Paul Cupis

BBC are running a news story on the Ofcom "clampdown" on 0870 numbers
every hour or so on News 24 today.

Also on their website:
<http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediaselector/check/player/nol/newsid_6370000/newsid_6370800?redirect=6370815.stm&news=1&bbwm=1& nbram=1&nbwm=1&bbram=1>

Steve Terry

"Paul Cupis" <paul@cupis.co.uk> wrote in message news:45d73df2.0@entanet...
> BBC are running a news story on the Ofcom "clampdown" on 0870 numbers
> every hour or so on News 24 today.
>
Ofcom couldn't clamp down on hemroid cream
It's all talk, which is all Ofcom are good for.

Steve Terry

Paul Cupis

Steve Terry wrote:
> "Paul Cupis" <paul@cupis.co.uk> wrote in message news:45d73df2.0@entanet...
>> BBC are running a news story on the Ofcom "clampdown" on 0870 numbers
>> every hour or so on News 24 today.
>
> Ofcom couldn't clamp down on hemroid cream
> It's all talk, which is all Ofcom are good for.

You've not read http://www.ofcom.org.uk/media/news/2006/04/nr_20060419
or the linked documents, then?

Steve Terry

"Paul Cupis" <paul@cupis.co.uk> wrote in message news:45d75b10.0@entanet...
> Steve Terry wrote:
>> "Paul Cupis" <paul@cupis.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:45d73df2.0@entanet...
>>> BBC are running a news story on the Ofcom "clampdown" on 0870 numbers
>>> every hour or so on News 24 today.
>>
>> Ofcom couldn't clamp down on hemroid cream
>> It's all talk, which is all Ofcom are good for.
>
> You've not read http://www.ofcom.org.uk/media/news/2006/04/nr_20060419 or
> the linked documents, then?
>
More toilet paper from Ofcom

Steve Terry

Jim Alexander

"Steve Terry" <g4wwk@tesco.net> wrote in message
news:ybIBh.19821$3a3.1553@newsfe6-win.ntli.net...
>
> "Paul Cupis" <paul@cupis.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:45d73df2.0@entanet...
>> BBC are running a news story on the Ofcom "clampdown" on 0870 numbers
>> every hour or so on News 24 today.
>>
> Ofcom couldn't clamp down on hemroid cream
> It's all talk, which is all Ofcom are good for.
>
normally would agree with you but I think this time its actually a positive
proposal (03) numbers which has triggered the BBC coverage.

Jim A

Ivor Jones

"Jim Alexander" <nospam@nospam.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ZGIBh.327919$Kh7.105048@fe2.news.blueyonder.c o.uk
> "Steve Terry" <g4wwk@tesco.net> wrote in message
> news:ybIBh.19821$3a3.1553@newsfe6-win.ntli.net...
> >
> > "Paul Cupis" <paul@cupis.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:45d73df2.0@entanet...
> > > BBC are running a news story on the Ofcom "clampdown"
> > > on 0870 numbers every hour or so on News 24 today.
> > >
> > Ofcom couldn't clamp down on hemroid cream
> > It's all talk, which is all Ofcom are good for.
> >
> normally would agree with you but I think this time its
> actually a positive proposal (03) numbers which has
> triggered the BBC coverage.

Why 03 numbers..? What's wrong with using normal geographic 01/02 numbers
which everybody understands..?

03 is just another excuse to rip people off in a different way. There is
*no need* to ever use anything else except normal numbers, with the
exception of freephone numbers.

Ivor

Bob Eager

On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 19:53:33 UTC, "Ivor Jones" <ivor@despammed.invalid>
wrote:

> Why 03 numbers..? What's wrong with using normal geographic 01/02 numbers
> which everybody understands..?

Because they'll be non-geographic numbers. It's logical for them to be
different, and in fact better. If a geographic number were used, it
might mislead people as to the true location of the destination, which
might change at different times of the day.

> 03 is just another excuse to rip people off in a different way.

Why is it a rip-off, when it's charged at the same rate as geographic?

> There is
> *no need* to ever use anything else except normal numbers, with the
> exception of freephone numbers.

I disagree. See abive. If you have a non-geographic number, you have it
because you often want routing to different destinations (time or
traffic based). To use a geographic number could be positively
misleading.

--
Bob Eager
begin 123 a new life...take up Extreme Ironing!

Anti Spam Bloke

"Ivor Jones" <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote in message
news:53p4qaF1tm9bcU1@mid.individual.net...
> "Jim Alexander" <nospam@nospam.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:ZGIBh.327919$Kh7.105048@fe2.news.blueyonder.c o.uk
>> "Steve Terry" <g4wwk@tesco.net> wrote in message
>> news:ybIBh.19821$3a3.1553@newsfe6-win.ntli.net...
>> >
>> > "Paul Cupis" <paul@cupis.co.uk> wrote in message
>> > news:45d73df2.0@entanet...
>> > > BBC are running a news story on the Ofcom "clampdown"
>> > > on 0870 numbers every hour or so on News 24 today.
>> > >
>> > Ofcom couldn't clamp down on hemroid cream
>> > It's all talk, which is all Ofcom are good for.
>> >
>> normally would agree with you but I think this time its
>> actually a positive proposal (03) numbers which has
>> triggered the BBC coverage.
>
> Why 03 numbers..? What's wrong with using normal geographic 01/02 numbers
> which everybody understands..?
>
> 03 is just another excuse to rip people off in a different way. There is
> *no need* to ever use anything else except normal numbers, with the
> exception of freephone numbers.
>
> Ivor
>
>

Ivor

Ofcom are going to FORCE 03 numbers to be charged at geographic rates from
wherever the originating UK point is (mobile or landline), by changing terms
in the General Conditions.

Ivor Jones

"Bob Eager" <rde42@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:176uZD2KcidF-pn2-KHbJExjj28zq@rikki.tavi.co.uk
> On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 19:53:33 UTC, "Ivor Jones"
> <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote:
>
> > Why 03 numbers..? What's wrong with using normal
> > geographic 01/02 numbers which everybody understands..?
>
> Because they'll be non-geographic numbers. It's logical
> for them to be different, and in fact better. If a
> geographic number were used, it might mislead people as
> to the true location of the destination, which might
> change at different times of the day.

It misleads people by *not* telling them of the true location of the
destination.

> > 03 is just another excuse to rip people off in a
> > different way.
>
> Why is it a rip-off, when it's charged at the same rate
> as geographic?

If it *is* charged at that rate.

> > There is
> > *no need* to ever use anything else except normal
> > numbers, with the exception of freephone numbers.
>
> I disagree. See abive. If you have a non-geographic
> number, you have it because you often want routing to
> different destinations (time or traffic based).

More likely because you get a revenue cut. A good job *that* one is being
removed, although why it's going to take a year is beyond me. There's a
lot of money to be made in a year.

> To use a geographic number could be positively misleading.

Why..?

Ivor

Ivor Jones

"Anti Spam Bloke" <dnsblfeeder@emailssl.com> wrote in
message news:er7obl$jac$1@posting.glorb.com

[snip]

> Ofcom are going to FORCE 03 numbers to be charged at
> geographic rates from wherever the originating UK point
> is (mobile or landline), by changing terms in the General
> Conditions.

I'll believe it when I see it.

Will these 03 numbers be included in mobile phone packages and so on I
wonder..? I'm not holding my breath.

Ivor