CER Prosposes to Rationalise Lo-Call Numbers

Victor

Tesco Mobile charge about 35c/minute for some 'low-cost' numbers.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/consumer/new-plans-spell-end-of-the-line-for-lo-call-phone-numbers-1.3188980

https://www.comreg.ie/industry/licensing/numbering/ngn-review/

Johnboy1951

I like this proposal

The first proposal is to retain the ‘1800’ class as a Freephone number and to introduce a new linked pricing tariff for the 1850’, ‘1890’, ‘0818’, and ‘076’ numbers.

It would mean those last three would be treated the same as local numbers hopefully.

The second proposal is to phase out most of the NGN and reduce them to two, so that consumers would more readily understand the cost of the calls they are making. Effectively this would mean the elimination of the ‘1850’, ‘1890’, and ‘076’ classes and the renention of the ‘1800’ and ‘0818’ NGN classes.

This could cause a lot of hassle, particularly for those who have been using these numbers for years.

The 076 numbers have been very useful to me over the past number of years (using VOIP). Zero cost calls have been most welcome ..... and I mean zero, not just included in some 'plan'.

Johnboy1951

Having read some of the documentation it appears that ComReg is leaning towards dumping the 076 VOIP range of numbers as well as consolidating others.

One of the biggest influences seems to be that the 076 numbers are 'not memorable'. I don't understand this attitude ...... they are as memorable as 051, 061, 065 etc etc numbers!

I am of the opinion that this is a terrible step back for ordinary users who have the option, presently, to use 076 numbers associated with their VOIP and have those accessible from anywhere in the world using cheap (zero cost in lots of cases) connections.

This whole assessment is done from the Service Providers and TelCos point of view, with assumptions made about consumer use ...... and apparently forgetting that consumer use is almost totally driven by those same Telcos and SPs.

The future in that respect (VOIP) is no good IMO.

Victor

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

One of the biggest influences seems to be that the 076 numbers are 'not memorable'. I don't understand this attitude ...... they are as memorable as 051, 061, 065 etc etc numbers!

This may refer to cases like Citizens Information, who don't seem to use vanity numbers, as opposed to individual users.

Johnboy1951

Victor wrote: »

This may refer to cases like Citizens Information, who don't seem to use vanity numbers, as opposed to individual users.

Maybe, but the way I read it ..... and it is mentioned a number of times ..... is that it is being used as a reason to kill off the 076 numbers.
That and the fact that the Telcos are now moving to VOIP for phones using geo numbers ..... 051, 061, 065 etc etc.

Probably because of my bias towards 076 numbers for VOIP use, and how great they are for those who use them (internationally accessible among other factors), I feel the document I read is completely ignoring the versatility of the 076 for private use. Those using 076 commercially will get 0818 numbers instead. I have no idea what will happen to my 076 numbers or what it might cost to replace them with 0818 numbers.

It doesn't look good at present.

ED E

076 have been used residentially for a lonnnng time with eircoms BBTalk and black valley users. To take their numbers away would be cruel.

Long term the concept of calls that cost significantly more than data will disappear anyways.

rogue-entity

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

The second proposal is to phase out most of the NGN and reduce them to two, so that consumers would more readily understand the cost of the calls they are making. Effectively this would mean the elimination of the ‘1850’, ‘1890’, and ‘076’ classes and the renention of the ‘1800’ and ‘0818’ NGN classes.

This could cause a lot of hassle, particularly for those who have been using these numbers for years.

The 076 numbers have been very useful to me over the past number of years (using VOIP).  Zero cost calls have been most welcome .....  and I mean zero, not just included in some 'plan'.

I prefer the second proposal, particularly as the concept of a 'non geographic number' is as pointless as area codes when calls to geographic numbers are either free or effectively the same price. Those publishing 18xx or 0818 numbers that want to be reached internationally will publish a geographic number anyway and often that's cheaper to call or at least guaranteed to be included.
076 numbers turned out to be a complete disaster. Cheaper to call they are not, as at least one VoIP provider charges twice as much to call an 076 number than an Irish mobile. They are not included in mobile minutes, usually only 076-1 numbers are but the rest are excluded.
I would consider 076 numbers to be redundant except for the silly requirement that a geographic number only be allocated to someone resident within the MNA, so either that restriction be removed or 076x should be a local call.

Johnboy1951

rogue-entity wrote: »

I prefer the second proposal, particularly as the concept of a 'non geographic number' is as pointless as area codes when calls to geographic numbers are either free or effectively the same price. Those publishing 18xx or 0818 numbers that want to be reached internationally will publish a geographic number anyway and often that's cheaper to call or at least guaranteed to be included.
076 numbers turned out to be a complete disaster. Cheaper to call they are not, as at least one VoIP provider charges twice as much to call an 076 number than an Irish mobile. They are not included in mobile minutes, usually only 076-1 numbers are but the rest are excluded.
I would consider 076 numbers to be redundant except for the silly requirement that a geographic number only be allocated to someone resident within the MNA, so either that restriction be removed or 076x should be a local call.

All of that is based not on 'free' ....... but on the user paying up front for a 'bundle' or 'plan'.

The fact that ComReg did not ensure that 076 numbers be included with geo numbers is the main cause of the absolute mess we have.
If they do this now it would 'fix' their previous omission.

rogue-entity

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

rogue-entity wrote: »

I prefer the second proposal, particularly as the concept of a 'non geographic number' is as pointless as area codes when calls to geographic numbers are either free or effectively the same price. Those publishing 18xx or 0818 numbers that want to be reached internationally will publish a geographic number anyway and often that's cheaper to call or at least guaranteed to be included.
076 numbers turned out to be a complete disaster. Cheaper to call they are not, as at least one VoIP provider charges twice as much to call an 076 number than an Irish mobile. They are not included in mobile minutes, usually only 076-1 numbers are but the rest are excluded.
I would consider 076 numbers to be redundant except for the silly requirement that a geographic number only be allocated to someone resident within the MNA, so either that restriction be removed or 076x should be a local call.

All of that is based not on 'free' .......  but on the user paying up front for a 'bundle' or 'plan'.

The fact that ComReg did not ensure that 076 numbers be included with geo numbers is the main cause of the absolute mess we have.
If they do this now it would 'fix' their previous omission.

A majority of service offerings include calls to landlines (and/or mobiles) in their monthly price, but even paying-per-call the cost of calling 1890 or 0818 should not exceed that of a national call from whatever provider.

1890 numbers have the disadvantage of not being included in provider minutes, they remain cheap if you call from a landline but out-of-bundle mobile calls are still up to 10x the price of a landline call. They cannot be called from abroad and some businesses will publish a geographic "international" number which is cheaper/free to call.

0818 numbers have the advantage of being included in bundles for some but not all providers so end up being cheaper to call particularly from a mobile. They could also be made reachable from abroad, so no need to publish two numbers.

076 numbers have all of the appearance of a geographic number from the North-West but none of the advantages of a geographic number. No provider I checked includes them in their bundles; they're just like 1890 numbers, from at least one VoIP provider they cost twice as much as calls to a mobile.

I still prefer the second proposal, but I would scrap 1850 and 1890 numbers. I would keep 076 but require it be classed the same as 0818 - included in minutes and charged as a national call.

Johnboy1951

Has there been some movement on this?

I notice that one number of mine is no longer registering ....

Skedaddle

My proposal would be simple :

Ban mobile and landline providers from excluding these numbers from bundles. It costs them absolutely no more to process the calls.

For all intents and purpose if you've got a bundle that includes landline minutes, it should fully cover 1850, 1890, 0818 and 076.

076 was a poor choice of code for VoIP as it looks like a geographic number in Donegal or Sligo. People don't expect them to be charged differently to a landline call and they often think you're in Donegal.

I'd question why you need 1850 and 1890 but there are loads of businesses and services using this and it seems very disruptive to people to shift them to another code.

Maybe just assign new national rate services on 0818 and let the other two phase out as nobody (or at least hardly anyone anyway) uses local rate calls anymore.

Johnboy1951

Skedaddle wrote: »

My proposal would be simple :

Ban mobile and landline providers from excluding these numbers from bundles. It costs them absolutely no more to process the calls.

For all intents and purpose if you've got a bundle that includes landline minutes, it should fully cover 1850, 1890, 0818 and 076.

076 was a poor choice of code for VoIP as it looks like a geographic number in Donegal or Sligo. People don't expect them to be charged differently to a landline call and they often think you're in Donegal.

I'd question why you need 1850 and 1890 but there are loads of businesses and services using this and it seems very disruptive to people to shift them to another code.

Maybe just assign new national rate services on 0818 and let the other two phase out as nobody (or at least hardly anyone anyway) uses local rate calls anymore.

All of which is based on making calls in a traditional fashion, using 'bundled minutes' or other such scheme.

VOIP is (or now maybe was) an alternative which many of us used, to make cost free calls without paying any subscription.

It looks like this is to be removed ..... bad for the user.

(it was possible to make a call from one 076 number to another 07 number without charge)
It remains possible, though not as convenient, to make calls from one SIP account to another SIP account. The 076 numbers were associated with a SIP account is how that was managed.

Skedaddle

That basically found an extremely niche user base and because the PSTN and mobile operators charged gouging prices for access from their networks - which was never how the service was intended to be used btw as they were supposed to be charged as a local call or cheaper.

Traffic on the landline network's falling quite rapidly and the mobile networks have by far the bulk of Irish voice traffic these days.

I wouldn't propose getting rid of 076, I just think it was an unfortunate choice of prefix that has added to confusing numbering for non-geographic stuff like this. Also you've got increasing integration of VoIP and PSTN/POTS so it should really be possible to do a VoIP to VoIP call to any geographic number, I don't really see why we need to be splitting this out by technology. POTS could well be almost entirely gone within a decade.

The simplest solution would be to compel all providers to treat 1850, 1890, 0818 and 076 to be treated identically to a geographic landline for charging purposes.
That way you don't lose any features. However, it would probably make sense to just have 0818 for the commercial non-geographic calls. I don't really see the point of 1850 and 1890 anymore. They're also inaccessible from overseas which is really annoying if you're stuck with a helpline number, whereas +353 818 works fine.

The network's also far less hard-coded than used to be and calls are going through so called IN look up all the time for almost everything to handle number portability and so on. There's no longer any reason for a special case for 18XX numbers in the way calls are switched.

Back in the 1990s those calls were effectively handled as a different area code with its own exchange that sat on the top of the network. Nowadays, you can do all that with NGN facilities that are available across the whole system (or at least much more of it). In theory and in practice, voice call routing should be a lot more flexible.

When you dial a number these days it's more like typing a URL on the internet. The network is doing a very quick database lookup using so called "IN' (intelligent network) facilities. In the past, those IN services were much more limited. These days flexible numbering is a hell of a lot easier. That's how for example, the network knows where to send your mobile calls i.e. which network operator you're on, or if your landline's been ported to Virgin Media or a VoIP operator.

The non-geographic charging arrangements are basically from a bygone era.

Johnboy1951

Skedaddle wrote: »

That basically found an extremely niche user base and because the PSTN and mobile operators charged gouging prices for access from their networks - which was never how the service was intended to be used btw as they were supposed to be charged as a local call or cheaper.

Niche - definitely at the launch time, mostly because people did not realise how beneficial it could be to them, and they were not being told by the likes of 'eircom' or any of the others.
But now things have changed somewhat ...... how many mobile users have that facility on their phones?
Quite a large number if what I read is anything to go by .... Viber, Whatsapp etc etc.
People had used (still do) Skype, but found its limitations, (like the others above), that the true VOIP to VOIP overcame ..... namely you were/are limited to making calls to others who have that app.
VOIP being open you can use any app you wish and still communicate will all other VOIP users.

Charged as a local call?
By whom?
Such VOIP to VOIP calls never touch the 'phone network' (mobile or POTS) so charges could not be applied, such as termination charges.

I suspect that is the reason commercial pressure is being brought to bear to change things.

Hopefully too late to drag us back to their old style gouging schemes!

Traffic on the landline network's falling quite rapidly and the mobile networks have by far the bulk of Irish voice traffic these days.

I wouldn't propose getting rid of 076, I just think it was an unfortunate choice of prefix that has added to confusing numbering for non-geographic stuff like this. Also you've got increasing integration of VoIP and PSTN/POTS so it should really be possible to do a VoIP to VoIP call to any geographic number, I don't really see why we need to be splitting this out by technology. POTS could well be almost entirely gone within a decade.

Quite a number of us would not have known, or cared, that 076 was somewhat similar to some geographic prefix

Skedaddle

They were supposed to be charged as never more than a local call by the POTS operators when accessing 076 from the PSTN. That was the original plan anyway and it seems the telcos just took the opportunity to lump them into 'non geographic' and charge an inexplicably high rate for them.

The problem is that 076 numbers are used quite a bit for inbound calls from the PSTN/Mobile nets and that's where you're getting people ripped off.

As for the 076 prefixes on VoIP to VoIP, I don't see how this review could change anything.

If they're moved to something like 0817 XXXXXX it really wouldn't make any difference as long as VoIP providers can recognise that they're VoIP and route accordingly rather than dumping the calls into the PSTN.

With modern networks on the VoIP side, it should be possible to see that 021 999 1234 is VoIP too btw.

The whole thrust of this review was to get rid of rip-offs that were causing non-geographic numbers to be both too expensive for end users and pointless for businesses who are the main users all but the 076 numbers which are only in the scope of the review as they were being charged at astronomical rates by telcos.

There's absolutely no reason why any telco should be charging 076 as any different to 071, if they did that there'd be no issues.

Johnboy1951

Skedaddle wrote: »

They were supposed to be charged as never more than a local call by the POTS operators when accessing 076 from the PSTN. That was the original plan anyway and it seems the telcos just took the opportunity to lump them into 'non geographic' and charge an inexplicably high rate for them.

The problem is that 076 numbers are used quite a bit for inbound calls from the PSTN/Mobile nets and that's where you're getting people ripped off.

I agree that the likes of eircom/eir really hammered users by vastly overcharging for 076 calls (both in and out) to their POPTS network.
It should have been stopped, but the will was not there.
Neither do I see the will to save VOIP from severe interference by the providers now.

I hope I am wrong ..... but doubt it.

It is possible to have a geographic number hosted for about €5 per month.
If a large number of people went this way, then calls between them would could be free as they would be true VOIP to VOIP and no termination fees required.

How that would be promoted I have no idea, but it is available today.

Skedaddle

The issue is the VoIP provided by Eir, Virgin, Vodafone etc is just using SIP as a replacement for the TDM digital tech they have used since the 1980s. It’s not accessible across the Internet. So I would assume they’ll mostly just continue the same pricing regimes they’ve always had. For them it’s just a step change in technology, not disruptive.

I don’t see much changing although, ubiquitous, fast and more stable, low ping time broadband is making over the top VoIP much, much easier.

They have had their prices driven down significantly though, when you consider it there have been huge drops in the cost using voice across the board.

There’s no particular reason though that smaller providers can’t make more use of VoIP to avoid expensive interconnect charges.

One of the weirdest setups I've seen was when someone called me on their mobile, roaming in re UK, the network noticed that I had Viber and avoided the interconnect charges by just sending the voice call that way! First time I've seen that with commerical VoIP (albeit not open SIP) services.

There's definitely scope for some kind of interested sip routing platform that can work with traditional voice switches like that.

Johnboy1951

I have to say that I really do not understand peoples' decisions regarding their communications and what they use.

I am aware of people who have various apps on their phones, each individual one allows them to make voice/video calls to others who have the same app, but only to those.
So it takes multiple apps on their device to ensure they can communicate with a variety of people.

Yet, at the same time, they could quite easily use a free SIP account which would allow them to communicate with others who have a free and open SIP app, without any limitation imposed by the likes of Skype, Viber etc etc.

But apparently it is these users choice to install multiple apps to try to essentially duplicate what can be done with one, while still having limitations.

Peoples' decisions in this regard baffle me.

BTW, I have been using open SIP VOIP over my old copper line broadband for many years .... ok, the 'broadband' was not, and still is not, capable of video, but voice calls are good. They have also improved over the years, as expected, but were never unacceptable.

It seems that unless some commercial entity is 'selling' some limited service that people are just not interested.

Skedaddle

It's all about marketing and people being in various walled gardens. If you want to communicate with people who mostly have WhatsApp, iMessage, Viber, Facebook Messenger, Google Duo, Telegram and so on, they all use proprietary text, VoIP and video calling services.

We're ending up with a total mess of different closed platforms and if you're onto on the main ones, you can't be reached easily. They know that and they've no interest in opening their platforms for that reason - i.e. it keeps people in the walled garden, usually supported by a lot of data mining in the cases of the big advertising supported networks like Facebook or Google.

I've been using VoIP successfully for years myself too. My landline's been on VoIP since the mid 2000s.

What I meant though is that with ubiquitous FTTC/VDSL2, Cable and rolling out of FTTH you're starting to see a lot more use of things like hosted PBX services becoming very viable, flexible and reliable options whereas a few years ago trying to get that to work on ADSL was a bit of a pain in the rear.

It could all change very rapidly though as the landline and mobile providers are rapidly morphing into just pure data suppliers. Their legacy voice, SMS and so on are really falling by the wayside and becoming just apps on a data network. When you look at the average call charges, they've also plummeted over the last couple of decades. I was looking back at early 1990s Irish landline prices, it was costing about €1.20 (in modern money including inflation calculation) to make an Irish long distance call for 3 minutes on a landline! How times have changed.

There's no question but that SIP has already opened up a lot of connectivity possibilities for smaller telcos that wouldn't have been possible at all a decade ago.

The established telcos are usually last to the party on internet technologies though as they are usually all about disrupting their existing business models with open networks.

Johnboy1951

I guess my greatest fear is that the main 'telephone' operators will somehow scupper things for everyone, by using and promoting their VOIP offerings in a manner that deliberately hides the free and open, and cost free advantages to the users of VOIP, and of course by influencing regulations to their own benefit.

To me, the demise of the 076xxxxxxxx free VOIP numbers is a step in that direction.
It does not matter what numbering system is used, what is needed is a system for people to communicate using VOIP cost free with minimal payments to use the facility.
Up to now that was completely free, but it has changed.

It seems we will be/are left with using SIP addresses and not numbers for this.
I consider this a retrograde step ..... and have suspicions about its cause.
As I understand it (not checked recently) one can still use numbers in the UK for free VOIP calling.

I see nothing at all unexpected with the closed systems being available ..... what frustrates me is peoples' acceptance of such limitations, while complaining about them initially, but just adding more 'apps' to overcome those limitations. It could all be done so easily with one app and world-wide free communication between people.
Heck, a lot of those free accounts even allow multiple participants on a call.

So yes, simple, easy, secure and free is available, but people are swayed (apparently) by the promotions of limited services by those who would mine data for sale.

..... it is enough to make one wonder about the thought processes of the users .......

Skedaddle

I doubt it.

I think ComReg's more likely to take the conservative approach of just forcing their inclusion in bundles with geographic calls. That would solve the problems for both consumers and business users of non-geographic numbers.

There's a lot of disruption involved in unnecessary number changes.

It's a pity that you didn't send in a submission though on VoIP - ComReg are quite open to taking submissions from any interested party as they're public consultations.

Always worth keeping an eye on their documents for those.

Johnboy1951

Skedaddle wrote: »

I doubt it.

I think ComReg's more likely to take the conservative approach of just forcing their inclusion in bundles with geographic calls. That would solve the problems for both consumers and business users of non-geographic numbers.

There's a lot of disruption involved in unnecessary number changes.

It's a pity that you didn't send in a submission though on VoIP - ComReg are quite open to taking submissions from any interested party as they're public consultations.

Always worth keeping an eye on their documents for those.

I did type up a submission ..... but cannot recall actually sending it, now that I think on it
Maybe I never sent it ...