Ofcom - the "useless Quango" - Silent Calls - the Big Society - I propose a radical solution

From – David Hickson – Stop Silent Calls Campaigner

This document lays out the current situation in relation to Ofcom's failure to use its powers to stop Silent Calls and proposes a "Big Society" replacement for this classic example of a useless Quango. It refers in particular to the shortly to be concluded public Consultation, to which responses are required by next Tuesday, 27 July.

I offer this as a briefing, for those concerned about the issue, and for media who may wish to remind people of the final opportunity to respond to a public consultation on an issue that affects a significant proportion of their readers / viewers / listeners.

My proposed solution is intended to stimulate debate, discussion and possible action to bring it about.

The present situation

Ofcom received a direct instruction from parliament on 28 March 2006 (see Hansard, hear clips).

"We expect you to use your powers to eradicate the nuisance of Silent Calls".

The powers referred to are those which Ofcom has a statutory duty to use, in the interests of Citizens, against all those who practice any "persistent misuse of a telecommunications network or service".

The habitual practice of hanging up in Silence after a telephone call has been answered is clearly a persistent misuse of the telephone network. This applies regardless of the degree of nuisance that may be caused by any actual completed telephone call or consideration of other extraneous factors.

Ofcom wrongly takes a different view, failing to use its powers to deal with "misuse". It obfuscates the issue by attempting to address a much wider class of nuisance that goes well beyond what is clearly misuse and thereby fails to address that which is. It also confuses its duty in this regard with other quite separate duties, by pretending to have applied general regulation in any area where it has no such statutory power.

The public consultation which ends next Tuesday is on an Ofcom proposal to revise its policy so as to permit one Silent Call per day from any caller to any person, and to "clarify" the formula that is used to justify a particular number of Silent Calls being made in total.

(As what is for the moment a side issue, the House of Lords has now approved the ministerial order to increase the maximum penalty available to Ofcom in connection with its powers to £2 Million. The House of Commons Committee that will discuss the matter has not yet been appointed, so final approval cannot now be achieved before the Autumn. I will be strong in my lobbying of MPs to reject this proposal, if, as at present, it would be seen as an endorsement of inaction and a formal tolerance of Silent Calls. I comment on this matter in my blog.)

What Ofcom has been doing

Rather than using its powers against those making Silent Calls, Ofcom has been using its funding, which is intended to be used in the public interest, in the commissioning of reports to inform its grossly over-complicated and misguided policy. The simple policy Ofcom is required to follow has been clearly stated by parliament. This is to - eradicate Silent Calls whenever its powers enable action to be taken - not to specify which Silent Calls are permissible as part of pseudo-regulations.

One of these reports, by Mott MacDonald, is appended to the Consultation document. It confirms that Ofcom registered 6,648 complaints about Silent Calls in 2009, each covering (on average) around 20 Silent Calls, with 82% including identification of the caller responsible. This means that Ofcom was directly provided with clear evidence of over 100,000 attributable Silent Calls in 2009. NOT ONE of these callers has been issued with a Formal Notification indicating that their behaviour is deemed by Ofcom to be persistent misuse of a telecommunications network. Ofcom has not used its powers to even issue such a Notification, let alone impose an enforceable requirement that the activity be ceased, since October 2008.

Ofcom reports that each household receives around 2.5 Silent Calls per month, and that BT received over 25,000 complaints about Silent Calls in 2009. These complaints to Ofcom represent a tiny proportion of the problem. They are however the cases that Ofcom is able to do something with. As Ofcom is not even using the first stage of its statutory powers when it is able to do so, then it cannot be complying with the will of parliament, nor can it be seen to be in any way acting against the practice of misuse in the way that it is empowered, and required, to do.

Ofcom has published yet another commissioned report, by Ember Services, separately. This details proposals considered by Ofcom, including the option of a zero tolerance approach to Silent Calls by effectively prohibiting use of a flawed design of Answering Machine Detection equipment. It should be obvious to anyone that use of any technique that causes answered calls to be terminated in Silence cannot be tolerated, because that behaviour amounts to misuse. Not so Ofcom.

This “zero tolerance” option is explicitly rejected by Ofcom on the grounds of the money that is saved by the Silent Callers who use this equipment. Respondents to the consultation are not even asked if they wish for this option, a ban on Silent Calls, to be adopted. Ofcom continues to encourage use of this equipment, having specifically amended previous policy to ensure that it can be used (see this comment).

The Silent Callers who use this obsolete technology (which Ofcom refers to as an "innovation"!) choose to invite all those they call to provide a sample of their voice before the call is either connected to an agent or terminated in Silence. This “invitation” is not in any way announced, a fact which would lead most of us to believe that this very practice is invariably misuse in itself.

Ofcom however declares that it is not only acceptable, but worthwhile in the interests of consumers! The particular line of argument advanced by Ofcom in the consultation document could be readily extended to suggest that financial penalties should never be imposed on Silent Callers, because their customers would end up having to foot the bill through higher charges. (So much for any thought that the increased penalty would ever be used!) This absurd and foolish approach must be ended.

Ofcom’s failure to address this problem seriously over the many years that I have been campaigning on this issue is undoubtedly one of the reasons why it still remains. Even now, Ofcom is keen to consider the interests of those who admittedly make Silent Calls as significant, and to allow for the continuation of the practice in its policy.

I propose a radical solution

If Ofcom, behaving as a useless Quango, cannot be seen to be willing or able to serve the interests of citizens by using the statutory powers it has been given, then these powers must be handed to an alternative agency that both can and will. These powers, which only allow for intervention in specific cases in the general public interest, are quite separate from Ofcom's role as the statutory regulator of the activities of broadcasters and telecommunications service providers in the interests of their consumers.

The “persistent misuse” powers were only given to Ofcom on its formation as an afterthought, without being discussed in parliament, when it was discovered that a gap in the new telecoms regime would otherwise arise. Unlike most of Ofcom’s other duties they do not involve control of the activities of the Communications Industry, but of those who (mis)use its services.

In the spirit of the "Big Society", I would be very happy to assist with, and serve in, a newly created citizen-driven agency to take on this, apparently unwanted, role from Ofcom and to exercise the statutory powers which Ofcom prefers not to use. As with PhonePay Plus or TPS for example, this work could be undertaken independently, but exercising Ofcom’s statutory powers on a sub-contracted basis.

I am quite sure that the funding which Ofcom has misdirected into the unnecessary and improper refinement of a wholly misguided policy could be used to better purposes. Revenue from properly imposed penalties would be equivalent to far more than operating costs for as long as the problem remained – thus helping to address the public debt. There are many positive minded people in the Call Centre Industry, who are anxious to protect its reputation, and they would doubtless be happy to contribute their energies and knowledge to such a social enterprise. I would be delighted to work with them and all others of goodwill in a spirit of public service.

I offer this proposal for publication and for consideration in all quarters.

I will continue to promote this idea and be delighted to interact with all those who wish to discuss how it may be more clearly formulated and brought to fruition.

As a footnote, I must explain that there are some aspects of Ofcom's work, as the regulator of telecommunications service providers, which I fully support. In this area however, it demonstrates the very worst features of a Quango, not least because it deliberately flouts the clearly expressed will of parliament, the one body to which it is accountable.

 

10 days left to support Ofcom's formal acceptance of Silent Calls

From: David Hickson - campaigner

Ofcom is currently consulting on proposals to permit Silent Calls to be made no more than once a day to any particular victim.

The consultation (published at http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/consultations/silent-calls/) ends on 27 July.

There may be some who think that it would be a good thing if Silent Calls were limited in this way - I do not. Ofcom’s duty is to eradicate Silent Calls, insofar as it can, not tolerate them.

Ofcom is still awaiting parliamentary approval for an increase to the maximum penalty that it may impose for those misusing the telephone network, e.g. by making Silent Calls.

Last time parliament granted such an increase it came with the following proviso, as stated by the then Minister:

"We expect you to use your powers to eradicate the nuisance of Silent Calls". (Listen and see links here.)

Four years later, Ofcom is now considering trying to impose a limitation simply on the frequency with which such calls can be made to any particular person. I would say "THIS IS NOT GOOD ENOUGH", but such a statement would itself be hopelessly inadequate to reflect the extent to which Ofcom is flouting the expressed will of parliament.

For the sake of the reputation of the Call Centre industry and for the good of citizens, the wholly unnecessary and unacceptable practice of hanging up in silence when a telephone call is answered must be totally prohibited. (That was Ofcom's policy at the time when I started campaigning for it to be implemented, in 2003.)

The proposal out to consultation must therefore be rejected. Parliamentary approval of the increased penalty cannot be granted until it is seen to be used to give effect to a proper policy that fails to tolerate any Silent Calls and applies proportionate and appropriate penalties against those who breach enforceable requirements to cease the practice.

(Online responses to the consultation can be made at the following link - https://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/consultations/silent-calls/howtorespond/form. The detailed questions reflect Ofcom tinkering with wholly unnecessary complex, over-technical pseudo-regulations, which miss the essential point that no one should ever hang up in silence.)

A liberated NHS - Free to levy charges on patients? - Advance briefing on Andrew Lansley's announcement 12 July 2010

From: David Hickson - campaigner for the NHS and other public services

My engagement in the campaign to stop use of revenue sharing telephone numbers in the delivery of NHS services is part of a wider objective –

TO MAINTAIN THE PRINICPLE OF "FREE AT THE POINT OF NEED" DESPITE AN INCREASINGLY CONSUMERIST APPROACH TO THE NHS.

An increasing emphasis on local decision making, whilst proper in many respects, can serve to undermine this general principle, which applies to us all, throughout the UK.

The present government is left to implement regulations on telephone numbers used for the NHS in England, introduced by its predecessor. NHS bodies and contractors have to each try to work out for themselves whether the subsidy which they obtain from use of revenue sharing telephone numbers is passed on in charges to patients who call them.

In fact, telephone tariffs are all set nationally (for the UK), and the charge applicable to calling a particular type of number cannot be varied by local agreement. All 084 numbers are more expensive to call for users of Virgin Media landlines, Public payphones and Mobiles. In many cases they are also more expensive for customers of BT (which originates 25% of telephone calls) although there are a few exceptions, due to legacy regulations on BT, which are currently under review by Ofcom.

These exceptions are mistakenly assumed by some to be the norm.

I have now come across another example of a Hospital NHS Foundation Trust which has been told by its telephone services company that published tariffs from other telephone companies do not apply to its expensive 0844 number. It has therefore decided to retain it. I have of course been able to prove that this is nonsense, but local decision makers only need to satisfy themselves that it is OK for them to continue to receive subsidy from NHS patients as they access services.

The BMA continues to endorse totally false assurances given to its members to a similar effect.

The Department of Health does not know how best to deliver healthcare locally, however it could find out about the cost of different types of telephone calls (once only) and pass this information on. My offers of help and outline briefings have been disregarded.

We wait to hear if Andrew Lansley's announcements today, about liberation for local NHS providers, will offer further opportunities to reduce the demand on the empty public purse by raising money from "consumers" as they access the NHS.

If the financial situation is so grave that we must now abandon the sixty-year-old principles of the NHS, then let us at least do so with our eyes open.

I am available for comment on any specific points that may emerge from today's announcements and will be issuing further briefings on relevant matters.