Beware phone number scammers;!...

[Fevric J. Glandules]

You've lost me. How was it "scuppered"? For many people the change involved the addition of one extra digit.

FTAOD: I was referring to the utter utter crapfest that is the 07xxx region.

[Roland Perry]

In message , at 23:43:06 on Wed, 19 Mar

2014, Fevric J. Glandules remarked:

The earlier scheme that would have had fewer successive changes relied on everyone having to dial the full number (including STD code) every time, even for local calls.

As it was a multistage shuffle was required. For example Bodmin used to be 0208 and was to end up 01208, but that required quarantining the former Cricklewood (London) range 01 208 for a period, and so on.

Part of the long term plan was to have "07" for mobiles. However, when people invented personal [redirectable] numbers the easiest way for them to be implemented *for the service providers* was to buy some of the spare capacity and processing power from the exchanges originally installed for mobile phones. Later, things became more complex when those mobile exchange operators started offering revenue share to the service providers, based originally on the inherent higher price of mobile calls, which weren't in fact using the cellsite infrastructure, leaving some margin. Since then it's snowballed.

The only thing Oftel could have done is decree (and I'm not sure they had the power) that 07 numbers could only be used for genuine mobile phone calls. The numbering plan just allocates ranges of 07 numbers[1] to the operators, and the extent of deregulation allows those operators to do almost whatever the want from then on.

[1] Mobile numbers changed as well as fixed lines, my 07973 ex-Orange number prefix started off life as 0973, for example.

[tony sayer]

In article , Roland Perry scribeth thus

Well lets hope they pull their finger out and get something done as another one of these turned up here yesterday!. Supposedly about a parcel that someone tried to deliver with an 070 number which I've declined to phone .. sent from a [e-mail] :(...

**********************************************************

Hi

RPS Shipment Notification

 On the 14th of March  2014  a shipment label was printed for delivery.  The shipment number of this package is 71654699.  we tried to deliver to you but were unable to do so .  We apologise for any inconvenience caused.  please  telephone to arrange re-delivery,quoting this package number; 71654699  OPENING HOURS; 08:30 -18:30  MONDAY TO SATURDAY

TEL: [phone]

Jessica William

***************************************************************

[Fevric J. Glandules]

I see.

I don't really get why we have to have such long phone numbers. Spain - (47 M people vs our 63 M people) manages with 9 digits. If the first digit is a 9, landline; if 6, mobile. Others, I do not know.

Although you need to dial all of them for local calls, they are (or appear to be) geographical so numbers are easy to remember. In a small town the first four or five digits will always be the same.

So who do we blame for the fact that it is so difficult to ascertain in advance whether calling an 07 number will be merely expensive, or toe-curlingly so?

[Roland Perry]

In message , at 11:38:57 on Thu, 20 Mar

2014, tony sayer remarked:

Sorry, but I can't get excited about that sort of scam, there are much worse ones around (and too many of that sort to start paying whack-a-mole); and you are clearly capable of recognising it for what it is.

[Roland Perry]

In message , at 11:59:18 on Thu, 20 Mar

2014, Fevric J. Glandules remarked:

There's more need for numbers than just "people". DDI extensions in offices, as well as those people having a phone at home.

8 landline digits for 47M people plus their offices seems to be cutting it a bit fine.

Our own numbering plan is the result of numerous decisions which were much consulted/debated at the time. If people were less precious about their numbers (071 vs 081 borders being a typical example) then perhaps we could all have been on 01xx xxx xxxx numbers by now [eg the Nottingham pattern of 0115 981 xxxx, in the adjacent town were I lived]. But that would mean the identity of local communities being eroded.

That's what the pubic were asked about, and turned it down.

See my 115 98 above.

I'm afraid that's the EU. No, seriously... They decided that telecoms should be deregulated, so there's very little the authorities can do to police the amounts that service providers charge.

Think of it like a burger bar: the council can make sure it's zoned for takeaway retail, pays its business rates, and has a reasonable score for public health. What it can't do is regulate the price they charge for cheeseburgers.

[Fevric J. Glandules]

NS,S.

Turns out that 8xx is also available for landlines.

Yes, but what you *do* get is a clearly displayed list of prices; and what you *don't* get is the burger bar owner saying (after you've consumer your burger) "ah, sorry, you see the bacon double cheeseburger is 3.95, but you ordered a double bacon cheeseburger, and that's 12.95!"

[Roland Perry]

In message , at 14:11:03 on Thu, 20 Mar

2014, Fevric J. Glandules remarked:

I have a clear price list from my Telco, unfortunate that it's got quite so many different rates in it though.

And service providers are required to state how much most of the 'expensive' calls will cost.

[Tim Streater]

Yes, the current nonsense of having 6, 7, and 8-digit local numbers (are there any 5's left?) is a farce.

[Roland Perry]

In message , at 14:54:58 on Thu, 20 Mar 2014, Tim Streater remarked:

It may be, but it's a farce the public demanded!

[Paul Herber]

01420 - Alton, Hampshire includes format 01420 xxxxx

[Mike Barnes]

Yes (e.g. 01298).

[tony sayer]

In article , Roland Perry scribeth thus

No, I don't suppose it's exciting .. but someone's conning someone else when they shouldn't be and the perps are the ones who supply the services and let 'em do it whilst Ofcom just stand around twiddling their thumbs...

[Tim Streater]

Have we already established that Ofcom has no say in the matter? More a poliss job I'duv thought - conspiracy to defraud.

[Roland Perry]

In message , at 20:05:39 on Thu, 20 Mar

2014, tony sayer remarked:

It's nothing to do with OFCOM!

[Duncan Wood]

Which is convenient for Ofcom, but not for consumers who've never heard of any alternative.

[Roland Perry]

In message , at 12:47:02 on Fri, 21 Mar 2014, Duncan Wood remarked:

It's not "convenient" for OFCOM, it's Ultra Vires. As for hearing about correct regulator, that's one of the reasons I always try to mention those other regulators whenever someone mistakenly cites OFCOM in a situation like this.

I'd do the same if someone suggested complaining to the ORR that their train was late. Passenger Focus is the place to appeal a claim that's been rejected by the train company.

[August West]

And that's another "helpfully" named organisation.

And their "About" webpage says "We are the independent Passenger Watchdog" (random capitals their). I really don't think that it's the pasengers who need a watchdog.

[Fevric J. Glandules]

If I want to know in advance what a particular 07x will cost me, I have to look it up in a 174 page PDF. It's a crapfest.

[Roland Perry]

In message , at 13:25:08 on Fri, 21 Mar 2014, August West remarked:

Passengers have a dog that watches the industry. What other interpretation did you have in mind?