loddon wrote on May 18^th, 2013 at 10:29am:

Anyone who is genuinely interested to understand the point being made by THA needs to follow the references given in the documents as follows (I include links for anyone who does wish to follow the track):

para A19.58 of the (Annex to) Section B of the current Ofcom consultation has a footnote (⁵⁰) which refers to:

THA, April 2012 consultation response, pp.5 - 6, which (at the bottom of page 6) refers to:

estimates provided by Ofcom in Part B - Table 10.2, which shows the figure of 16.1 ppm as the estimated current revenue retention level value for mobile OCPs on calls to 084/087/09/118 numbers, using data from the 2010 Flow of Funds study.


If anybody would like to argue that this represents a current Ofcom projection for what any particular (or averaged) Access Charge will be in 2015, then I would be interested in giving serious attention to the point being made.


loddon wrote on May 18^th, 2013 at 10:29am:

The problem with the size of these consultation documents is that it is very easy to dip in and pull out some figure to use for any purpose that one wishes.

---

loddon wrote on May 18^th, 2013 at 10:29am:

Because Ofcom has determined that …
Quote:
(Bullet #3, section 5.3 of Part A)

… there will be no "set-up fee" on calls to Unbundled Tariff numbers.

I suspect that the term "Network Charge" was intended as a synonym for "Access Charge" (the formal term) which could be more readily understood by viewers of "Your Money". With text messages it is common to use the term "network rate" to refer to the equivalent of the Access Charge. It may be that "Network Charge" will appear more commonly in normal usage than "Access Charge". Alternatively we may be making too much of this. "Access Charge" is the formal term; "Your Money" is notable for its informality.

loddon wrote on May 18^th, 2013 at 12:51pm:
The SP would still charge the OCP a ppm for the length of the call and so this is why OCP charge a ppm rather than a one-off charge.

---

SilentCallsVictim wrote on May 18^th, 2013 at 2:23pm:
Both "set-up fees" and "minimum call charge" accomplish the same thing in my eyes.  They allow the OCP extra revenue for the connection of the call regardless of length.

---

If Ofcom have said there will be no "set-up fees" does this include "minimum call charge" as well?

---

Has Ofcom proposed a maximum "access charge" but are hoping that OCPs compete with each other and so undercut each other?

Perhaps it is worth repeating some general points made earlier.

The Ofcom plan is based on the assumption that if Service Providers have to declare Service Charges and OCPs declare Access Charges, then only those which can be justified for callers will remain, and this will be at a level that is (in some general sense) acceptable.

I fully recognise the argument that consumer power cannot be guaranteed to work, but I do not accept that it is so weak that Ofcom has to make decisions about what is acceptable on behalf of consumers. As I have said previously, I would not trust Ofcom to get the decisions right anyway! (I suspect that Ofcom shares my view.) I am not warmed by the idea of Citizens Advice Bureaux perhaps being able to say that their Service Charge (be it on 0844 or 0944 numbers) was approved by Ofcom. I would rather engage in argument over this with them, believing that it was none of Ofcom's business to decide such matters. (Citizens Advice is strongly opposed to the "unbundled tariff".)

The Ofcom plan covers all cases where Service Charges are imposed, including Premium Rate Services and Directory Enquiry services. Most comments are focussed only on those cases where a Service Charge is obviously unacceptable or will be prohibited by the provisions of the Consumer Rights Directive. Strongly expressed feelings of this sort are actually supportive of the Ofcom approach, because they indicate that unwarranted Service Charges will not be accepted.

By treating 084 numbers in exactly the same way as the PRS ranges, the unbundled tariff finally (and belatedly) exposes them for what they are, thereby clearing placing the responsibility for that element of the call cost on the Service Provider. It also brings far greater clarity to the commonly misleading call cost information required with PRS, thereby leaving them (notably the improper use of 087x numbers) more open to direct challenge.

bbb_uk wrote on May 18^th, 2013 at 8:04pm:

Regardless of the extent of the work done by Ofcom and the enforcement agencies (e.g. ASA, OFT, Trading Standards), there will continue to be a role for consumer pressure groups and campaigners to ensure that any improprieties are recognised and understood.

The clarity provided by the unbundled tariff will make this much easier than it is under the present regime, because the respective responsibilities for the components of the charge will be identified beyond dispute.

bbb_uk wrote on May 18^th, 2013 at 8:04pm:

There may be some confusion about the term "tariff".

There will be only one Access Charge for each consumer tariff, covering calls to all 084, 087, 09 and 118 numbers, even though each sub range will have a different level of Service Charge.

Each OCP will be able to offer different Access Charges for its different packages. Based on the way in which call charges are currently set, it is not unreasonable to expect that the only difference will be in respect of inclusion (free of charge) rather than the actual rate charged.

---

We have no clear idea about how OCPs will set a single level of Access Charge to replace the present system, whereby they vary enormously, and BT is prohibited from applying an Access Charge. We do however know that Service Charge levels will remain essentially as they are at present (notwithstanding some tweaking).

The fair telecoms campaign is seeking to focus attention on those who levy a Service Charge inappropriately, using the clarity now offered by Ofcom, rather than criticising Ofcom for failing to perhaps attempt to distinguish between proper and improper cases. That is not say that we agree with everything Ofcom has done, but we see the improper imposition of Service Charges as being the main issue of popular concern.

bbb_uk wrote on May 19^th, 2013 at 7:44am:

The current failure to enforce the various relevant GC's is wholly unacceptable. By taking radical and substantial action, Ofcom is drawing much more attention to its future enforcement activity and it must not be permitted to get away with further weakness in this respect. That is critical to its success with a brave project that puts its reputation on the line.

Enforcement of the requirements newly imposed on those who will continue to use 084 / 087 numbers, was not seen to be realistic under the self-regulatory regime which applies to PRS (i.e. PhonePay Plus). There is a strong argument for reversing the mistake of adding the 087 range, but this would be seen as sending an unsuitable message.

It is perfectly correct to apply the same cost declaration requirements to 084 / 087 / 09 and 118 numbers, however the strongly seen difference in usage demands that suitably refined and distinct further regulatory measures be applied. I believe that such measures are rightly beyond the scope of Ofcom's responsibilities, including those devolved to Phonepay Plus.

bbb_uk wrote on May 19^th, 2013 at 5:33pm:

The nature of Ofcom's role is to regulate the behaviour of providers in a supposedly competitive market by measures that are reasonable in the eyes of the law. It can only deliver benefits to consumers in that market through the way in which those providers behave. It is thereby inevitable that it will appear to be far more concerned about the industry than consumers, because that is where its attention has to be focussed.

IMHO, Ofcom is too concerned about the risk of being found to be unreasonable in its actions and is therefore far too weak in its enforcement activity. It also has a policy of only taking action in big headline-grabbing cases which means that it will not commit resources to relatively minor, but nonetheless significant, cases. It claims that lesser matters are dealt with by private informal action, which it cannot detail, because this has to remain confidential.

For the record, I can state that I am deeply unhappy with this approach, however I cannot see any prospect of it changing significantly whilst Ofcom's role as a regulator remains as it is. Ofcom's use of the persistent misuse powers (in relation to Nuisance Calls) has nothing to do with its role as regulator, although Ofcom behaves as though it does. That is why I am seen to be strongly opposed to Ofcom on a fundamental point of principle in that respect.


The present level of public confusion is enormous and is not helped by the BBC reporting on measures being taken, and then concluding that this will do nothing to help. Hear the comment at the end of the error-filled piece in the middle of this programme. (If anyone knows how to set start points for BBC embedded player items, then please advise by PM).

SilentCallsVictim wrote on May 20^th, 2013 at 7:12am:
Quote:
Couldn't agree anymore.

loddon wrote on May 20^th, 2013 at 10:59pm:

I think most of us agree that the measures being brought forward now are long overdue.

I am personally furious that the Select Committees have not been stronger in holding Ofcom to account.

We will see whether DCMS proposes any significant changes when the Communications White Paper is published, but the Bill will not be following in this session. There will therefore be plenty of opportunity for those who advocate a re-structuring of Ofcom to present their proposals.

Perhaps we need another thread to discuss these issues.

I also sense a call for the re-nationalisation of the industry, so that the state may be fully accountable for its effects on consumers. Privatisation with "Of"s has not been seen to be a glittering success in general, and the oft-suggested "OfOf" solution, with the inevitable "OfOfOf" to follow etc. is surely not the answer. "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" (the motto of the former OfcomWatch blog) would be an excellent title for another thread.


As stated above, I am unhappy at Ofcom's timidity in enforcing compliance and question the extent to which the market is competitive. These realities limit what may be achieved, along with many others, but I do not accept that they make the cause hopeless. I disagree with the quoted suggestion that consumers are not confused, however I believe that the BBC is being unhelpful in simply reporting and sustaining that confusion, rather than attempting to diminish it a little.

I can understand the position of those who have given up on Ofcom and wish to dismiss its measures because they come from Ofcom, or who believe that it has improper motives. I do not however share that view, and if I did, I would not waste my valuable time and energy by engaging in this discussion.