I wrote a blog a few weeks ago regarding the ridiculous pushback we get on certain traffic flows, which our nuisance call algorithms have blocked. Notwithstanding any of that, we need to raise the bar. In short, if our support desk contacts you about low-quality traffic, please take it as a very serious shot across the bow as not doing so could see your account terminated.
This doesn’t affect most customers, except in the scenario where you are yourself abused, either through lax KYC or simply trusting on the basis of lies. We’re sympathetic to that. What matters to us is that the harm is taken seriously and addressed. Where that happens, we’re all friends, and you’ll find us very supportive.
Unfortunately though, amongst those who make a living out of scrotitude, finding out where the lines are and tuning to them is business as usual. It also seems that KYC is taken as a tick box exercise in other places and saying that your average call duration (ACD) is 3 minutes for residential users is acceptable to many, even when in reality the ACD is 4 seconds from an offshore auto-dialler. We’re wise to that and have zero-tolerance for it.
We’ve introduced new measures whereby when nuisance calls on the network are blocked, if the numbers in use are ours (Simwood rangeholder or ported to us) we will ask you for your KYC information in respect of those numbers. “You” here is the customer to whom the number is allocated. Often this is also the source of the traffic as well, but not always – sometimes we’ll see a number allocated on one account and traffic originated on another, or even coming in from another carrier. We can and have already stopped the traffic separately but the use of the number is the responsibility of the party to whom we’ve suballocated it: you.
If we contact you, this is your opportunity to convince us of your robust compliance processes and work with us to combat the harm. This isn’t a tick-box exercise though – responding with the requested information is only part of it – that information matching the traffic patterns we’re seeing is critical. If they don’t match we expect you to already be dealing with it and suspending service on that number, or even better, to have already done so before we contacted you.
Unfortunately, some think they can fob us off or obfuscate the process by arguing, demanding CDRs, or simply talking-the-talk while the traffic does not improve. This is traffic we’ve already blocked on the network at our cost, and we won’t run up further costs debating why we’ve denied ourselves that revenue. As such, our price list now features what I’m told are “economic disincentives” to faffing around which will be applied on a per-number-incident basis. As with other such charges, these are not a profit centre for us and for the occasional infringement by an otherwise good customer, our internal guidance is not to apply them. For repeat offenders and those who appear to seek to push the costs of this back onto us, no such dispensation will apply.
If we’re satisfied with the information provided, this will not lead to an unblocking of the number – that is an automatic process in and out – but it will prevent further escalation. If we don’t get an adequate response, there are a number of serious escalations we will apply without further discussion. These will tighten depending on the severity and frequency of the problem on your account – we have gone straight to step 4 in the worst cases, but often will start at 1, with 2 following next time, etc.:
- The offending numbers will be immediately suspended
- The ability to suballocate numbers will be removed
- The ability to originate traffic with +44 CLI will be disabled
- The account will be terminated
Taking it seriously after any of these actions is too late. If we contact you there is a problem which needs dealing with – nothing will be achieved by taking it seriously after the fact.
We don’t like to get heavy handed and for the vast majority of customers none of this will ever apply. For those it does apply to, even occasionally, please take it seriously. Rest assured we do and we continue to encourage Ofcom to raise standards industry-wide.
