatchdogSucks
3 Hours ago
For the consumer there is zero advantage in these '08' numbers. Many people today only have a mobile number and as such have to pay way above the odds to make a call which more often than not is actually a helpline anyway. For Ofcom to sit by and have silently condoned this situation to prosper is a scandal itself. Minor lip-service from them now does nothing to redress their inaction.