MSE News: Silent calls targeted in Ofcom crackdown

Silent_Calls_Victim

DVardysShadow wrote: »

From the article

Ofcom's chocolate fireguard.

If they really meant business, they would make it mandatory for any company doing silent calls to display their number with caller display.

But Ofcom are not in the business of regulating, they are in the business of doing nothing with a light touch.

I regret to say that I am in total disagreement with these comments.


The fireguard available to Ofcom is itself substantial and boldly displayed. The problem is that it is only rarely placed in the grate and when it is Ofcom opens up panels that let most of the heat through. The problem is not the material, but the way in which it is used.


CLI provides two useful functions in the context of a voice telephone call:

1. Where the number is recognised on an incoming call, it provides the recipient with the identity of the person calling. This only applies where the necessary service, equipment and knowledge of the user of the number is in place.

2. Following a conversation, or an unanswered call, if one wishes to undertake a further conversation with the caller, CLI provides a useful way of them providing the number on which they may be called.

I maintain that in cases where the caller does not invite return calls and their number is not likely to be recognised, then CLI is worthless and rightly withheld.

The stupid pretence that CLI "tells you who is calling" should be set aside. CLI should be used only to fulfil the useful functions listed above. When a voice telephone call is answered, the caller should begin the conversation by stating their name and the purpose of the call. Any other experience on answering a call should be regarded as possible misuse of the telephone system. (I would not wish to hear of anyone being fined for saying "Hi this is me", in appropriate circumstances.)

Whilst it is fair to invite callers to leave a voice message if one is unable, or chooses not, to answer a call, I do not believe that this should be demanded. Whilst some callers may wish to invite a return call if one is unable to answer, by offering a CLI, I do not believe that willingness to accept a return call should be a condition of using the telephone, for anyone.


The problem with Ofcom and Silent Calls is that Ofcom DOES seek to act as a REGULATOR, despite the fact that it has no statutory powers or duty to enable or require it to do so in respect of use, or misuse, of the telephone system. The persistent misuse powers should be used to STOP misuse, NOT to give effect to a policy of REGULATION, whereby Silent Calls are OK if they represent only 3% of the total made in any day and repeat Silent Calls are made to any person at the rate of one per day.

DVardysShadow

Silent_Calls_Victim wrote: »

I regret to say that I am in total disagreement with these comments.


The fireguard available to Ofcom is itself substantial and boldly displayed. The problem is that it is only rarely placed in the grate and when it is Ofcom opens up panels that let most of the heat through. The problem is not the material, but the way in which it is used.


CLI provides two useful functions in the context of a voice telephone call:

1. Where the number is recognised on an incoming call, it provides the recipient with the identity of the person calling. This only applies where the necessary service, equipment and knowledge of the user of the number is in place.

2. Following a conversation, or an unanswered call, if one wishes to undertake a further conversation with the caller, CLI provides a useful way of them providing the number on which they may be called.

I maintain that in cases where the caller does not invite return calls and their number is not likely to be recognised, then CLI is worthless and rightly withheld.

The stupid pretence that CLI "tells you who is calling" should be set aside. CLI should be used only to fulfil the useful functions listed above. When a voice telephone call is answered, the caller should begin the conversation by stating their name and the purpose of the call. Any other experience on answering a call should be regarded as possible misuse of the telephone system. (I would not wish to hear of anyone being fined for saying "Hi this is me", in appropriate circumstances.)

Whilst it is fair to invite callers to leave a voice message if one is unable, or chooses not, to answer a call, I do not believe that this should be demanded. Whilst some callers may wish to invite a return call if one is unable to answer, by offering a CLI, I do not believe that willingness to accept a return call should be a condition of using the telephone, for anyone.


The problem with Ofcom and Silent Calls is that Ofcom DOES seek to act as a REGULATOR, despite the fact that it has no statutory powers or duty to enable or require it to do so in respect of use, or misuse, of the telephone system. The persistent misuse powers should be used to STOP misuse, NOT to give effect to a policy of REGULATION, whereby Silent Calls are OK if they represent only 3% of the total made in any day and repeat Silent Calls are made to any person at the rate of one per day.

A very strange form of disagreement as I think you have missed the point. I am not suggesting CLI to allow call back - the reason is to assign responsibility.

Silent_Calls_Victim

DVardysShadow wrote: »

A very strange form of disagreement as I think you have missed the point. I am not suggesting CLI to allow call back - the reason is to assign responsibility.

I disagree with that proposal. I believe that CLI is a useful way of providing a number on which to call back to the caller, given that the caller is willing and able to receive return calls to continue, complete or progress from the conversation conducted in the original call.

I believe that a caller should say who they are by voice when a voice telephone call is answered in person. I see no need for any further indication in this context, and do not see CLI as an acceptable alternative, in any circumstances.

Many agency call centres are not currently able to provide a distinct CLI for each project / client, as the presentation number is "hard-wired" into the calling equipment provided by the telco, rather than a feature of the dialler software. The current Ofcom policy that CLI should be presented whenever Automated Calling Systems are used therefore corrupts the useful purpose of CLI. To have paid for a call, possibly including a 1471 callback fee, to hear only a recorded message naming a call centre company is to have been robbed, by solicitation of a worthless call. I see that as misuse, whereas it is a feature of the Ofcom policy to combat misuse!

One must recognise that call centres are frequently contracted to undertake outbound-only work and therefore cannot handle return calls. Many companies undertake outbound-only work using their own resources.


I hope there is no suggestion of the proposal that I commonly equate with that of requiring all burglars to leave a business card giving their name and home address, on the basis that this would make it easier for them to be caught. One cannot but agree that anything which would help the Police catch more burglars must be a good idea, until one takes a moment to think through this proposal.

If any requirement is to be imposed on Silent Callers, it should be that they cease making Silent Calls. This is precisely what Ofcom fails to do, mucking about with things like CLI, opt-outs, percentages and intervals between calls; all as part of a process of regulation.

I see CLI as a useful tool, for certain specific purposes. One must however understand its limitations. Trying to adapt it to another purpose simply destroys its value when used properly.

Mark_In_Hampshire

We don't have a landline. However when we did, I looked into getting all withheld and anonymous numbers stopped from calling me. It wasn't easy with a "BT" line. The closest I could find was a Panasonic handset which could be put in to a mode whereby any numbers not programmed into it - including withheld - would not ring the handset, a kind of "silent mode".

A fair while back we had an ntl landline and you could do that just by dialling a short code, for free. Anyone calling without CLI just got the message "This line does not accept calls from lines without CLI" or similar.

My mobile is configured to reject all such calls anyway, it doesn't ring, and at the other end it just sounds as if the number is dead.

People might then say "Ah, but what if you wanted to take that call?" - well, if that's the case, you can't do anything about it, since you won't know until you do pick it up. That can be worked around. Personally I prefer people to email me anyway, the phone is a "rude" device: "Stop what you're doing and speak to me right now!"

There was a rather funky device on Dragon's Den once - not sure if it ever made it to market - which would put through callers whose numbers you'd programmed in, and intercept any others - then it would itself "call" you and ask if you wanted to take the call. If not, it cut the caller off.

None of this excuses OFCOM's responsibilities or lack thereof, however.

System

BT offers 'anonymous call reject' for a rip-off £4 a month. The downsides are
(a) it doesn't block calls from timeshare conmen overseas if the number is (according to BT) 'unavailable' as opposed to withheld.
(b) it does block calls from (for example) hospitals, which often withhold numbers to protect patient confidentiality and discourage calls to staff's direct numbers.

Silent_Calls_Victim

Mark_In_Hampshire wrote: »

...

None of this excuses OFCOM's responsibilities or lack thereof, however.

I think there is general agreement on this point.

The "trueCall" device referred to provides an excellent, if perhaps expensive, means for a landline users to filter the calls that disturb them by making their phone ring. Only calls from recognised numbers and from those who are prepared to say who they are get through. One is also able not to get into conversation with those who one does not wish to speak with.

I strongly believe that when we connect ourselves to the telephone network, we are implicitly inviting anyone on that network to call us. That is not to say that we must always allow our phone to ring, nor that we must always answer calls. Most of us have the use of a free network based answering service, which can be used to collect only important messages.

The telephone ring could be thought of as saying "Are you free?", because we are perfectly able to say "No". Many people who commonly do not answer calls advise friends to use a coded pattern of successive rings, which is simple, if slightly cumbersome, way of ensuring that welcome calls are distinguished.

If we could agree about a simple way of using the voice telephone network and agree that those who misuse it must be subjected to use of powers which have long existed, then we could all move forward and get on with our lives. I fear that this matter is grossly over-complicated.

MothballsWallet

The caller's number is always available: without both phone numbers (which are ITU-T E.164 addresses) being available to the network, the call cannot be routed or connected. The number can be prevented from being released to the recipient's exchange - how you do this is determined by the underlying telephone protocol (in Europe, it's mostly ETS 300).

DVardysShadow

YoungNick wrote: »

BT offers 'anonymous call reject' for a rip-off £4 a month. The downsides are
(a) it doesn't block calls from timeshare conmen overseas if the number is (according to BT) 'unavailable' as opposed to withheld.
(b) it does block calls from (for example) hospitals, which often withhold numbers to protect patient confidentiality and discourage calls to staff's direct numbers.

This is exactly how it was intended to be after consultation by Oftel [predecessor to Ofcom].

• Unavailable is supposed to be used where the technical means to forward the CLI to the receiving end are not available.
• Withheld is supposed to be used where the originator chooses not to reveal the number.

This is undermined for Unavailable numbers from abroad not being transmitted by BT.

'Number withheld' is undermined for hospitals and the like by the hospital or whoever not using a 'presentation number' for the switchboard

Heinz

DVardysShadow wrote: »

'Number withheld' is undermined for hospitals and the like by the hospital or whoever not using a 'presentation number' for the switchboard

...... which is technically very easy to do.

Silent_Calls_Victim

Heinz wrote: »

...... which is technically very easy to do.

BUT ...

when the return call is made after the original was missed and the number was retrieved by dialling 1471 ... how does the switchboard operator deal with it?

This is a one of a number of very sound reasons for many organisations not providing CLI.

Unless you know all the actual / presentation numbers of people who you would like to receive calls from, then caller display does not tell you whether or not to answer a call. If you wish to take a call from an unknown caller you have to answer the call and let them announce themselves. I see no significant difference between unknown and withheld CLI in the context of caller display.

If you miss a call and the caller would be happy for you to call back they will leave a number or a message. Unfortunately, too many callers leave numbers when they cannot handle a return call. I think that people actually get too excited over missed calls - they are "non-events", nothing happened, it takes two to make a conversation. If we have an answering service and no message is left, then clearly the caller wants to leave it there.

The term "anonymous" in the name of ACR is going too far. Unless you know who ever number that could be presented as CLI belongs to, the only anonymous callers are those who do not say who they are when you answer their call. There are quite enough of them, and many use presentation numbers that are either false or lead to a worthless recorded message.