Some very interesting news out yesterday from OFCOM.

During their last consultation, I sent the following response with regards to AMD to OFCOM:

However, it should be considered that most AMD failure rates are quite high, and in any campaign with a relatively average number of AM's to be detected then this failure rate would more than account for the allowed 3%. It would therefore seem sensible to outlaw AMD. However, OFCOM do not have the authority to do this and it would then mean that better, successful AMD could not be used in the future. The only acceptable solution is that OFCOM should not promote the use of AMD in any way and should discourage it's use, but make it clear that if innovative technology can provide minimal failure rates (less than .5%) then they would be approved.

(Can see in full here: http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/persistent_misuse/responses/beckford.pdf, actually reads a bit stroppy. I must have had a bad day.)

I'm now delighted to see that OFCOM are following my lead once again, with a new statement of policy out today.

"In this context, Ofcom notes the concern in consultation responses that inclusion of false positives in the abandoned call rate may prohibit the use of AMD technology. This is because, even based on the most optimistic approach to calculation of a figure to represent false positives, it is more than likely that Ofcom’s three per cent guideline will be exceeded (see paragraphs 2.14 and 2.15 above). Ofcom’s intention is not to ban the use of AMD technology; we consider this could inhibit future innovation in this sector and would be intrusive. However, in light of responses on current accuracy rates for AMD technology, Ofcom recognises that at present, and until accuracy rates improve, it will be very difficult to use AMD technology without breaching the three per cent guideline. We consider this is proportionate, at least for the present, in light of the risk of anxiety caused to consumers from AMD false positives and that it may in fact act as an incentive for improved accuracy rates which should minimise the risk of possible consumer detriment"

(Full doc here: http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/persistent_misuse/statement/misuse_statement.pdf)

Is this going to be a bigger upset for the industry than the 3% rule?

Discuss.

it will be very difficult to use AMD technology without breaching the three per cent guideline.

Darryl,

Isn't the operative word Guideline?

It's a push in the right direction for as they
say persistant offenders. O2, BT and T-Mobile
spring to mind from my point of view in general
dialler use. The last one 3 silent calls and a live one
in the space of 90 minutes!

However, after the last round of fines and general
wrist spankings for inappropriate number use (I know it's a different
oversight / Watchdog Phone pay plus/ICSTIS ) OFCOM seem, as usual,
reluctant to do anything that involves actually enforcing their remit.

Call me cynical, but there's a lot of smoke from them but
very little in the way of fire.

I'd suggest that rather than the AMD rate issue, the actual enforcement
of the dialler rules That are not guidelines may be a more
appropriate use of their resource.

I'll get off my soapbox now!

DaveA

"I'm now delighted to see that OFCOM are following my lead once again, with a new statement of policy out today. "

Darryl, a cut and paste from OFCOM acknowledging your personal recommendation would be more of a commendation than a policy statement from OFCOM proably composed from multiple returns from interested parties.

Teking your lead is vastly different from taking advice.

Yes Dave, problem always is with the word guidelines.

OFCOM have the power to enforce "persistent misuse" and have an obligation to publish a statement regards how this will be enforced.

But they don't have the power to outlaw certain activities, only to suggest that if you carry them out the they might consider it persistent misuse.

(Which from a political libertarian point of view is correct anyway...much better in these non-critical circumstances to police results rather than processes).

As for Steve...ouch! In defence there's a bit more history behind it than that - starting with a document I published a few years back, but anyway....ouch! ;-)

Thanks for the update Darryl its much appriciated.

Jason

I didn't mean to offend, I was pleased to see that someone could have such influence with OFCOM. I worded it badly but its too late now.

Apologies.