Telephone numbers are very useful to individuals and businesses and
become part of their identity like a postal address. However, as the
law currently stands, the user of a phone number has no proprietary
right or interest in it. It belongs to the telco pure and simple.
People pay large sums of money for a "golden number" yet in a dispute
with the telco, they could lose that number at a stroke with no
compensation. I'm thinking in particular of the poster who ported an
old number from Orange to Vodafone PAYG and because she didn't use her
phone for over 3 months appears to have lost any claim to the number.
I don't know what other users of this ng think but I think we should
petition Ofcom to change the rules so that once a number is issued to
a customer, he should have some proprietary and inalienable right to
it.
"Alasdair" <mail@bobaxter.coo.uk> wrote in message
news:63rto29pg8d5a7efoicnbifc92cq3a8fhf@4ax.com...
> Telephone numbers are very useful to individuals and businesses and
> become part of their identity like a postal address. However, as the
> law currently stands, the user of a phone number has no proprietary
> right or interest in it. It belongs to the telco pure and simple.
>
> People pay large sums of money for a "golden number" yet in a dispute
> with the telco, they could lose that number at a stroke with no
> compensation. I'm thinking in particular of the poster who ported an
> old number from Orange to Vodafone PAYG and because she didn't use her
> phone for over 3 months appears to have lost any claim to the number.
>
> I don't know what other users of this ng think but I think we should
> petition Ofcom to change the rules so that once a number is issued to
> a customer, he should have some proprietary and inalienable right to
> it.
>
> --
> Alasdair.
You will be ignored. You have no right to any number issued to you. If you
choose to pay more for a specific number or sequence of numbers you must be
stupid. People don't associate numbers with a person or company just
because it is a certain sequence. Some can be more difficult to remember
and dial than a random number.
Do some market research.
As for campaigning for someone that doesn't read the terms and conditions of
an agreement or chooses not to stick to them, maybe you're right - campaign
for IQ tests for people entering in to contracts. How they survive in the
outside world is beyond me.
Companies tried getting memorable numbers with directory enquiries, but why
would I remember 118118 before I remembered 118500? 500 might have more of
a meaning to me than 118.
On 2006-12-25, john <jlong@drm.net> wrote:
> You will be ignored. You have no right to any number issued to you. If you
> choose to pay more for a specific number or sequence of numbers you must be
> stupid. People don't associate numbers with a person or company just
> because it is a certain sequence. Some can be more difficult to remember
> and dial than a random number.
> Do some market research.
> As for campaigning for someone that doesn't read the terms and conditions of
> an agreement or chooses not to stick to them, maybe you're right - campaign
> for IQ tests for people entering in to contracts. How they survive in the
> outside world is beyond me.
> Companies tried getting memorable numbers with directory enquiries, but why
> would I remember 118118 before I remembered 118500? 500 might have more of
> a meaning to me than 118.
However, once you've got people to memorise your number, it would be nice
to be able to KEEP that number, don't you think?
Rather than being forced to get them to memorise a new number every week?
"Alasdair" <mail@bobaxter.coo.uk> wrote in message
news:63rto29pg8d5a7efoicnbifc92cq3a8fhf@4ax.com
[snip]
> I don't know what other users of this ng think but I
> think we should petition Ofcom to change the rules so
> that once a number is issued to a customer, he should
> have some proprietary and inalienable right to it.
Never going to happen. Pigs and aviation spring to mind.
Alasdair wrote:
> Telephone numbers are very useful to individuals and businesses and
> become part of their identity like a postal address. However, as the
> law currently stands, the user of a phone number has no proprietary
> right or interest in it. It belongs to the telco pure and simple.
[snip]
Is it the case that if one pays for a non-geographic number (e.g. 0800,
0845), one gets to keep it as long as one pays for it. If so, would
this not be the way forward?
On Mon, 25 Dec 2006 07:02:37 -0000, "Ivor Jones"
<ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote:
>Never going to happen. Pigs and aviation spring to mind.
>
>Ivor
It will not happen if people accept the status quo. If I register a
domain, I get to keep it as long as I pay the renewal fee (a fairly
nominal sum) every two years. I can then continue to use that domain
even if I change ISP or fall out with my ISP. It is registered in my
name at Nominet.
By the same token, I should be able to register my phone number with a
central body (say, Ofcom) and use it with whoever provides my
telephone service or retain it unused if I so choose.
Why should my provider hold me to ransom by refusing to release my
telephone number?
I am trying to get a movement off the ground to get Ofcom to change
the rules so that the end user and not the provider has title to the
number.
"Alasdair" <mail@bobaxter.coo.uk> wrote in message
news:mft0p25rdt3lhah9339j9fofq76tp8gk3i@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 25 Dec 2006 07:02:37 -0000, "Ivor Jones"
> <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote:
>
> >Never going to happen. Pigs and aviation spring to mind.
> >
> >Ivor
>
> It will not happen if people accept the status quo. If I register a
> domain, I get to keep it as long as I pay the renewal fee (a fairly
> nominal sum) every two years. I can then continue to use that
domain
> even if I change ISP or fall out with my ISP. It is registered in
my
> name at Nominet.
>
> By the same token, I should be able to register my phone number with
a
> central body (say, Ofcom) and use it with whoever provides my
> telephone service or retain it unused if I so choose.
>
> Why should my provider hold me to ransom by refusing to release my
> telephone number?
>
> I am trying to get a movement off the ground to get Ofcom to change
> the rules so that the end user and not the provider has title to the
> number.
Curiously, not only do the telco own the number, they also own the
copyright to it, so it is technically illegal for anyone other than
them to publish it without having obtained their prior consent.
If the ownership or registration was transferred, what about that
copyright? How does that affect such as letterhead and advertising?
In article <63rto29pg8d5a7efoicnbifc92cq3a8fhf@4ax.com>, mail@bobaxter.coo.uk says...
> People pay large sums of money for a "golden number" yet in a dispute
> with the telco, they could lose that number at a stroke with no
> compensation. I'm thinking in particular of the poster who ported an
> old number from Orange to Vodafone PAYG and because she didn't use her
> phone for over 3 months appears to have lost any claim to the number.
You mean like 916-CALL-TURK? (spot the reference...)
On Tue, 26 Dec 2006 09:17:54 GMT, "harrogate3"
<harrogate3@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>Curiously, not only do the telco own the number, they also own the
>copyright to it, so it is technically illegal for anyone other than
>them to publish it without having obtained their prior consent.
>
>If the ownership or registration was transferred, what about that
>copyright? How does that affect such as letterhead and advertising?
>
Has this ever been tested in court? I should have thought that if
there is any copyright in a telephone number, it belongs to Ofcom as
they create them in the first place and give them in blocks to telcos.
> Curiously, not only do the telco own the number, they also own the
> copyright to it, so it is technically illegal for anyone other than
> them to publish it without having obtained their prior consent.
Rubbish. Copyright only protects creative work. A standard telephone
number is clearly not creative.
> If the ownership or registration was transferred, what about that
> copyright? How does that affect such as letterhead and advertising?
On 2006-12-27, Alasdair <mail@bobaxter.coo.uk> wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Dec 2006 09:17:54 GMT, "harrogate3"
><harrogate3@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>>Curiously, not only do the telco own the number, they also own the
>>copyright to it, so it is technically illegal for anyone other than
>>them to publish it without having obtained their prior consent.
>>
>>If the ownership or registration was transferred, what about that
>>copyright? How does that affect such as letterhead and advertising?
>>
>
> Has this ever been tested in court? I should have thought that if
> there is any copyright in a telephone number, it belongs to Ofcom as
> they create them in the first place and give them in blocks to telcos.
I'm sure writers of history books will be pleased to learn that numbers
were created by Ofcom.
Telephone numbers and Ofcom 
Linear Mode
