Vodafone recycled number gloom - but first direct helpful

On holiday - staying in a place with no O2 reception so went out and
bought a Voda PAYG sim card for £10 from a phoneshop in a town I was
passing through, then put £5 credit on it to get started.

Sadly its a recycled number, and the former owner had set up First
Direct Bank to text his daily balance. Presumably they never cancelled
it.

Voda customer service suggested I get a new sim card, they can transfer
my call balance but 'tough' on the £10. They were polite but simply
reading a depressing script very inflexibly. Suggested I tried to text
'stop' but that failed to work.

Rang First Direct who were brilliant - they say it happens often, and
they can stop it from their end from the number I gave them.

BUT - if I buy a new product and there is a problem, I would have
expected Voda to have been more positively helpful, and in any case I
would not expect to get a recycled number if there is a chance it is not
truly inactive.

I wonder what else the former owner had set up on it? Suppose he was a
'suspect terrorist' and someone is now tracking me thinking I am him?
Chance of 28 days behind bars whilst they sort it out.

This whole business of recycled numbers needs sorting out.

Grump.


--
Richard C

---

› See More: Vodafone recycled number gloom - but first direct helpful

In message <[email protected]>, RCC
<richard@mapson_cowling1.demon.co.uk> writes
>
>This whole business of recycled numbers needs sorting out.
>
>Grump.
>
>
Just been disturbed by another call, from a +48 number so presumably
overseas. Caller hung up. One day, one bank text and one international
call on a new sim.

If I buy another new vodafone sim - what are the chances of it being
just as bad? Have any of you out there had this sort of problem?

Grump encore
--
Richard C

richard@mapson_cowling1.demon.co.uk declared for all the world to
hear...
> This whole business of recycled numbers needs sorting out.

And what would you suggest?

Numbers are quarantined for 6 months before being re-issued. Any
provider of SMS-based services has the ability to determine weather
messages are getting delivered or not, First Direct obviously choose not
to pay for this service from their SMS provider - their call. Nothing to
do with Vodafone.
--
Regards
Jon

In message <[email protected]>, Jon
<[email protected]> writes
>richard@mapson_cowling1.demon.co.uk declared for all the world to
>hear...
>> This whole business of recycled numbers needs sorting out.
>
>And what would you suggest?
>

As providers re-use the number when the caller has failed to make (not
receive) calls for 6 months, the SMS might have been delivered right up
to the moment the number was recycled.

As there is no need for 'meaningful' numbers (as you can port numbers
from one provider to another, so they have become meaningless anyway, I
reckon that there are enough digits left after the 07 to allow you to
service the whole population twice over before you need to re-use
anything.

That surely gives an opportunity to Quarantine for much longer than 6
months to start with. Disconnect after 6 months, hold for at least 6
months then re-use only if you have to.

The providers could also change their script so that if a customer does
have a problem straight after purchase they swiftly change the number
without asking the customer to do all the legwork. Nothing to do with
vodafone? Sorry, they sold it to me so it is something to do with them.

Getting unwanted calls is an inconvenience; as the security services
seem to arrest people for having phones 'connected with' suspects, the
consequences can be much more serious than calls you don't want.

It does need sorting out properly. They will have to take the BT
approach and the whole industry extends the number range by one or two
digits (06 became 061, 01 London split, remember?) to recognise growing
usage. It will have to happen one day.

(Do you work for Vodafone and thus carry the 'not my problem, guv'
gene?)

--
Richard C

On 15 Aug, 19:48, RCC <richard@mapson_cowling1.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <[email protected]>, Jon
> <[email protected]> writes
>
> >richard@mapson_cowling1.demon.co.uk declared for all the world to
> >hear...
> >> This whole business of recycled numbers needs sorting out.
>
> >And what would you suggest?
>
> As providers re-use the number when the caller has failed to make (not
> receive) calls for 6 months, the SMS might have been delivered right up
> to the moment the number was recycled.
>
> As there is no need for 'meaningful' numbers (as you can port numbers
> from one provider to another, so they have become meaningless anyway, I
> reckon that there are enough digits left after the 07 to allow you to
> service the whole population twice over before you need to re-use
> anything.
>

There is a need for meaningful numbers (which I assume you mean the
prefixes) as they are used for routing of the calls for all landline
to mobile and off-net mobile calls. For example, 07875 2 is an Orange
prefix -- whether is has been ported or not, all off-net mobile calls
to that number and calls from landlines will route via Orange (and
then on to their actual destination should the number have been
ported).

On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 18:30:11 +0100, Jon <[email protected]>
wrote:

>richard@mapson_cowling1.demon.co.uk declared for all the world to
>hear...
>> This whole business of recycled numbers needs sorting out.
>
>And what would you suggest?
>
>Numbers are quarantined for 6 months before being re-issued. Any
>provider of SMS-based services has the ability to determine weather
>messages are getting delivered or not, First Direct obviously choose not
>to pay for this service from their SMS provider - their call. Nothing to
>do with Vodafone.

If they wanted to make the effort, it should be possible for Vodafone
to keep track of incoming call attempts to disconnected numbers which
have been placed in their recycle pool. Only when the frequency of
calls to a number falls below a certain level would they release a
number from the pool and assign it to a new customer.

Chris

"RCC" <richard@mapson_cowling1.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

Register with The Telephone Preference Service (TPS)
http://mpsonline.org.uk/tps

On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 06:59:13 +0100, "Asani"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>"RCC" <richard@mapson_cowling1.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>
>Register with The Telephone Preference Service (TPS)
>http://mpsonline.org.uk/tps


TPS registration would only help if the problem was from unwanted
marketing calls from companies in the UK. This doesn't seem to be
relevant in this situation as his problem is with SMS messages from a
legitimate source and from an unknown overseas caller, neither of
which TPS can help with.

Chris

richard@mapson_cowling1.demon.co.uk declared for all the world to
hear...
> As providers re-use the number when the caller has failed to make (not
> receive) calls for 6 months, the SMS might have been delivered right up
> to the moment the number was recycled.

No, that is not possible. If messages were getting delivered that would
mean the SIM would have to have been in a phone and switched on. Before
a number gets recycled there has to be at least 6 months of total
dormancy on the phone, for example the SIM has been destroyed.

> As there is no need for 'meaningful' numbers (as you can port numbers
> from one provider to another, so they have become meaningless anyway, I
> reckon that there are enough digits left after the 07 to allow you to
> service the whole population twice over before you need to re-use
> anything.

0Only 077, 078, and 079 are reserved by Ofcom for mobile services. That
cuts the quantity of available numbers down quite significantly from
your estimate.

> The providers could also change their script so that if a customer does
> have a problem straight after purchase they swiftly change the number
> without asking the customer to do all the legwork.

What legwork? All you've got do is ask your SP to change your number. As
they (numbers) are meaningless then this should not cause you any issue.
If Vodafone want to charge you for that that's their lookout.I don'#t
know weather they do charge or not.

> Getting unwanted calls is an inconvenience;

So turn the phone off when it would be inconvenient. What happens when
someone dials your home number by mistake? Do you call BT and complain?

> as the security services seem to arrest people for having phones 'connected with' suspects, the
> consequences can be much more serious than calls you don't want.

Care to cite any references to back that up?

> It does need sorting out properly. They will have to take the BT
> approach and the whole industry extends the number range by one or two
> digits (06 became 061, 01 London split, remember?) to recognise growing
> usage. It will have to happen one day.

Already did a few years ago when 07 numbers were introduced.

> (Do you work for Vodafone and thus carry the 'not my problem, guv'
> gene?)

No, I work for Orange.

Had you purchased an Orange SIM with this problem (and it does happen)
then you could have changed your number by calling customer services and
explaining the situation or simply got another free SIM card from any of
our shops and had your existing credit transferred over to it. Hardly a
massive amount of "leg work".
--
Regards
Jon

RCC wrote:
> In message <[email protected]>, Jon
> <[email protected]> writes
>> richard@mapson_cowling1.demon.co.uk declared for all the world to
>> hear...
>>> This whole business of recycled numbers needs sorting out.
>>
>> And what would you suggest?
>>
>
> As providers re-use the number when the caller has failed to make (not
> receive) calls for 6 months, the SMS might have been delivered right up
> to the moment the number was recycled.
>
> As there is no need for 'meaningful' numbers (as you can port numbers
> from one provider to another, so they have become meaningless anyway, I
> reckon that there are enough digits left after the 07 to allow you to
> service the whole population twice over before you need to re-use anything.
>
> That surely gives an opportunity to Quarantine for much longer than 6
> months to start with. Disconnect after 6 months, hold for at least 6
> months then re-use only if you have to.
>
> The providers could also change their script so that if a customer does
> have a problem straight after purchase they swiftly change the number
> without asking the customer to do all the legwork. Nothing to do with
> vodafone? Sorry, they sold it to me so it is something to do with them.
>
> Getting unwanted calls is an inconvenience; as the security services
> seem to arrest people for having phones 'connected with' suspects, the
> consequences can be much more serious than calls you don't want.
>
> It does need sorting out properly. They will have to take the BT
> approach and the whole industry extends the number range by one or two
> digits (06 became 061, 01 London split, remember?) to recognise growing
> usage. It will have to happen one day.
>
> (Do you work for Vodafone and thus carry the 'not my problem, guv' gene?)
>

Sorry, but you obviously don't know what you're on about.

Yes, you could probably get a lot more numbers, if ALL mobile
phones used numbers starting 07, but that's not the case, 07
is also home to fixed fee messaging services, personal numbers
etc etc all of which are charged at different prices depending
upon the next few digits.

When a phone number is disconnected, it THEN has to be in
quarantine for 6 months, they can't just recycle it straight away.

Vodafone offer a 14 day return policy, I recently bought from
them and on the receipt it clearly says that you can return
goods within 14 days to any Vodafone store, why not do this
and ask for a new sim pack?

--
xCx
*Disclaimer* My opinions are mine and I do not represent
anyone or any company.

In message <[email protected]>, Jon
<[email protected]> writes
>richard@mapson_cowling1.demon.co.uk declared for all the world to
>hear...
>> As providers re-use the number when the caller has failed to make (not
>> receive) calls for 6 months, the SMS might have been delivered right up
>> to the moment the number was recycled.
>
>No, that is not possible. If messages were getting delivered that would
>mean the SIM would have to have been in a phone and switched on. Before
>a number gets recycled there has to be at least 6 months of total
>dormancy on the phone, for example the SIM has been destroyed.
>
>> As there is no need for 'meaningful' numbers (as you can port numbers
>> from one provider to another, so they have become meaningless anyway, I
>> reckon that there are enough digits left after the 07 to allow you to
>> service the whole population twice over before you need to re-use
>> anything.
>
>0Only 077, 078, and 079 are reserved by Ofcom for mobile services. That
>cuts the quantity of available numbers down quite significantly from
>your estimate.

Ah - that explains it in part at least.
>
>> The providers could also change their script so that if a customer does
>> have a problem straight after purchase they swiftly change the number
>> without asking the customer to do all the legwork.
>
>What legwork? All you've got do is ask your SP to change your number. As
>they (numbers) are meaningless then this should not cause you any issue.
>If Vodafone want to charge you for that that's their lookout.I don'#t
>know weather they do charge or not.
>

If Voda had suggested a number change was possible then I would have
willingly accepted and not have made this post at all. They said it
could not be done. I was polite and uncomplaining on the phone to them,
thinking that they would say "no problem, we will change the number" -
maybe that service agent was having a lazy day.

>> Getting unwanted calls is an inconvenience;
>
>So turn the phone off when it would be inconvenient. What happens when
>someone dials your home number by mistake? Do you call BT and complain?

I have never had calls for the previous owner of my BT phone number!
>
>> as the security services seem to arrest people for having phones
>>'connected with' suspects, the
>> consequences can be much more serious than calls you don't want.
>
>Care to cite any references to back that up?

Glasgow airport bombings - apart from the obvious suspects the
newspapers reported that there were some associated by phone records
(including one detained for some time then released in Australia for
aiding and abetting terrorism by something to do with mobile phones). It
strikes me there are risks.
>
>> It does need sorting out properly. They will have to take the BT
>> approach and the whole industry extends the number range by one or two
>> digits (06 became 061, 01 London split, remember?) to recognise growing
>> usage. It will have to happen one day.
>
>Already did a few years ago when 07 numbers were introduced.

Then maybe needs another look and another digit or several - bet it
happens in next 3 years.
>
>> (Do you work for Vodafone and thus carry the 'not my problem, guv'
>> gene?)
>
>No, I work for Orange.
>
>Had you purchased an Orange SIM with this problem (and it does happen)
>then you could have changed your number by calling customer services and
>explaining the situation or simply got another free SIM card from any of
>our shops and had your existing credit transferred over to it. Hardly a
>massive amount of "leg work".

Maybe I should try Orange: sadly the locals where will now be visiting
regularly and where I find my O2 phone with no signal tell me that
Vodafone is the only one that works up that particular valley.

Anyway Jon, I have a slightly old fashioned attitude to products and
services which give me an expectation of products which work properly
and a service which puts it right if it doesn't. It doesn't much matter
if it is a £10 sim card or a £30k car. It sound like if I had used
Orange I would have been much happier as they would have been willing to
change the number.

I will end there.


--
Richard C

> It sound like if I had used Orange I would have been much happier as they would have been willing to
> change the number.
>
> I will end there.
>
>

Maybe, if you could have understood the indian call centre
operator.

--
xCx
*Disclaimer* My opinions are mine and I do not represent
anyone or any company.

On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 21:15:27 +0100, RCC
<richard@mapson_cowling1.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>>> as the security services seem to arrest people for having phones
>>>'connected with' suspects, the
>>> consequences can be much more serious than calls you don't want.
>>
>>Care to cite any references to back that up?
>
>Glasgow airport bombings - apart from the obvious suspects the
>newspapers reported that there were some associated by phone records
>(including one detained for some time then released in Australia for
>aiding and abetting terrorism by something to do with mobile phones). It
>strikes me there are risks.

If the security services requested call records from the network
operator, the fact that the number had been disconnected and
reassigned to a different user would become obvious. Any link between
the existing user and the previous one could then be ruled out.

Chris

In message <[email protected]>, Chris Blunt
<[email protected]> writes
>On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 21:15:27 +0100, RCC
><richard@mapson_cowling1.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>>>
>
>If the security services requested call records from the network
>operator, the fact that the number had been disconnected and
>reassigned to a different user would become obvious. Any link between
>the existing user and the previous one could then be ruled out.
>
>Chris

Chris - I hope you are right and I am wrong! Maybe I have a touch of
Guantanamophobia based on my perception of Home Office 'competence'.

--
Richard C

On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 09:34:00 +0100, RCC
<richard@mapson_cowling1.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>In message <[email protected]>, Chris Blunt
><[email protected]> writes
>>On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 21:15:27 +0100, RCC
>><richard@mapson_cowling1.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>>>
>>
>>If the security services requested call records from the network
>>operator, the fact that the number had been disconnected and
>>reassigned to a different user would become obvious. Any link between
>>the existing user and the previous one could then be ruled out.
>>
>>Chris
>
>Chris - I hope you are right and I am wrong! Maybe I have a touch of
>Guantanamophobia based on my perception of Home Office 'competence'.

I wish I could respond by saying that the public outcry over such a
miscarriage of justice would be unbearable for the government, but I'm
afraid those days have long gone now. I understand your concerns.

Chris