Cell Phones in Great Britain - 070 Pre-Call Announcement

Author

070 Pre-Call Announcement - Going, Going, Gone!

Obsidian Order

2007-12-17, 3:33 pm

Just got this from Flextel:

"070 Pre-Call Announcement - Going, Going, Gone!

FleXtel have always been opposed to mandatory pre-call announcements
and
indeed advised Ofcom that they were a stupid idea and in breach of
international regulations.

Unsurprisingly, as soon as Ofcom imposed pre-call announcements,
health and
safety issues started to appear. FleXtel have been lobbying Ofcom to
remove
these dangerous, misleading and annoying announcements, that don't
even
comply with international standards and have left the UK networks out
on a
limb!

We are now delighted to tell you that our efforts, on your behalf,
have
been rewarded. Ofcom have withdrawn the requirement for pre-call
announcements on 070 numbers. Ofcom have also issued a notice to all
communication providers instructing them to remove the pre-call
announcements."

We can confirm that they have now been removed from the BT network and
we
look forward to their total removal from all other networks, as soon
as
possible.

Martin Jay

2007-12-17, 3:33 pm

On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 12:59:02 -0800 (PST), Obsidian Order
<obsidian.order@tesco.net> wrote:

>Just got this from Flextel:
>
>"070 Pre-Call Announcement - Going, Going, Gone!
>
>FleXtel have always been opposed to mandatory pre-call announcements
>and
>indeed advised Ofcom that they were a stupid idea and in breach of
>international regulations.
>
>Unsurprisingly, as soon as Ofcom imposed pre-call announcements,
>health and
>safety issues started to appear. FleXtel have been lobbying Ofcom to
>remove
>these dangerous, misleading and annoying announcements, that don't
>even
>comply with international standards and have left the UK networks out
>on a
>limb!

Anyone care to comment on which international standards the pre-call
announcement flout, and what health and safety concerns have been
highlighted?

And in what way were the announcements misleading?

The 07x service seems to be faulty, anyway. Whenever anyone phones me
using these numbers the call is terminated after half a ring.

I've had problems receiving calls from 07061 795625 and 07053 594997
during the past month. Hmmm, I wonder why that is. :) :) :)

Oh well, good news for the average customer, I guess???
--
Martin Jay

Nomen Nescio

2007-12-18, 7:33 am

Martin Jay <martin@spam-free.org.uk> wrote:

> On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 12:59:02 -0800 (PST), Obsidian Order
> <obsidian.order@tesco.net> wrote:
>
>
> Anyone care to comment on which international standards the pre-call
> announcement flout, and what health and safety concerns have been
> highlighted?

ISO 9999999

Rev Adrian Kennard

2007-12-18, 7:33 am

Nomen Nescio wrote:
> Martin Jay <martin@spam-free.org.uk> wrote:
>
>
> ISO 9999999

Serious, I too am interested to know how they are breaching standards,
have health and safety issues or are misleading. Not a vote in favour of
070 numbers I might add, or indeed any pre-call announcement (which is
only put on but the calling telco so not seen on calls from overseas),
but I don't understand what the issues are...

--
Adrian Kennard, on his Mac...
Andrews & Arnold Ltd. Communications specialists. www.aaisp.net.uk
New UK Wide 03 phone numbers available now.

David99

2007-12-18, 10:33 pm

On 18 Dec, 13:17, Rev Adrian Kennard <a...@k.gg> wrote:
> Nomen Nescio wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
Some service providers are misuing 070 "personal" numbers and using
them as revenue generating numbers to pay for a personal alarm
service. Press the button on the alarm and you get through to an
alarm monitoring call centre (that's not what personal numbers are
about).

The personal alarms can't cope with the call announcement, time out
and retry the call. Again and again while poor Mrs Smith is lying at
the bottom of the stairs waiting for help.

[color=darkred]
> Serious, I too am interested to know how they are breaching standards,
> have health and safety issues or are misleading. Not a vote in favour of
> 070 numbers I might add, or indeed any pre-call announcement (which is
> only put on but the calling telco so not seen on calls from overseas),
> but I don't understand what the issues are...
>
> --
> Adrian Kennard, on his Mac...
> Andrews & Arnold Ltd. Communications specialists. www.aaisp.net.uk
> New UK Wide 03 phone numbers available now.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Martin²

2007-12-18, 10:33 pm

It's simple. Never, ever call an 070 number, tell everyone to do the same.
It would KILL them in no time...,
if only everyone would that....
Regards,
Martin

possum

2007-12-19, 4:33 am

On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 21:30:57 +0000, Martin Jay said:

>Anyone care to comment on which international standards the pre-call
>announcement flout, and what health and safety concerns have been
>highlighted?

How about this?:
http://tinyurl.com/2w8aj6

Andy Burns

2007-12-19, 4:33 am

On 19/12/2007 10:04, possum wrote:

> On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 21:30:57 +0000, Martin Jay said:
>
>
> How about this?:
> http://tinyurl.com/2w8aj6

Sounds like the inappropriate use of a personal number that's the real
issue, rather than the announcement.

John

2007-12-19, 10:33 am

"Andy Burns" <usenet.july2007@adslpipe.co.uk> wrote in message
news:13mhsab99o2hl40
@corp.supernews.com...
> On 19/12/2007 10:04, possum wrote:
>
>
> Sounds like the inappropriate use of a personal number that's the real
> issue, rather than the announcement.

Of course, that's correct, but Ofcom being the toothless wonders that they
are, won't do anything about that.

John

Ivor Jones

2007-12-19, 12:33 pm

"Martin Jay" <martin@spam-free.org.uk> wrote in message
news:s4qdm353higri3j
dhrpoujgo6jnvcnm418@
4ax.com

[snip]

: : I've had problems receiving calls from 07061 795625 and
: : 07053 594997 during the past month. Hmmm, I wonder why
: : that is. :) :) :)
: :
: : Oh well, good news for the average customer, I guess???

Good news that you *won't* be warned of a high call charge..?

This must be some strange new definition of "good news" that I was
previously unaware of.

Ivor

NicHughes

2007-12-19, 3:33 pm

On 19 Dec, 18:24, "Ivor Jones" <i...@thisaddressis.invalid> wrote:

>
> Good news that you *won't* be warned of a high call charge..?
>

I am really not sure that mis-information was any sort of general
improvement. The original proposal was to inform the caller of the
actual cost of the call but somewhere along the way it got turned into
a blanket message that was the same regardless of the call cost and
hence wrong most of the time.

As OFCOM sort of admitted they had not really thought through the
implications of what they were doing. If a personal number was
registered with a safety alert system to deliver the message to the
current user location then it was at risk of going into an inescapable
loop and never delivering the message. Why it never occurred to OFCOM
that people might use personal numbers with automated systems is just
one of those little mysteries, once you issue telephone numbers its
safest to assume that people will use them anywhere that a telephone
number can be used.

I am not an expert on the relevant telecoms standards and regulations
but I believe that there are restrictions on the uses to which you can
put these inserted messages and its just possible that the people who
wrote up those restrictions had actually thought this through a bit.

What OFCOM should have done and probably should still do is look to
migrate personal numbering onto a number range (most likely 06n) that
is less easy to confuse with normal mobiles.

---
Nic

Andy Burns

2007-12-19, 10:33 pm

On 19/12/2007 21:16, NicHughes wrote:

> What OFCOM should have done and probably should still do is look to
> migrate personal numbering onto a number range (most likely 06n) that
> is less easy to confuse with normal mobiles.

But it's their fault that personal numbers share 07 with mobiles in the
first place, all mobiles were going to be allocated/migrated into the 04
range, but they changed their mind.

NicHughes

2007-12-19, 10:33 pm

On 19 Dec, 10:24, Andy Burns <usenet.july2...@adslpipe.co.uk> wrote:

>
> Sounds like the inappropriate use of a personal number that's the real
> issue, rather than the announcement.

I am not quite sure what you mean. Having a look at
http://www.ofcom.org.uk/telecoms/io...s/num_070_guide I can see
nothing there that says people should not have been registering their
personal number with emergency systems to direct the generated call to
wherever they currently are. Can you?

--
Nic

Marc Cornelius

2007-12-19, 10:33 pm

"Rev Adrian Kennard" <a@k.gg> wrote in message
news:4767c860$0$510$
5a6aecb4@news.aaisp.net.uk...

& #91;snip]
> Serious, I too am interested to know how they are breaching standards,
> have health and safety issues or are misleading. Not a vote in favour of
[snip]

They're not breaching standards, and are not misleading. They only have
health and safety issues in that according to Flextel they might make
personal alarms time out.

& #91;snip]
> but I don't understand what the issues are...
[snip]

The issues are:
1. Flextel (or one individual in Flextel wants to retain his revenue
streams
2. Said individual has an inflated sense of their own importance and
knowledge.
3. Having got rid of their knowledgeable staff Ofcom are now largely
clueless XXXXwits when in comes to technical issues
4. Ofcom are clueless XXXXwits in most areas of telecoms e.g. the 03, 0870,
0871 shambles
5. Ofcom are . . . I think you might get the idea.

--
Marc

Marc Cornelius

2007-12-19, 10:33 pm

"David99" <david@drysdale.net> wrote in message
news:ac896f48-157b-426e-ac9c- feec6c32f7b6@q3g2000
hsg.googlegroups.com...
& #91;snip]
> Some service providers are misuing 070 "personal" numbers and using
> them as revenue generating numbers to pay for a personal alarm

Possibly Flextel?

> service. Press the button on the alarm and you get through to an
> alarm monitoring call centre (that's not what personal numbers are
> about).
>
> The personal alarms can't cope with the call announcement, time out
> and retry the call. Again and again while poor Mrs Smith is lying at
> the bottom of the stairs waiting for help.
[snip]

Because they're not standards complaint and time out too quickly?

--
Marc Cornelius

Andy Burns

2007-12-19, 10:33 pm

On 19/12/2007 23:22, NicHughes wrote:

> I am not quite sure what you mean. Having a look at
> http://www.ofcom.org.uk/telecoms/io...s/num_070_guide I can see
> nothing there that says people should not have been registering their
> personal number with emergency systems to direct the generated call to
> wherever they currently are. Can you?

I though the original article (I just went to verify but the Which? site
was timing out) was referring to emergency systems that were supplied
complete *with* a personal number, presumably to subsidise the service?

NicHughes

2007-12-20, 4:33 am

On 20 Dec, 01:00, Andy Burns <usenet.july2...@adslpipe.co.uk> wrote:
> On 19/12/2007 23:22, NicHughes wrote:
>
>
> I though the original article (I just went to verify but the Which? site
> was timing out) was referring to emergency systems that were supplied
> complete *with* a personal number, presumably to subsidise the service?

So perhaps the article did not cover all the real-world scenarios in
which the change was a problem which might not be a surprise as it was
clearly based on the Ofcom press release. Do you think that maybe
Ofcom did not want to go out of their way to highlight why they had
made a basic fundamental error and so were just a teeny bit vague
about the situations that had arisen as a result of them not thinking
it through?

There are emergency alarm systems out there which allow a telephone
number to be registered by the user onto which any subsequent messages
will be routed. There was no reason not to register a personal number
and decent enough reason to do so - for exactly the same reason that
you might have a personal number in the first place, to put the call
to where you happen to be at any particular time. As per the link
above there was no reason for anyone to think that this was anything
other than an appropriate and legitimate use of personal numbering. If
you use personal numbering to direct incoming calls to the best
destination then you definitely want the most urgent of those calls -
emergency or safety related calls - to be included.

Nic

PeeGee

2007-12-20, 7:33 am

Andy Burns wrote:
> On 19/12/2007 21:16, NicHughes wrote:
>
>
> But it's their fault that personal numbers share 07 with mobiles in the
> first place, all mobiles were going to be allocated/migrated into the 04
> range, but they changed their mind.

I would have thought that most mobile numbers are "personal", in that
they are normally only used by one person - even most of the business
mobiles. That said, it would be a good idea to separate the two (or
more?) types of "personal" number.

PeeGee
--
The reply address is a spam trap. All mail is reported as spam.
"Nothing should be able to load itself onto a computer without the
knowledge or consent of the computer user. Software should also be able
to be removed from a computer easily."
Peter Cullen, Microsoft Chief Privacy Strategist (Computing 18 Aug 05)

Gizmo.

2007-12-20, 10:33 am

"Marc Cornelius" <marc.p. cornelius@googelmail
.com> wrote in message
news:Q7OdnS8HApTAJ_T
aRVnyjQA@bt.com...
>
> "Rev Adrian Kennard" <a@k.gg> wrote in message
> news:4767c860$0$510$
5a6aecb4@news.aaisp.net.uk...
>
>
> [snip]
> [snip]
>
> They're not breaching standards, and are not misleading. They only have
> health and safety issues in that according to Flextel they might make
> personal alarms time out.
>
> [snip]
> [snip]
>
> The issues are:
> 1. Flextel (or one individual in Flextel wants to retain his revenue
> streams
> 2. Said individual has an inflated sense of their own importance and
> knowledge.
> 3. Having got rid of their knowledgeable staff Ofcom are now largely
> clueless XXXXwits when in comes to technical issues

You make it sound like Ofcom have been anything other than spineless,
clueless XXXXwits with no balls ;o)

> 4. Ofcom are clueless XXXXwits in most areas of telecoms e.g. the 03,
> 0870,
> 0871 shambles

<nods>

> 5. Ofcom are . . . I think you might get the idea.

I got the idea just after they rose from ashes of Oftel - same shit,
different name ;o)

Marc Cornelius

2007-12-21, 10:33 am

"Gizmo." <Toomy@pondlife.now> wrote in message
news:Vnwaj.222356$315.33769@newsfet10.ams...

& #91;snip]
> I got the idea just after they rose from ashes of Oftel - same shit,
> different name ;o)
[snip]

Oftel at least used to have knowledgeable technical people, one of whom used
to post in uk.t on a regular basis.

--
Marc Cornelius

Obsidian Order

2007-12-21, 3:33 pm

"Andy Burns" <usenet.july2007@adslpipe.co.uk> wrote in message
news:13mj4kkrniakgce
@corp.supernews.com...
> On 19/12/2007 21:16, NicHughes wrote:
>
>
> But it's their fault that personal numbers share 07 with mobiles in the
> first place, all mobiles were going to be allocated/migrated into the 04
> range, but they changed their mind.

I couldn't agree more but I doubt OFCOM will do much about it.

LinkBot