Comments on: Outbound dialling using answer machine detection: banned or not? http://www.callcentrehelper.com/outbound-dialling-using-answer-machine-detection-banned-or-not-3760.htm The UK's most popular call centre magazine Fri, 10 Feb 2012 18:45:46 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Michael McKinlay http://www.callcentrehelper.com/outbound-dialling-using-answer-machine-detection-banned-or-not-3760.htm/comment-page-1#comment-19903 Michael McKinlay Mon, 15 Jun 2009 14:43:21 +0000 http://www.callcentrehelper.com/?p=3760#comment-19903 Free speech is something we will always fight for - but why is this debate still taking place? One well-known regulator at Ofcom had just one word for us recently about the claims of vendors and others who think they can combine effective management of false positives with predictive dialing. Preposterous! So let’s hope that when the revised rule comes out shortly Ofcom have the courage of at least some of their convictions and ban AMD, by recognising that ANY false positive is a silent call, and the whole point of their regulations is to eliminate ALL silent calls. Scratching your head wondering why it is that some vendors still insist that they can do AMD and manage false positives? Perhaps the answer lies abroad in countries such as the US, where AMD is not just legal (with no counting of false positives), but is a key differentiator for many vendors. So much so, that one not insignificant vendor recently proclaimed “100% accurate answer detection, 100% of the time”! Any advance on 100%? OK, OK, let’s not get greedy, but maybe we should get Ofcom to insist that you only do AMD if you licence technology from this vendor! Michael McKinlay Managing Director Sytel Limited Free speech is something we will always fight for – but why is this debate still taking place? One well-known regulator at Ofcom had just one word for us recently about the claims of vendors and others who think they can combine effective management of false positives with predictive dialing. Preposterous! So let’s hope that when the revised rule comes out shortly Ofcom have the courage of at least some of their convictions and ban AMD, by recognising that ANY false positive is a silent call, and the whole point of their regulations is to eliminate ALL silent calls.

Scratching your head wondering why it is that some vendors still insist that they can do AMD and manage false positives? Perhaps the answer lies abroad in countries such as the US, where AMD is not just legal (with no counting of false positives), but is a key differentiator for many vendors. So much so, that one not insignificant vendor recently proclaimed “100% accurate answer detection, 100% of the time”! Any advance on 100%?

OK, OK, let’s not get greedy, but maybe we should get Ofcom to insist that you only do AMD if you licence technology from this vendor!

Michael McKinlay
Managing Director
Sytel Limited

]]> By: David Hickson http://www.callcentrehelper.com/outbound-dialling-using-answer-machine-detection-banned-or-not-3760.htm/comment-page-1#comment-19890 David Hickson Mon, 15 Jun 2009 12:38:34 +0000 http://www.callcentrehelper.com/?p=3760#comment-19890 The simple answer is NO. Ofcom cannot use sections 128-131 of Communications Act to impose general regulations. Furthermore, Ofcom is not bound to do anything more than "have regard" to its stated policy, which is certainly not restrictive on its capacity to act against what it deems to be "misuse". A simple reading of the terms of the Ofcom policy indicates that any case where a call is abandoned without use the Informative Message is an example of "misuse", "persistent misuse" when performed habitually. Only if one is prepared to transmit an Informative Message on the basis of positive detection of an answering machine, can such calls be included in the 3% allowance for abandoned calls. For those who may place meaningless messages on answering services, every true positive detection case would represent an example of misuse! Ofcom has no general powers, nor any duty to regulate the responsible call centre industry, its powers are to deal with those who misuse the telephone network. Do call centres and their clients need to examine Ofcom's Statement of Policy on use of its persistent misuse powers, and take expert advice, to decide whether or not to call people and then hang up in silence, as if there was some finely drawn legalistic question to be addressed? Can they not work this out for themselves? If anyone (representing a call centre or a client) is happy to discuss their decision to behave in this way, please contact me at silent.calls@ntlworld.com. The simple answer is NO.

Ofcom cannot use sections 128-131 of Communications Act to impose general regulations. Furthermore, Ofcom is not bound to do anything more than “have regard” to its stated policy, which is certainly not restrictive on its capacity to act against what it deems to be “misuse”.

A simple reading of the terms of the Ofcom policy indicates that any case where a call is abandoned without use the Informative Message is an example of “misuse”, “persistent misuse” when performed habitually. Only if one is prepared to transmit an Informative Message on the basis of positive detection of an answering machine, can such calls be included in the 3% allowance for abandoned calls. For those who may place meaningless messages on answering services, every true positive detection case would represent an example of misuse!

Ofcom has no general powers, nor any duty to regulate the responsible call centre industry, its powers are to deal with those who misuse the telephone network.

Do call centres and their clients need to examine Ofcom’s Statement of Policy on use of its persistent misuse powers, and take expert advice, to decide whether or not to call people and then hang up in silence, as if there was some finely drawn legalistic question to be addressed?

Can they not work this out for themselves?

If anyone (representing a call centre or a client) is happy to discuss their decision to behave in this way, please contact me at silent.calls@ntlworld.com.

]]>