David Hickson looks forward to what may result following the recently implemented consultation on the revised “persistent misuse” Statement of Policy.

Ofcom has promised an announcement at the “end of January” following its consideration of the Silent Calls consultation responses. It must now state its position clearly, choosing between the following options:

1. Silent Calls are not tolerated at any level.

2. Silent Calls are tolerated, unless “excessive”.

A preference for the option 1 is seen in the Ofcom press release of 31 October 2005 announcing the revised policy. This states “ANY abandoned calls MUST carry a recorded information message which identifies the source of the call”.

Both Stephen Carter and Alan Johnson indicate a preference for option 2. The same press release quotes Mr Carter as saying “Excessive abandoned calls have become a real problem”. The DTI press release of the same date quotes Mr Johnson, “Consumers deserve proper protection from companies making excessive silent calls”.

If option 2 is chosen, we await clarification of the scale and degree of nuisance that these gentlemen believe is only an imagined problem from which citizens do not deserve to be protected.

Responses to the consultation reflect the extent to which the revised Statement of Policy is open to different interpretations. The lengthy body of my own response covers this in detail. Exchanges with other respondents suggest that if Ofcom were to explain the Informative Message properly and remove some inappropriate nonsense from its Statement, option 1 could be accepted by all.

BT provides the only response published so far that makes a strong considered argument for the continuation of Silent Calls. The response from BT states that those making “abandoned calls” should retain their anonymity, as recipients would rather hear silence than the name of the caller. BT would encourage anyone receiving a Silent Call to make a return call to any number obtained by dialling 1471, if they do not recognise that number and want to know who called.

Freedom may be the order of the day. It may however be going a little far if Ofcom were to grant the freedom to cause anxiety by making anonymous calls so that additional revenue may be generated for BT if the recipient wishes to try to discover the identify of the caller.

One hopes that Ofcom will recognise that someone who does not speak when a call is answered, and makes a failed attempt to identify themselves by providing a CLI number that is not recognised, is an anonymous caller. Someone who always says who they are when a call is answered, but withholds CLI because they cannot handle return calls effectively, is not anonymous. The definition of “anonymous” applied by BT is mistaken.

BT clearly has an interest in this matter, due to the costs it incurs in dealing with complaints about Silent Calls. If this is overridden by even greater commercial benefits derived from their continuation, this must raise some serious issues of concern. This could also leave Ofcom facing a clear conflict between its two principal duties, as specified in Section 3 of the Communications Act. It seems that effective action to stop Silent Calls in the “interests of citizens” would damage BT’s competitive position in its market!

Mr Carter and Mr Johnson are perhaps confusing the general policy governing determination of “persistent misuse” with specific decisions about the most effective deployment of limited resources to take action using the relevant powers. It is most misleading to refer only to “excessive Silent Calls” at a time when those making them are only slowly and belatedly catching on to the idea that Silent Calls can be avoided totally without suffering any impact on productivity.

If option 1 is to be taken, Ofcom will now have to take non-punitive action against some companies who are able to readily adopt the Informative Message, simply in order to demonstrate the point. This is the only way that option 1 may be put into effect.

If option 2 is taken, or rather retained, as this has been the policy that Ofcom has been following in practice for the last two years, we will be able to formally announce the “Ofcom-approved Silent Call”. The problem will however be found in knowing whether a Silent Call received is “excessive” or “approved”. Although both sound the same, only the former would cause unnecessary annoyance, inconvenience or anxiety!

David Hickson