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
> 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?
Nomen Nescio wrote:
> 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:
>>
>>> 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?
>
> 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.
> 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
Sounds like the inappropriate use of a personal number that's the real
issue, rather than the announcement.
"Andy Burns" <usenet.july2007@adslpipe.co.uk> wrote in message
news:13mhsab99o2hl40@corp.supernews.com...
> On 19/12/2007 10:04, possum wrote:
>
>> 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
>
> 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.
"Martin Jay" <martin@spam-free.org.uk> wrote in message
news:s4qdm353higri3jdhrpoujgo6jnvcnm418@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.
> 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.
"Rev Adrian Kennard" <a@k.gg> wrote in message
news:4767c860$0$510$5a6aecb4@news.aaisp.net.uk...
[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.
[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 fuckwits when in comes to technical issues
4. Ofcom are clueless fuckwits in most areas of telecoms e.g. the 03, 0870,
0871 shambles
5. Ofcom are . . . I think you might get the idea.
"David99" <david@drysdale.net> wrote in message
news:ac896f48-157b-426e-ac9c-feec6c32f7b6@q3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
[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?
> I am not quite sure what you mean. Having a look at
> http://www.ofcom.org.uk/telecoms/ioi.../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?
Andy Burns wrote:
> 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.
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)
"Marc Cornelius" <marc.p.cornelius@googelmail.com> wrote in message
news:Q7OdnS8HApTAJ_TaRVnyjQA@bt.com...
>
> "Rev Adrian Kennard" <a@k.gg> wrote in message
> news:4767c860$0$510$5a6aecb4@news.aaisp.net.uk...
>
>
> [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.
>
> [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 fuckwits when in comes to technical issues
You make it sound like Ofcom have been anything other than spineless,
clueless fuckwits with no balls ;o)
> 4. Ofcom are clueless fuckwits 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)
"Andy Burns" <usenet.july2007@adslpipe.co.uk> wrote in message
news:13mj4kkrniakgce@corp.supernews.com...
> 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.
I couldn't agree more but I doubt OFCOM will do much about it.
Re: 070 Pre-Call Announcement - Going, Going, Gone! 
Linear Mode
