0870 1566 344

Talk about sick. Yeah lets fleece some more money out of concerned people.

As soon as I find the Gov Org which is running it, I will issue a FOI.

I share exactly the same sentiments, and you beat me to it at posting the opinions of probably everyone who visits this site.

I also heard that many of the victims come from all races, and nationalities, including foreign tourists.

Surely they should therefore expect calls from abroad, whether it be foreigners injured in the blast, or indeed British people with families living abroad, and as 0870 cannot be called from some countries, then the government has created some unncessary hassle for people already with enough problems.

On a brighter note, I managed to hear from both my brother and his girlfriend, and my sister and her boyfriend, who all live in London, who are all fine!!

Agreed, sick and disgusting - would love to find out who actually are the beneficiaries of the 0870 income in this instance and then name & shame them!
The morals of alley cats (no disrespect to the felines.)

hmm, just tryed calling it from work.

There making you hold, then giving you a recorded message and then cutting you off.

As bad as the terrorist attacks in London today are, I see the Police have issued an Emergency Contact number for Relatives....... 0870 156634. On top of all the worry, anxiety and possible grief, you are having to pay for the call as well!! Surely an 0800 number could be issued.

Disgusting that worried folk have to call a premium rate number.

At least if OFCOM regulate that the cost of calling such numbers have to be shown with an 0870 number then they will be humiliated into not using them.

But in the meantime we should issue a FOI to find out who is profiteering. Then contact the PR department of the company involved and demand that they donate the profit from the number to the injured etc...

According to Ofcom's list, the number is allocated to C&W.

Just had a look, and found that the number is allocated to Cable and Wireless. Don't know if they then sub contract the number out to a 3rd party, who in turn offer the number to the government, but C&W would be a good place to start, and in either case, C&W will be profiteering from the number.

(This post looks a bit silly now, I started writing the post before the previous reply, lol)

The 08701 566 344 no is the Met Police Casualty Bureau. The Metropolitan Police Authority is responsible for overseeing them.So it might be worth complaining to them, as well as to the Met Police. See www.mpa.gov.uk

I have already complained to Ofcom and the Home Office. I have also submitted a FOI request to the MPA and would suggest others do the same.

The use of 0870 in this situation is nothing short of disgraceful, apart from being clueless.

MPA FOI requests:

To make a request for information from the MPA, or for further assistance, please contact:

The Liaison Unit
Metropolitan Police Authority
10 Dean Farrar Street
London SW1H 0NY
Email: foi@mpa.gov.uk
Telephone: 020 7202 0186
Fax: 020 7202 0246
Minicom: 020 7202 0173

MPA Contact details:

General enquiries
Metropolitan Police Authority
10 Dean Farrar Street
London
SW1H 0NY

Tel: 020 7202 0202
Fax: 020 7202 0200
Minicom: 020 7202 0173

General enquiries email
enquiries@mpa.gov.uk

I'm not sure if this it the 020 equivalent to the advertised 0870 number, but on the following National Rail Enquiries page, it quotes the following number as the number for Casualty Enquiries

020 8358 0101

See: http://nrekb.nationalrail.co.uk/incidents/today.html

Thanks
Daniel

Agree entirely. This about as sick as anyone can possibly get!!

This is an absolute disgrace. I have tried that number above to complain but was enagaged. Now I will send an email. I feel very strongly about this.

The 0870 no is the Met Police Central Casualty Bureau no. The 0208 no is a British Transport Police No.

The Met Police Casualty Bureau is now based at the Hendon Police College. Visit

http://www.met.police.uk/casualty/info.htm

Here in the US, the State department has also issued a help line for Americans worried about friends or relatives in London. In contrast with the clueless government departments in the UK, this number is toll-free - 1-888-407-4747. Usefully, it also provides a toll number for those calling outside the US - 1-202-501-4444 that can't access the free number for any reason. The difference between what happens here and in the UK, where the provider of the bureau is profiting from death and injury by using premium rate numbers, is very noticeable.

I would also suggest making a complaint to the Independent Police Complaints Commission at www.ipcc.gov.uk

Except that the main contact number for the Independent Police Complaints Commission is 0845 3002002 Doh what's the use......

So whilst complaining to the IPCC you might also care to complain about the inaccessibility of their own contact phone number from mobiles overseas etc.

As far as I can see though there is some generalised nationwide scam for all uk police forces to use 0845 and 0870 numbers. Although Surrey police continue to maintain that their decision was taken in isolation.

Hi All

We Just sent this Email to London's Mayor:-

"Dear Mr Livingstone

Like everybody else, I was appalled and saddened to hear of today's explosions in London.

My wife and I were both born in London, though we now live in Lincolnshire but we were also very sad to see that an 0870 telephone number was issued for casualty enquiries "Casualty hotline: 0870 1566 344"

Let me make this very clear, calls to 0870 numbers during the day always cost about 8p per minute. This compares with calls to numbers starting 01 or 02, costing about 3p a minute. Indeed, if someone uses BT Option 3, calls to any 01 or 02 number are free of charge for the first 60 minutes

0870 numbers always cost more to call because a percentage of the call charge is given, usually to the person who's number it is, which I guess in this case is a Government department

I feel this is totally unacceptable if people are concerned for loved ones, they may be on a very limited income and can ill afford to pay such 'phone charges

We're not alone in feeling like this, there's a whole web site about it www.saynoto0870.com

Within a short time of the number being released, the sayno site was full of protest about the use of the number under these circumstances

So may I urge you, as the Mayor, to ensure that all the extra call revenue obtained on the number is given to a suitable charity and to take steps to ensure that if such an event re-occurs, a standard 01 or 02 number is used

After all, years ago, before 0870 was invented, the Post Office as was, was always able to arrange such a number at short notice

We look forward to receiving your reply

David & Lyn Laine

Crowle Lincolnshire"

Sent to mayor@london.gov.uk mayor@london.gov.uk

After 911 our US friends were given a freephone number to ring.

After Atocha, (Madrid) our spanish friends were given a freephone number to ring.

Today we are given a money making 0870 number to ring - which according to reports just puts you on hold!

Find out who is responsible chaps and EXPOSE them!

I have already sent my contribution to the Telegraph.

dtletters@telegraph.co.uk

I agree too, I think it's absolutely disgusting that Cable and Wireless are profiting from terrorism in this way. It makes you wonder who is really responsible for the attack too.

After all, the claim that the "Secret Group of Al Qaeda Jihad in Europe" is responsible is unverified. The web-based forum it was posted to has had genuine responsibility claims posted to it in the past - but then again, it's had a lot of hoaxes too.

And even if it does get verified - so what? No-one's heard of this "Secret Group" before. Contrary to what the popular press might have you believe, there is no single organisation called "Al Qaeda" - the name "Al Qaeda" is used to describe many different groups, some of which are allied only very loosely. There's often a lot of conspiracy theory and racial stereotype passed off as fact, making Al Qaeda groups sound bigger than they really are.

My point is - how do we identify this Secret Group? Who's to say that a particular person belongs to this group, and who doesn't? And who's to say that Cable and Wireless board members, and senior police officers, aren't among them?

Okay it's unlikely - and don't get me wrong, I don't intend to point any fingers of blame, or spread a conspiracy theory of my own.

However, if you appear to profit directly from terrorist activities - then in my book, you're implicated. Just like Cable and Wireless. And the Metropolitan Police. Personally, I'm going to be watching these two organisations very closely, to see how they explain their way out of this one.

HI All

If you want to really get your self thinking about who is really behind such attacks take a look at

http://911research.wtc7.net/

It makes interesting very reading there is lots of links from it to other sites also

Or just do a Google for 9/11 it will get you thinking it did me

Dave

Well said Juby. This is likely to achieve quite a lot more than the automatic email atomiser to be found at mayor@london.gov.uk An email to that addrees will just be lost amongst all the hate mail about the £8 London Congestion Charge.

I myself will be writing to letters@the-times.co.uk

Also anyone living in the Greater London area should write to their MP and their Greater London Assembly member regarding this issue.

'Nice little earner': from the Scotland Yard web site:

"If you are unsuccessful and still have concerns that your friends or relatives may have been injured in the events, contact Casualty Bureau on 0870 1566344.

We are experiencing a very high volume of calls to this line – at present we are receiving 42,000 calls per hour. We would therefore urge anyone calling it to please be patient whilst we continue answering as many calls as possible."

Let's hope they have a decent queueing system to take advantage of the revenue generation.

This is DISGRACEFUL.

I've just joined the forum because of my absolute disgust that the emergency helpline, following the outrage in London, is an 0870 number. If profit is being made out of people's misery it is appalling.

Even more appalling is that people may not be able to call it at all due to not having the £3.50 needed to make a 30 minute call to this number from a public phone (allowing for all the queuing time before you are then cut off) or because they are calling from overseas and so find this number barred or costing a pound a minute to call.

You might all like to send an email registering your disgust at this Metropolitan Police abuse of accident victims to this email address:-


commissioner@met.police.uk

This is as quoted on the Met Police's own web site at:-
www.met.police.uk/contacts/email.htm

The main person guilty for this abuse of accident victims is the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, Sir Ian Blair (no relation I hope )

I suggest you contact him to register your disgust as well as your MP, your LGA member and any relevant members of the national press.

PAGE 3 GOES HERE

I called the UK embassy in the USA withholding my UK number and pointed out that it was impossible to call the 870 number listed from most US call carriers. The American gentleman I spoke to suggested I could call the US state department 1 888 number instead.

I called this number where I was greeted by a recorded announcement saying the service was only for relatives of US citizens abroad.

I therefore hung up and redialled the embassy and spoke this time to a British gentleman. He admitted that he was the one who had posted the 0870 number on their website and he had got it by visiting the home office website. He had not attempted to call it!!! They suggested I could call back in the morning if I was unhappy about them not having the geographic phone number alternative available!!!! Presumably by then my putative relative might have died in hospital??!

Can I suggest that people who feel strongly about this email the civil servant at the home office who admits that he was responsible personally for recommending the introduction of 0870 numbers. This is its Permanent Secretary - john.gieve@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk

Just what are the idiots at Ofcom doing about this disgraceful use of an 870 number? In its FOI response to me last month, it stated the following:

"Ofcom is aware that callers may experience difficulty in accessing UK
non-geographic numbers from outside the UK. This results from uncertainties
over financial returns for routing between international operators caused by
the variable cost of calls and imbalances between charges that can be
retained or passed on through international arbitrage. UK residents dialing
the non-geographic numbers of other countries from the UK frequently
experience the same or similar problems. Individual countries do not
normally permit access to non-geographic numbers from overseas. This is
because these services are differently priced from geographic services and
it is impossible for an operator in the originating country (which in many
cases may not be transmitting the international part of the call) to know
what the appropriate price and for the correct amount to be passed via
several carriers and be paid to the terminating operator. "

Surely someone at Ofcom realized that:

a) London is a BIG place and has VISITORS from OVERSEAS (that is abroad, Ofcom - just to clarify, OUTSIDE the UNITED KINGDOM) and that worried friends and relatives MAY want to call some official body in the UK and..

b) bearing in mind its statement above, perhaps could have contacted the Met and suggested that an 870 number may not be the best option.

Ofcom needs some serious COMMON SENSE, or has NGN corruption gone so deep that it is impervious to such blindingly obvious action.

This is what Ofcom choose to call Light Touch regulation.

Personally though I simply prefer to call it Out of Touch!

Don't forget to copy any emails you send on the 0870 emergency call centre topic to stephen carter, matt peacock and geoff brighton at Ofcom.

I know the media rarely take an interest in the 0870 scam, but has anyone got any bright ideas as to how to get the media to cover this? Imagine the headline:

"Police profit from Tube blasts"

I think the media would take more notice if they see the information has been obtained under the FOI. London's Evening Standard for example frequently use the FOI to obtain information for their stories.

My Freedom of Information Act request was sent last night to the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, Sir Ian Blair.

By the way the email addresses of the senior personnel of the Met police force are simply firstname.lastname@met.police.uk. Their names are to be found here:-
www.met.police.uk/about/leadership.htm

Alan Brown - Service Improvement
Keith Luck - Director of Resources
Dick Fedorcio - Director of Public Affairs
and last but not least
Alisa Beaton - Director of Information

would appear to be some of the more obvious people to try to take to task over this issue.

As for the national press I would start with the letter pages and see if any of their journalists pick it up from there. Unless you have especially strong national press contacts of your own.

Unfortunately a lot of them still don't seem to comprehend this issue although I have tried to set it out clearly in my latest emails.

I sent the following letter to The Times and the members of the Metropolitan Police Authority, with copy to the Mayor of London and the Metropolitan Police Commissioner:

The Metropolitan Police issued an 0870 premium rate revenue generating telephone number (08701 566 344) for enquiries about possible casualties in the London terrorist attack on 7 July 2005. It costs at least 8p/min to call this number (twice as much from payphones) which has to be paid even if the call is not answered by a real person. Dialling this number twice in the afternoon of 7 July there was a recorded message played about the need to have details ready after which the line was cut.

It is reprehensible for a public body like the Metropolitan Police to profiteer from the concern and anxiety of people, especially since its Central Casualty Bureau in Hendon is staffed by volunteers (ref: http://www.met.police.uk/casualty/info.htm)

After both the 9/11 and the Madrid terrorist attacks the US and Spanish authorities provided freephone numbers for casualty enquiries.

A terrorist attack is not like a football match where the club has to pay for policing out of the revenue it gets from matches. Costs arising from an emergency like a terrorist attack should be paid from central government funds.

Wide publicity has been given to pre-planning for terrorist attacks in London. It follows that the 0870 casualty telephone number must have been part of long term planning.

It should be noted that UK non-geographic telephone numbers such as those beginning with 0870 cannot be dialled from numerous countries, which is acknowledged by Ofcom, and many of the enquiries would understandably be from abroad.

The members of the Metropolitan Police Authority should look into this matter and ensure that in case of similar future incidents a freephone number is provided for casualty enquiries

We sent a email to the met police about the use of 0870 and here is the reply:-

Dear Sir,

Thank you for your email - this has been passed to the manager of the Casualty Bureau.

EMail Office
New Scotland Yard

I will keep you all posted

Dave

The manager of the Met Police Casualty Bureau will not be responsible for this decision. It wil only be his role to ensure the efficient handling of the calls. Trying to pass the buck down to the ranks seems to be standard tactics for senior members of the uk police force

The responsibility for this lies with the Commissioner of the Met Sir Ian Blair and/or with someone like Alisa Beaton as the Met's Director of Information (alisa.beaton@met.police.uk)

Share the same sentiments as everybody else about the use of non-geo number. I note however that the number to ring if you have any information about the perpetrators of this despicable act is 0800. Appears you give us information we want you dont have to pay-we give you information you pay. Will complain to ofcom for what it is worth.

I'm writing a story for tomorrow's Daily Telegraph on this issue.
If you'd like to comment please email me on david.derbyshire@telegraph.co.uk or call 020 7538 6343.
David Derbyshire
Consumer Affairs Editor
The Daily Telegraph.

Reference posting by NFH above, on the 31st Jan of this year there was an article in the Daily Mail written by Sean Poulter Consumer Afairs Correspondent entitled the "0870 rip off" It was very factual and I did speak to him directly about the article (the Daily Mail still uses geographic numbers unlike the Daily Express and many others). He appeared interested in learning about any rip offs and at the bottom of the article was the request-"have you been ripped-off in this way?" and the e-mail address www.dailymail.co.uk I intend to e-mail him and would suggest that if enough people do this we may get this matter highlighted

Hi just been speaking to the MPA press office.

Apparently PITO has the contract with C&W to provide telephone services for the police forces of the UK.
www.pito.org.uk
(informationdesk@pito.pnn.police.uk)
020 8358 5555

The great thing is, there covered by the FOI.
Ive allready sent in a FOI request, so I suggest everyone else does the same.

Hi All

I just sent this:-

Dear Sir/Madam

Under the Freedom Of Information Act, I should like to request the following information:

why was an 0870 number used for the casualty help line for yesterday's explosions in London?

How much revenue was earned by using the 0870 number?

Since 0870 numbers are revenue sharing, who got the revenue and if it was more than one party, who were the parties and what percentage did each party get?

I look forward to your reply

It went to informationdesk@pito.pnn.police.uk

And what is the geographical number to which 0870 1566 344 'points'?

Hi Bill

Good point I missed that one.

Hopfully others who ask for info will remember to ask it though

Dave

OK everybody these are the guilty people behind this whole unpleasant money making scam for the emergency 0870 call centre for the London bombings and this is where your venom and anger should be best directed, apart of course from complaining to newspapers, local MPs etc:-

www.pito.org.uk/aboutPITO/organisation/index.htm

This is where my complaint to the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police has now been forwarded and all of you should also attempt to direct your anger there.

Can I suggest that you email the following senior management at Pito:-

Chief Executive Officer - phillip.webb@pito.pnn.police.uk
Communications - martha.wooldridge@pito.pnn.police.uk
Operational Services - tom.mcarthur@pito.pnn.police.uk
Commercial - alan.stanmore@pito.pnn.police.uk
Corporate Services - john.ellis@pito.pnn.police.uk
Finance & Legal - phil.dare@pito.pnn.police.uk

See their website www.pito.org.uk for further information.

I suspect these people are also behind the Surrey Police's 0845 number for all contact although Surrey Police have not so far been kind enough to admit this to me.

The fact that these people have been inept enough to use an 0870 number for an emergency contact number of this kind leaves me speechless.

The Met still refuse to meet my demand that they immediately publish a direct geographic alternative to the 0870 emergency number. They say it will take a number of weeks for Pito to answer my enquiries.

I have spoken with both PITO and the Met today. PITO seemed genuinely surprised that the 0870 number could not necessarily be contacted from overseas. The individual suggested that future use would be reviewed, and someone would get back to me.

The Met on the other hand, displayed a disgraceful attitude actually showing contempt for me as an overseas caller. The individual had no advice on how I could contact the bureau and would not connect me to someone who could help me. Next time I may record the call so I can use it as evidence.

What a disgraceful way to treat a caller, but to be honest, it was expected.

I have submitted FOI requests to the Met and to PITO. The scale of incompetence is staggering - these people should be FIRED. People have DIED and all they are interested in is bringing in revenue.

Thank you for all those that have supplied email address so that we can write.

I have emailed every single person mentioned in this post (even though I know that some have nothing to do with it) along with a couple of the newspapers and have written (not emailed) Tony Blair himself concerning the use of such a number.

Below is a general idea of what I wrote (it was tweaked here and there depending on who I sent it to). Quote:I am writing of my disgrace that our own government would choose a revenue generating number (0870) in order to profit from those that are worried about loved ones, etc.

It is an absolute tragedy that this bombing has happened but I believe that our own government has added insult to injury in their use of an 0870 number for people worried to ring.

The use of an 0870 number enables the department running it to earn revenue upto 4ppm (depending on provider) from us calling it.

Calls to 0870 numbers can cost upto 8ppm from a BT landline and evn more from a payphone. It can even cost upto about 35ppm to call from a mobile.

In addition to this, OfCOM have even admitted people calling 0845/0870 numbers from outside the UK may NOT get through because some telephone carriers outside the UK do not support ringing UK 0845/0870 numbers. Therefore, anyone outside the UK who has friends/family and loved ones, etc in London at the time may be worried sick and are not able to even ring the helpline.

Also, the ASA (Advertising Standards Authority) have already ruled that anyone advertising 0845/0870 numbers have to mention the cost of these calls and they are not able to remain silent on the actual cost of calling these numbers.

I would also like to draw your attention to the fact that in the USA they have issued a freephone number (1-800) for US residents who have friends/family in the UK to ring but here in the UK we don't get a freephone number or even a normal geographical number (those beginning 01 or 02) but instead get a 087 number where the government actually profits from us calling.

I believe this is an absolute disgrace and I'm emailing all the newspapers about the governments use of such a profit-making number at the time of such tragedy.

I realise I may have missed a few things but was just a general letter that I wrote in a hurry. I shall post any constructive replies (if any) as I receive them.

Ignoring for one moment the cost element of calling 0870 and the revenue stream generated, I feel it is vital to stress that there is no GUARANTEE that 0870 numbers are terminated by foreign operators (yes, some will, some won't, some will but usually charge a very high rate). This is freely acknowledged by Ofcom, on its web site, and in a FOI response to myself last month. I believe this is a key element in this specific instance given London is an 'international city' and that the bureau could reasonably expect to receive international inbound traffic. If you need more info, send me a message.

I've just had a call back from PITO. Although no geo number was forthcoming, the individual did offer to help and could give numbers for local police stations etc. He did appear to be unaware that 0870 numbers have no guarantee of international termination - perhaps PITO has been duped by C&W (national rate garbage etc). Anyway the PITO rep was pleasant and helpful. The Met was rude, arrogant and uncaring. PITO confirmed it had received my FOI request, so I'll leave it at that. My MP has also received a copy of the complaint I have made to the Met, to Ofcom and to the Home Office. I have also complained to the embassy in DC.

Alisa Beaton, the young dynamic Director of Information at the Metropolitan Police, is the person most likely to be made to carry the can on this by Sir Ian Blair and his more senior colleagues at the Met. The reason being that she is on the Pito main board - see www.pito.org.uk/aboutPITO/organisation/board/index.htm - that took this quite appalling decision.

The membership of the Pito board makes for interesting reading because its Chairperson is none other than Chris Earnshaw, former Group Engineering Director of BT.

Once you factor that into the equation then the quite appalling decision to use an 0870 number for this emergency contact centre becomes much easier to understand! I wonder how many shares Mr Earnshaw still owns in BT?

PITO have to appear helpful in this situation as they are just about to hung out to dry by the Met. They have to make it look like it was all just a terrible mistake. But knowing that a former BT director is Chairman of their main board I personally don't believe a word of it! They know exactly what 0870 numbers are all about.

The old boots who work on the Police switch boards are always rude to customers. It is part of their macho we know best culture.

But if you approach them from the other direction at the highest level as someone moderately important in the local community that they have to be respectful to then they can appear to be quite helpful.

The Met are currently trying to pass the buck entirely to Pito on this although as I understand it Sir Ian Blair and his colleagues at the Met are not actually obliged to make use of Pito's services. So ultimately the buck on this stops with Sir Ian.

Would be great if anyone here can check the shareholder's register of BT to cross-check names. It would start to get really meaty if folks are found to have finger in pies...

Here is a copy of my letter to Phillip Webb, CEO/PITO sent this morning:

For the attention of Phillip Webb, Chief Executive Officer, PITO

CC Martha Wooldridge, Director of Communications, PITO
CC Tom McArthur, Director of Operational Services, PITO
CC Geoff Brighton, Ofcom NTS
CC Matt Peacock, Ofcom Communications
CC Sir Ian Blair, Commissioner, Metropolitan Police
CC Alisa Beaton, Director of Information, Metropolitan Police
CC The Home Office, Public Enquiries Office

Dear Mr Webb,

Yesterday, as a result of explosions in London, the Metropolitan Police issued a casualty bureau number that begins 0870. Such numbers are designed to generate revenue for either the provider, which I believe in this case to be C&W, the end-user of the service, or for both parties in a shared revenue scheme. Typically a daytime weekday call to an 0870 number will generate around four pence per minute in revenue. It is my understanding that PITO is partially or completely responsible for making arrangements with C&W to provide the casualty bureau number.

Ofcom, the UK regulator, acknowledges that the use of non-geographic numbers, of which 0870 is an example, may preclude those that live, work or travel overseas from being able to place a call from an overseas network. The following statement from Ofcom was supplied to me as a result of an FOI request made earlier this year:

"Ofcom is aware that callers may experience difficulty in accessing UK non-geographic numbers from outside the UK. This results from uncertainties over financial returns for routing between international operators caused by the variable cost of calls and imbalances between charges that can be retained or passed on through international arbitrage. UK residents dialing the non-geographic numbers of other countries from the UK frequently experience the same or similar problems. Individual countries do not normally permit access to non-geographic numbers from overseas. This is because these services are differently priced from geographic services and it is impossible for an operator in the originating country (which in many cases may not be transmitting the international part of the call) to know what the appropriate price and for the correct amount to be passed via several carriers and be paid to the terminating operator. "

I am willing to make the full Ofcom document available on request.

To summarize, there is no guarantee that calls from overseas to non-geographic numbers will be terminated.

Why has PITO allowed a revenue-generating 0870 number to be used in such a serious situation? It is my understanding that the bureau was taking 42,000 calls per hour after initial set up. Given extensive queuing systems in place, this is a significant amount of revenue being generated as a result of a tragic incident. More importantly, the lack of planning to allow callers from overseas to connect to the bureau, particularly when they may be suffering great distress, is simply inexcusable.

I would contrast the attitude of PITO, the Home Office, The Metropolitan Police and Ofcom in giving out revenue-generating telephone numbers with what was achieved by the State Department here yesterday for concerned American citizens. A toll free number (888-407-4747) was given for those calling from within the United States and a standard geographic toll number (202-501-4444) in Washington DC was provided to terminate international originated calls. The comparison with what happened in the UK couldn't be greater.

Whilst I accept that some calls originating from overseas will terminate on non-geographic numbers, there is no guarantee this will happen. I also do not accept that providing an 0870 number is the only method of handling large numbers of calls. The NTS regime would allow 0800 to be used for such an event with a geographic overlay for international callers. Equally, geographic numbers may also be used to intelligently route calls and perform other call handling capability that is possible with non-geographic calls.

As a British citizen resident overseas, I cannot dial the casualty bureau as my long distance provider does not route calls to non-geographic numbers for exactly the reasons given by Ofcom above. This problem will be repeated in many other countries and by many other telecommunication providers outside the United Kingdom.

PITO, in common with some other agencies and departments, has been grossly negligent in preparing for this incident in the provision of a call center that cannot accept many calls from overseas. I expect immediate action to be taken including the revealing of a standard geographic telephone number that will permit international inbound calls to be terminated.

In conclusion, the use of revenue-generating numbers after an incident when people have died, have had limbs amputated and suffered other horrific injuries is simply reprehensible. Someone within PITO has to take responsibility for this major failing. I also expect all revenue generated from this number to be used to help the victims of these explosions rather than ending up in C&W shareholders' pockets.

I will be sending a copy of this email to my Member of Parliament in the United Kingdom.



Many thanks,
(address)
Sunny Florida, United States of America
Date July 8, 2005 (Eastern Daylight Time)

Excellent letter idb. I couldn't have done it any better myself.

According to her page, she is Ailsa Beaton, although Alisa Beaton brings up some results in Google. I presume that the met's page on her is the correct spelling, so the email will be ailsa.beaton@met.police.uk - http://www.met.police.uk/about/beaton.htm

Here is the reply I have just recived on this matter from Ailsa Beaton, Director of Information at the Met.

You will see that it passes the buck entirely back to Pito for a number that is being published and publicised exclusively by employees of the Met and the London ambulance service.

What Miss Beaton does not reveal in her email is that she is actually on the Board of Directors of Pito. But of course their decision to use this number is apparently nothing at all to do with her. How convenient.

Here is her email:-

--------------------------------------------------------------------

From:- Ailsa Beaton, Director of Information, Metropolitan Police

Your recent request to the Commissioner for information concerning the procurement and use of revenue-sharing phone numbers by the MPS was passed to me this morning.

In your e-mail communications you have raised a number of issues of concern surrounding the use of these numbers. You have also requested information concerning the procurement process and contractual arrangements for the phone number currently being used by the MPS Casualty Bureau in response to the atrocities of yesterday.

Information concerning the procurement and contractual arrangements for the use of this and similar numbers by the police service is held by the Police Information Technology Organisation (PITO). PITO have provided this number for the use of the police service.

I appreciate your concern for a swift response in this matter and have therefore arranged transfer of your request this morning to PITO who will respond in due course, seeking further clarification as is appropriate.

My staff will, of course, work with PITO to respond in the shortest possible timescale where it is established that the information you have requested is held exclusively by the Metropolitan Police Service.

I anticipate that PITO will make contact with you shortly to confirm receipt of this request.

Should you require further advice or assistance in the interim, please contact the MPS Public Access Office on 020 7161 3500 quoting the reference 2005/07/xx.

Ailsa Beaton

Director of Information

Metropolitan Police Service

I'm not sure of this but under the FOI act are we able to ask (obviously in a month or so) just how much money they've made from people ringing this number and where it was all spent? Was it passed to charity or pocketed by our beloved government?

As I don't see how they can say its not in our (the public) interest!

(PS: I find it difficult to put 'beloved' and 'government' together like that - lol)

Yes, that is a valid question. Other agencies have provided answers to similar questions.

It's better not to waste your breath complaining to the Police, or London Mayor. At best you'll get a fob-off standard response. At worst, they won't bother to reply.

It's better to complain to your MP about this.

Good News!

From one of my many emails I sent earlier on, I've received a reply back from Ailsa Beaton on behalf of the Commissioner, as follows:-

Quote:

The Commissioner has asked me to respond to your e-mail.  The number used is provided to the MPS as part of a national service hosted by the Police Information Technology Organisation.  At our request they have now provided a geographic UK number which will be announced shortly. Ailsa Beaton Director of Information Metropolitan Police Service

As you can see they have now decided to release a geographical.  I shall wait until they have done this and then ask why they chose that number in the first place and in a month or so I'm gonna do an FOI request to see how much they profited from this number and where it was (or going to be) spent.

Has anyone else got any other ideas of questions I should ask at the same time as replying back to this email from Ailsa?

A geographical number has now been released for people calling from overseas, it is 0207 158 0010.

However the met still continue to promote the 0870 number!!!!!!

See
www.met.police.uk/news/terrorist_attacks/

I have this evening been called personally by Ailsa Beaton, the Met's Director of Information, to tell me that after reading my earlier posts complaining that it was not fair to pass the buck on to Pito there has now apparently been a road to Damascus style change of heart over at the Met.

Miss Beaton has promised me that by midnight tonight all relevant sources will now also show a geographic phone number as well as the existing 0870 number.

I do find it more than a little worrying that someone who is the Met's Director of Information and on the board of Pito should previously have been, on her own admission, totally unaware of the high costs of calling these numbers from BT Payphones and mobile phones and also the impossibility of calling them from overseas.  But perhaps these days one only makes it to director level in such a large organisation if one accepts the politically correct version of the universe rather than the nasty gritty reality of life which those of us who are slightly more cynical are only too well aware of.

Whatever may be the case it is certainly good to know that the action of this site has managed to change the situation.  I have been in touch with Matt Peacock, Ofcom's Communications Director, during the day and he is claiming that this change of heart by the Met is Ofcom's victory but personally I believe it is still down to the extensive individual lobbying and emailing carried out by members of this forum.  If Ofcom were really behind all this then how come nobody from that organisation bothered to make even a single post in this thread?  Also why were Ofcom's complaints not covered in any news bulletins that still continued to give out the 0870 number?

Noting that a geographic number has now been released (due ONLY to public pressure and the disgust expressed regarding profiteering from tragedy), the dear old Met can't even get this right. They give the number as 00 44 20 7158 0010 however 00 is not a universal access number for IDD. This really isn't difficult so why are these people so utterly clueless? The number is +44 20 7158 0010 -a  format that most would either understand, or be able to deduce (given 44 as a country code). Most people would, I feel, understand this. I'm not prepared to thank the Met for their efforts - using 0870 was a disgusting tactic in the first place and it, PITO, the Home Office and most of all Ofcom, fully deserve the condemnation they are almost certainly about to receive.

I agree idb.

I plan on emailing Ailsa Beaton back and asking why are they still using an 0870 number is it because they can still possibly gain revenue from people calling them.

I noticed that they are still not mentioning the cost of these calls so I'm going to (yet again) mention the ASA policy on not being silent on the cost of such calls and they have to mention that the cost of calling such a number.  I'm not going to bother mentioning OfCOM as they're dragging their heels with regards to companies/gov departments ripping us off.

I also believe they have only bothered doing this because of us on this site.  I also suspect the fact that I mentioned I have emailed several newspapers and other government departments regarding this did they 'hurry' to publish a geographical.

Can anyone think of anything else I may need to mention in my reply to Ailsa?

I do plan on cc'ing the commissioner in, as well as newspapers and other gov departments.

wrote on Jul 8^th, 2005 at 9:46pm:

I do plan on cc'ing the commissioner in, as well as newspapers and other gov departments.

The Commissioner's public email is given as commissioner@met.police.uk NGM says email addresses are firstname.lastname@met.police.uk

I use ian.blair@met.police.uk

Although the thread here may have gone further and it seems PITO may not be the guilty party, I emailed the CEO of PITO earlier today to say I was disgusted that a part of the Uk Police should be profiting from the 0870 number, and saying I looked forward to them and their telecoms provider forwarding the revenue from these calls to a relevant charity in due course.  Will be interested to see what they say on Monday.  I also tried posting a thread on the BBC "Have your say" forum under the thread about Hotels profiteering from the disaster but they have so far (unsurprisingly) not published anything that would be anti-establishment....     Steve

wrote on Jul 8^th, 2005 at 9:54pm:

The Commissioner's public email is given as commissioner@met.police.uk NGM says email addresses are firstname.lastname@met.police.uk I use ian.blair@met.police.uk

I shall but the email I got from Ailsa Beaton I noticed that she had cc'd commissioner not his real name!

freediver, I actually think PITO are just as guilty as the met.  In the email I got from Ailsa Beaton, she mentioned "The number used is provided to the MPS as part of a national service hosted by the Police Information Technology Organisation".

wrote on Jul 8^th, 2005 at 6:43pm:

A geographical number has now been released for people calling from overseas, it is 0207 158 0010. However the met still continue to promote the 0870 number!!!!!!

Here is my latest email to Miss Beaton at the Met regarding this issue:-

--------------------------------------------------------------

Sent: 08 July 2005 23:04
To: Ailsa.Beaton@met.pnn.police.uk
Subject: Geographic Alternate Phone Number Only Listed for Those Calling from Overseas


Dear Miss Beaton,

Further to our telephone conversation around 6pm this evening I am very disappointed to see that the geographic phone number that has now been listed for the Met's Casualty Bureau on its website at www.met.police.uk/news/terrorist_attacks  is only listed as being a number to call for those living overseas.

When we spoke you assured me that the geographic number would be given equal prominence in all published sources, even though the 0870 number would also still continue to be shown.

Given this now only very restricted admission of the existence of an alternative geographic phone number I am left even more concerned about the underlying contractual terms of the commercial agreement between Pito and Cable & Wireless.

I also find it very disappointing that when I called Pito at 4.56pm tonight to pursue the matter with them, as you had originally suggested earlier this afternoon, that I was answered by a voicemail system that said that they closed at 5pm.  But on this day of all days you might have thought that they would actually have stayed open just a little later than 5pm.

Also when we spoke this evening you admitted that you were previously personally totally unaware that 0870 numbers were almost impossible to call from many overseas jurisdictions or that prohibitively high calling prices applied from BT Payphones and most Pay as You Go Mobile Phones.  But as Pito is Chaired by Chris Earnshaw, the former engineering director of BT, I find it extremely alarming that he was not able to alert other Police force members of the Pito board to the high costs of calling these numbers and/or the impossibility of calling them from overseas when he, as a BT engineering director who would have directly overseen the introduction of the non geographic call routing system, would surely have been only too well aware of such limitations.

I look forward to receiving an email from you confirming to me that the geographic phone number for the Met's Casualty Bureau has now been listed as a direct alternative to the 0870 number for all callers on its website, rather than as simply a number for those callers who live overseas.  This would be in accordance with recent guidelines on such matters from the Central Office of Information, from Ofcom and from the Advertising Standards Authority of which you and Pito unaccountably seem to have remained blissfully unaware.

wrote on Jul 8^th, 2005 at 10:06pm:

Although the thread here may have gone further and it seems PITO may not be the guilty party, I emailed the CEO of PITO earlier today to say I was disgusted that a part of the Uk Police should be profiting from the 0870 number, and saying I looked forward to them and their telecoms provider forwarding the revenue from these calls to a relevant charity in due course.  Will be interested to see what they say on Monday.  I also tried posting a thread on the BBC "Have your say" forum under the thread about Hotels profiteering from the disaster but they have so far (unsurprisingly) not published anything that would be anti-establishment....     Steve

The BBC is a serial abuser of rip-off numbers and has refused to provide geographic numbers after FOI requests. It does, however, publish views that are critical to itself, so wait and see!

As an aside, here in Florida we have a price gouging law (http://www.800helpfla.com/pdfs/statute_price_gouging.pdf) that would make such profiteering unlawful. It may also apply to rip-off phone numbers, however we do not have any 0870 equivalent here, and the thought of paying 15 cents per minute to contact a casualty bureau would disgust virtually all US residents.

In the last couple of days I've done the following, but feel completely frustrated!

I called OFCOM and was shocked by their complete lack of interest - told me it wasn't their problem and to contact the Home Office. They seemed very defensive as if I was blaming them for the Police using the 0870 number, which I made clear I wasn't, I just wanted them to do something about it.

I called the BBC to leave a message for You and Yours and the guy I spoke to I think thought I was barmy. Like many in the population he didn't undersatand the implications of the 0870 number, after all its just national rate isn't it. I got the feeling my call wasn't going any further even after I tried to explain the issue.

I contacted a member of the GLA who promised to speak to the Chief Executive of the Metropolitan Police Authority today. I haven't heard back yet.

I'm also trying to escalte this thru' an MP.

NGM,

Your email back to Ailsa is kind of similar to what my reply would be.  I still plan on emailing her back but I'll make sure its worded differently than yours (so it doesn't look like I've just copied) even though at the end of the day we're after the same thing!

wrote on Jul 8^th, 2005 at 10:12pm:

I actually think PITO are just as guilty as the met.

Pito are far more guilty on this issue than the Met.  They are the people to whom the Met has delegated responsibility on emergency contact centre number issues.  It is clearly Pito that has signed the contract with Cable & Wireless and not the Met.

However as Ailsa Beaton is one of the very small number of uk senior police force officers on the board of Pito so she surely ought to have been perfectly well aware of the decision making processes that led to the recommendation by Pito to use this 0870 number.  Rather strangely though my conversation with her this evening did not however necessarily indicate this to be the case.

As I understand it if there was a terrorist outrage in Manchester then precisely the same 0870 Pito call centre number and call centre team as has been used for London would have been deployed.  This is Pito's excuse for using an 0870 number because it is not assigned to one geographic location so gives them a "nationwide presence".

Unfortunately for them though I have recently established with one of the more reputable suppliers of uk non geographic numbers that there is actually a class of non geographic numbers commencing 02 that are only charged to callers at geographic fixed line call rates but that are not asssigned to any genuine physical telephone exchange in the country (they are in fact purely call forwarding numbers in the same way as 084/7x and 07 and 09 prefixes).  The reason these are not widely used is apparently because the call recipient must still pay something towards the call cost.  Even though it is less than for 0800 calls it is not zero as it would be with a geographic number on a real exchange.

Of course 0800 and 0845 numbers are also non geographic so precisely how Pito ever came to use an 0870 number for the Casualty Bureau is anyone's guess but I would tend to bet that Cable & Wireless offered a much cheaper price for the provision of the whole call routing and forwarding system if an 0870 number was used.

wrote on Jul 8^th, 2005 at 10:23pm:

In the last couple of days I've done the following, but feel completely frustrated! I called OFCOM and was shocked by their complete lack of interest - told me it wasn't their problem and to contact the Home Office. They seemed very defensive as if I was blaming them for the Police using the 0870 number, which I made clear I wasn't, I just wanted them to do something about it.

I know how you feel - I had exactly the same response from Ofcom. It suggested I call the Home Office. I explained I can't call the HO as it also uses an 0870 number and I was calling from the US. Ofcom said it wasn't an issue that it had any control over or words to that effect. I called the Met - the individual I spoke to was rude, arrogant and uncaring.

Whoever is responsible for this specific number, the blame in a wider sense lies with Ofcom and its management. It is an incompetent, useless and dithering organization and is accountable to no one. It has allowed, unchecked, the proliferation of premium rate 0870 numbers which can only stem from corruption somewhere along the murky chain after all, what other reason is there for these numbers to exist? These numbers do not, in any way, benefit the user. They benefit business, BT, Ofcom and other parties, but not the poor old phone user.

I have two or three FOI requests submitted as a result of this, plus a letter to Webb, CEO/PITO. I will also pursue this with my MP back in the UK.

It's a disgraceful example of government agency cluelessness. Heads should roll. They won't.

I am appalled.  I heard on the news tonight that the helpline had received over 100,000 phone calls.  If each call lasted only 3 minutes on average and the Met Police get a 4.5p  'kick-back' for each minute, then that's a staggering £13,500 they have received out of concerned and worried friends & relatives many of whom are none the wiser as to the true costs!

They should be forced by law to return the money or donate it to a disaster fund or some other worthwhile cause.  

The whole thing is just plain dishonest!

Alternative  

wrote on Jul 8^th, 2005 at 10:23pm:

In the last couple of days I've done the following, but feel completely frustrated!

Your mistake has been to deal with the monkeys rather than the organ grinders.

The Ofcom Contact centre pays so badly that they only employ the worst sort of monkeys who are generally both stupid, cheeky and offhand towards callers all at the same time!  As monkeys of course often tend to be.

Try emailing the following instead:- stephen.carter@ofcom.org.uk;matt.peacock@ofcom.org.uk;geoff.brighton@ofcom.org.uk;kip.meek@ofcom.org.uk

As a tip visit the About Us section of the websites of most orgnanisations you are interested in and look for their board of directors or senior management.

95% of business email addresses in this country are in the format firstname.surname@organisation.co.uk  The uk police are usually an exception and prefer to use complicated officer numbers in their email addresses.  However happily the Met have set up firstname.surname@met.police.uk email aliases that redirect to the underlying more complicated real email address for all their senior staff.

Rather than email any customer services department in this country you might really just as well go and hit your head on a very hard piece of concrete.  Either email the company's board and/or the senior executive staff or don't bother at all is my motto.  All of the BBC's senior staff can be easily located on their website and all use the email address format firstname.surname@bbc.co.uk

I am appalled.  I heard on the news tonight that the helpline had received over 100,000 phone calls.  If each call lasted only 3 minutes on average and the Met Police get a 4.5p  'kick-back' for each minute, then that's a staggering £13,500 they have received out of concerned and worried friends & relatives many of whom are none the wiser as to the true costs!

They should be forced by law to return the money or donate it to a disaster fund or some other worthwhile cause.  

The whole thing is just plain dishonest!

Alternative

I'd just like to thank all you folks for your hard work - I've been too busy to do much.

I will be making a donation to the victims fund - but I will double it in recognition of all your good work. Thanks again.

You have achieved fantastic results; and you've really managed to stick a wedge into the whole 0870 scam.

Keep up the pressure please. They are running scared as they can imagine the headlines!

There is a fund to be set up by Ken Livingstone for the victims - and it would be a victory to have all the profit donated to it. Transport for London uses a London geographic number for all enquiries - so it seems that Capita/C&W etc... have not yet managed to fool them yet.

There are lots of embarrassing FOI requests to be made to get exactly to the bottom of how this 0870 number was selected etc... Plus were ex BT people at PITO/MET aware of the cost and limitations of the 0870 number etc...

Then there are more FOI's to get to the bottom of OFCOMs claim to victory in this matter - ie all the correspondence/emails/calls to the PITO/MET etc... together with timings.

C&W public relations will be a real weak point. FOI's to PITO will tell us how much C&W have profited - and this should be given wide publicity together with a demand that they make a donation equal to their profit from the 0870 number to the victims fund.

Thanks once again.

PITO and the MET are obviously fully aware of the pricing structure for various 08** numbers.

At the press conference on the bombings they sit in front of a banner that gives the number to call with any information on terrorist activity. It starts:

Call FREE on 0800... etc...

wrote on Jul 8^th, 2005 at 11:57pm:

C&W public relations will be a real weak point. FOI's to PITO will tell us how much C&W have profited - and this should be given wide publicity together with a demand that they make a donation equal to their profit from the 0870 number to the victims fund.

Surely the donation should be at least double what they have earned in order to show that they are sorry.

wrote on Jul 9^th, 2005 at 12:18am:

Call FREE on 0800... etc...

"Or call about your loved ones at £4.50 an hour on 0870.....  And that's assuming that we don't cut you off after an hour of queuing and make you start all over again".

Now why didn't they have a banner about that too I wonder?  But perhaps it was because if you call the 0870 number on your pay as you go mobile you might have to pay £21 an hour. Or may be £60 an hour from overseas if you can get through. :o >:(

PeDaSp makes some excellent points. In the aftermath of this, pressure must now be placed on Ofcom to rid the UK of these numbers once and for all. It is time for it to stop dithering. It is time for it to be accountable to the public. It is time for it to put consumers' interests first rather than the interests of BT, Capita, C&W and all the other rip-off merchants. Ofcom has produced consultation documents. It has ignored the scathing comments from the public in response to its consultations seemingly in favor of those from businesses with a vested interest in maintaining the extortion. It has even ignored the detrimental comments from its own consumer panel. When a
crisis happens such as Thursday's events in London, it fails to intervene and point out the sheer (and obvious) stupidity and abhorrent behavior of using a premium rate number to cash in on human misery. For that and other reasons, it has to be taken to task. It has absolved itself from any responsibility in providing a sensible, coherent and accessible telephone numbering system for the United Kingdom. Its policies mean that the UK is the first choice for scammers to exploit the UK system with whatever brings in the most revenue. It is supposed to *regulate* yet all it does it bloviate. Scammers around the world are looking to see what wonderful opportunity Ofcom will introduce next. Poor premium rate regulation, no default opt-out of 09, the NTS 08 regime, reverse-billed SMS and several other rip-off opportunities - all result from Ofcom incompetence.

In the short term, PITO also has to be held both accountable and liable for the debacle of issuing a number that is difficult for grief-stricken relatives to call from overseas and for issuing a number that generates revenue on the back of tragedy. FOI requests will go some way. Publicity will be better. Letters to the CEO will also help. All of these actions will hit PITO in the wallet. The CEO must ultimately take responsibility. I have written to him and will post any response I receive.

wrote on Jul 9^th, 2005 at 12:27am:

Publicity will be better. Letters to the CEO will also help. All of these actions will hit PITO in the wallet. The CEO must ultimately take responsibility. I have written to him and will post any response I receive.

Matt Peacock, Communications Director at Ofcom, claims that in the morning papers I will find extensive criticism by Ofcom of the Met's misuse of 0870 numbers, although personally I will be much more interested to see if there is a quote from some councillor chappie in the consumer affairs section of The Daily Telegraph.

From my attempts to contact Pito at senior level by email today I got the distinct impression that they were all claiming to be working from home (their office is in central london) although strangely none of them seemed to be reading their emails on their home computers! ::) ;)

It seems worrying that the very people who are supposed to be responsible for coordinating a Police response to a terrorist attack are all afraid to visit Central London in the middle of a crisis.

wrote on Jul 9^th, 2005 at 12:39am:

Matt Peacock, Communications Director at Ofcom, claims that in the morning papers I will find extensive criticism by Ofcom of the Met's misuse of 0870 numbers, although personally I will be much more interested to see if there is a quote from some councillor chappie in the consumer affairs section of The Daily Telegraph.

It's already started:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/07/09/nafter109.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/07/09/ixnewstop.html

Desperate relatives besiege police hotline, but campaigners attack 'costly' number

More than 105,000 people have called the police emergency hotline desperate for news about loved ones.

During the busiest period between 3pm and 4pm on Thursday, a team of 200 civilian and police volunteers were bombarded with more than 42,000 calls - a rate of 700 a minute.

Yesterday, as the painstaking task of whittling down the list of names of missing people continued, there were criticisms that the Metropolitan Police were using a controversial 0870 number for their information line against the advice of the phone regulator Ofcom.

Although 0870 numbers are often mistakenly described as "national rate", they usually cost two or three times as much to call as a conventional 01 or 02 number. Similar missing persons numbers in America and Spain set up after their terrorist attacks were free.

[...]

Although the police's handling of Thursday's explosions has been praised, the Met had to defend itself against the criticism that it allocated an 0870 number for the hotline. Calls to an 0870 number cost about eight pence a minute during the day, compared with around three pence for a call to a conventional geographic phone number. A share of the money generated can go to the owner of the phone line.

The longer people are kept in automated queues, the more money is generated.

The regulator Ofcom has urged public bodies to avoid using 0870 numbers and choose cheaper 0845 or freephone 0800 numbers.

The Say No To 0870 campaign was enraged by the Metropolitan Police's decision. It pointed out that the anti-terrorist information line was a free number.

Daniel -, of the campaign, said: "I find it disgusting that someone is actually profiting from people calling in this dreadful situation.

But the Metropolitan Police said it was not taking a cut from the 0870 phone lines.

wrote on Jul 9^th, 2005 at 12:46am:

But the Metropolitan Police said it was not taking a cut from the 0870 phone lines.

So who exactly is getting the money then.

The tooth fairy? ::)

In fact Pito and the Met must have got Cable & Wireless to bid for the installation and maintenance contract for these numbers at an artificially low price on the basis that they could trouser all the money from the loved ones when the call centre went live.

This is in fact all a hidden backhander to the Met by artificially cutting the costs of running their call centre with C&W but as no one at C&W actually sends them a cheque they try to pretend they are not involved in the 0870 call rakeoff.

Pretty useless article really totally missing the point about BT Option 3 calls being free or about some mobile operators charging 35p per minute to call 0870 numbers.

I thought our friend David Derbyshire at The Telegraph wasn't managing to take most of it on board when I spoke to him earlier today.

wrote on Jul 9^th, 2005 at 12:58am:

Pretty useless article really totally missing the point about BT Option 3 calls being free or about some mobile operators charging 35p per minute to call 0870 numbers. I thought our friend David Derbyshire at The Telegraph wasn't managing to take most of it on board when I spoke to him earlier today.

Yes, a very poor article missing most of teh main points including termination from overseas. It also portrays Ofcom in a positive light:

"The regulator Ofcom has urged public bodies to avoid using 0870 numbers and choose cheaper 0845 or freephone 0800 numbers. "

How on earth does this help callers from abroad? Ofcom doesn't seem to understand this simple problem regarding international termination - the very same problem it detailed in its FOI response.

How do we know Ofcom intervened? Did it intervene in response to complaints from the public? I will submit a FOI request (Ofcom never replies to me, so FOI is the only action left).

A missed opportunity by the Telegraph here.

wrote on Jul 9^th, 2005 at 12:58am:

"The work of the bureau, which was formed in 1940 to collect the names of the dead during air raids, is a roll-call of British and international disaster history. Trained staff handled the 1983 Harrods bomb, the 1987 King's Cross fire and the 1999 Paddington rail crash. It was last used after the tsunami.", David Derbyshire, Daily Telegraph, July 9th 2005

I bet they didn't have 0870 numbers back in 1940 though.

If My Derbyshire was any good as a journalist he should have picked up on the question of when an 0870 number was introduced and why straight away.

He seems to have spent far too much of his time simply copying and pasting stuff dished out by the Met PR room.  Now that's not what I call journalism.  No wonder he is a consumer affairs journalist and not a news journalist. >:(

wrote on Jul 9^th, 2005 at 1:07am:

If My Derbyshire was any good as a journalist he should have picked up on the question of when an 0870 number was introduced and why straight away. He seems to have spent far too much of his time simply copying and pasting stuff dished out by the Met PR room.  Now that's not what I call journalism.  No wonder he is a consumer affairs journalist and not a news journalist. >:(

He should be probing (although perhaps not literally) PITO, its CEO and PITO's relationship with C&W. He should be researching why Ofcom seemingly did not intervene. He should find out why these agencies were so incompetent. A great opportunity missed.

wrote on Jul 9^th, 2005 at 1:19am:

He should be probing (although perhaps not literally) PITO, its CEO and PITO's relationship with C&W. He should be researching why Ofcom seemingly did not intervene. He should find out why these agencies were so incompetent. A great opportunity missed.

I told him to interview the Chief Exec of PITO and Matt Peacock at Ofcom.

The man was clearly pushing off early for a nice summer weekend and couldn't be bothered.  I have emailed the Editor and the News Editor of the Daily Telegraph to express my displeasure and disappointment.

This is an absolute disgrace. See this letter in today's Daily Telegraph:


Quote:

Sir - The Metropolitan Police emergency inquiry number was an 0870 number: profiteering in the midst of the bloodshed. Colin Shepherd, Farnham, Surrey

I am glad that the Met has been shamed into including a geographic London number. As regards putting it as 0044 instead of +44, it is a bit parochial - although some Australian and South African organisations put their international codes as 001161 and 0927 - bugger all use when dialled from those countries, never mind other ones.

Australia has a freephone 1800 number and a local 1300 one for people to contact - even though there's quite a price differential between local and national calls, they're clearly not bothered about the cost. Nor is New Zealand. Same with Ireland. So what's the UK's excuse?

Even if calls are diverted to other parts of the UK (which seems unlikely) or outside it (which would be even more cynical) that is still no justification. I call HSBC's 01226 number in Barnsley, but I may talk to someone in Scotland, India or Malaysia. With Voice over IP it costs practically nothing to receive the call anywhere in the world.  

wrote on Jul 9^th, 2005 at 3:44am:

Australia has a freephone 1800 number and a local 1300 one for people to contact - even though there's quite a price differential between local and national calls, they're clearly not bothered about the cost. Nor is New Zealand. Same with Ireland. So what's the UK's excuse?

The excuse seems to be that Policemen are so busy dealing with crimes that its not their job to know anything about how much phone calls cost.

But then why set up Pito a supposedly expert Police body on technology where the Met's own representative freely admits she was previously totally ignorant of the true call cost situation for 0870 calls! ??? >:(

wrote on Jul 9^th, 2005 at 3:44am:

This is an absolute disgrace. See this letter in today's Daily Telegraph:

I knew my letter to The Times was going to be too long but I suppose at least a letter this short shows that The Daily Telegraph believes that most people know exactly what 0870 is all about.  Its a pity though that their correspondent Mr Derbyshire did not manage to convey this impression to us in the many more words in his article on the subject in today's DT.

It also seems very worrying that the supposed Police experts on phone technology at Pito seem to be totally insulated from the realities of paying their phone bills that the rest of us have to face.  Yet one of them is the former Group Engingeering Director of BT. :o ::)

Other sites Eg London Ambulance.London Govt still continue to promote the 0870 number even now!!!

wrote on Jul 9^th, 2005 at 9:24am:

Other sites Eg London Ambulance.London Govt still continue to promote the 0870 number even now!!!

The Met website now only lists the 020 number for overseas callers and since most people don't understand the phone system and phone call costs the way we do they will still end up calling 0870 at up to £24 an hour from Pay as You Go Mobile Phone compared to about £3.75 from the same pay as you go mobile per hour to the 020 number.

It seems clear that whatever Ms Beaton and/or the rest of her Met colleagues have attempted to circulate to reveal the other 020 number to call has not been correctly worded and has only listed it for overseas calls.

It seems to me that the Met and/or Pito still live in fear and trembling of being sued by Cable & Wireless for loss of call revenue.

Mr Colin Shepherd of Farnham has scored much more he knows.

His is the first letter ever to be published by the Daily Telegraph decrying 0870.

The editor or his minions will be for the high jump or letting that one through.

Well done Sir!

wrote on Jul 9^th, 2005 at 11:25am:

Mr Colin Shepherd of Farnham has scored much more he knows. His is the first letter ever to be published by the Daily Telegraph decrying 0870. The editor or his minions will be for the high jump or letting that one through.

Do you think Mr Colin Shepherd may even be a member of this forum under another name? ;)

His letter seemed unusually perceptive for a mere member of the general public.

On the other I fear that I personally know far, far too much on this topic to ever have ever been able to write a letter as succinct and yet as on target as Mr Shepherd's missive (or should that be missile).

Sadly The Times have not been back in touch to say that they intend to publish my own rather longer letter on this issue.

Presumably if the Daily Telegraph have in fact received over 100 angry letters on this topic they may have been forced to decide that it was time to let just one rather brief one through the net?

The Times has a letter today from a Prof. Hanka, which decries the use of 0870 and ends with

"..surely a public body has not chosen to profit in this despicable way from the misfortune of others".


More power to your elbow, Sir!!

wrote on Jul 9^th, 2005 at 9:00am:

Its a pity though that their correspondent Mr Derbyshire did not manage to convey this impression to us in the many more words in his article on the subject in today's DT.

I thought David Derbyshire's article was very informative and accurate. It didn't cover every issue (e.g. calling from outside the UK), but it covered issues more relevant to readers of the Telegraph, i.e. those living in the UK, such as the issues of high cost and revenue.

wrote on Jul 9^th, 2005 at 1:14pm:

I thought David Derbyshire's article was very informative and accurate. It didn't cover every issue (e.g. calling from outside the UK), but it covered issues more relevant to readers of the Telegraph, i.e. those living in the UK, such as the issues of high cost and revenue.

It broke absolutely zero new ground and was not nearly informed enough given how long Mr Derbyshire had to write it.

I gave him figures on the percentage of calls carried on NGNs each year and their total value of over £1 billion to BT and he did not use it.

He wrote a Janet & John type article that was not as informed as I would expect in the Daily Telegraph and would have been more appropriate in the pages of the Daily Express or Daily Mail.

But perhaps you are a friend of his? ;)

wrote on Jul 9^th, 2005 at 1:32pm:

It broke absolutely zero new ground and was not nearly informed enough given how long Mr Derbyshire had to write it. He wrote a Janet & John type article that was not as informed as I would expect in the Daily Telegraph and would have been more appropriate in the pages of the Daily Express or Daily Mail. But perhaps you are a friend of his? ;)

No, I don't know him at all.

You have to remember who the target audience is. Most people on this site are very interested in figures. The average reader of a newspaper, even a true broadsheet, does not want to wade through an article full of figures. I thought the article gave a true and convincing introduction to the 0870 scam, even though it was not solely about the 0870 scam.

This is not the first time an 0870 number has been used as an Emergency Contact Number. I response to the January 2005 Ofcom consultation I wrote

---------------

Anyone who understands the substance of this consultation will, like me, have been disgusted at the use of an 0870 number as a help line in connection with the Ufton Nervet Train Crash on 6 November 2004. I was disgusted for three reasons:
·someone or some organisation was making money out of people in desperate need for information
·many of those being fleeced would not know they were being fleeced
·in all probability, the person who took responsibility for using this number may not even have known what they were doing.
This wholly inappropriate use of a revenue-generating number strongly points to a regime that is corrupt at its core.

--------------------

Anyway, congratulations to all who have made some progress this time.

Just seen midnight news on BBC News 24, and it seems that Mail on Sunday (oh dear... but you never know ... it MIGHT be accurate!) have a 2 page spread on the London 0870 scandal that was featured in the review of the Sunday newspapers.  Lets see what they say .. at least it guarantees more coverage.  Watch if it also features on the 9am news review program tomorrow on BBC1.  Perhaps we are finally going to see some headline coverage of this scandal.  Steve

I am getting tired of hearing about this term 'revenue sharing'  It is not.  We are being too kind to the Telecom companies who sell these numbers to organisations.

The 'revenue share' is nothing more than a 'kick-back' or bribe to make companies divert their GN's to these NGN numbers and should be termed as such.  The whole thing is manifestly unfair and dishonest.

Lets stop using the term 'revenue share' in these posts!!

wrote on Jul 9^th, 2005 at 11:01pm:

This is not the first time an 0870 number has been used as an Emergency Contact Number.

True.

But it is the first time an emergency 0870 number has been publicised on this kind of scale (almost every news bulletin and Met press conference for 2 days) post the condemnation of 0870 for this purpose by the COI and by Ofcom.  It is also post the ASA ruling that the non standard cost of these numbers must be promoted/revealed - something again totally ignored by the 0870 loving and serial abusing BBC.

Ailsa Beaton at the Met seemed a nice enough lady but to know that she is on the allegedly expert Pito and yet has never informed herself about 0870 costs points to incompetence and disinterest in the telecoms field in which she professes herself to be an expert.

The biggest rogues nonetheless are Ofcom who continue to live in the total fantasy world that more promotion of 0870 costs will cure the problem when the 0870 abusers continue a Stalinist like education of their dumb call centre workers that these number are either charged only as an "ordinary local" or "ordinary national".  Since the dumb saps who work in call centres never have any form of enquiring mind they always blindly repeat these lies.

NonGeoMan.

Sadly, whilst agreeing with most of your efforts regarding use of 0870, I do not like the tone of your last offering with regard to call centre workers. Abusive, name calling has no place here, and will only distract from the real issue.
The majority of these call centre people are just folk trying to make a living - and having to take personal abuse all day long from 'Joe Public' - and would not even hold their job if they did not follow the set script. (Supervisors are listening , or calls recorded, remember).
To call them "Dumb saps" does your argument no good at all.

The use of this number in such a way also goes against the advice given by the COI regarding the use 0f 0870 numbers on help lines.

They have now announced that over 120 000 calls have been made to the 0870 1566 344 number. Let's estimate that is by now 130 000 calls. According to my research I reckon that with C&W's general level of expertise in the NGN racket arena there will have been an overall average of 30 mins per call, with queuing, call drop-out etc. and then the eventual contact conversation period. At a Premium yield of even 4 p per minute that has netted a staggering £156 000 already!

Someone somewhere must be getting this, despite all of the denials.

Victims' relatives paid 50p/min to helpline

Source: http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=402137&in_page_id=2

PHONE giant Cable & Wireless is charging desperate relatives up to 50p a minute to call the police missing persons hotline, we can reveal.

Tens of thousands of people dialling the 0870 number in an attempt to account for their loved ones are being charged up to 10p a minute from landlines and as much as 50p from mobiles.

The practice was last night condemned by telecoms watchdog Ofcom, which warned last year that public bodies should not use expensive phone lines for such purposes.

Ofcom claimed it immediately told the police and the Home Office that it was 'completely wrong' to be using the premium-rate number --but that its advice was ignored.

The 0870 1566344 number has been rung more than 200,000 times since Thursday's atrocity, earning the company a significant share of the tens and possibly hundreds of thousands of pounds generated. The police is not allowed to profit as it is a public body.

Cable & Wireless last night admitted that 'mistakes had been made', but blamed the Governmentfunded Police Information Technology Organisation (PITO) for leaving it with no alternative but to charge for the calls.

A spokesman said: 'PITO was offered an 0800 number which would have been free for callers, and an 0845 number, which would have been less expensive, but PITO would then have had to cover our costs for running the line and they said they had no money for it.'

No one from PITO was available to comment. However, if it is correct that it did not have the funds to ensure a free hotline, the question arises as to why the Home Office did not come up with the money.

An Ofcom spokesman said: 'It is entirely inappropriate that an 0870 number was used for this purpose. Once the hotline was up and running we immediately expressed our deep concerns about the consequences.

'From a landline alone, phone calls are costing 10p each minute, while from a payphone or mobile the price is four or five times that.

'Many of those attempting to dial the hotline from abroad will be devastated to discover the number does not work from their country, often because their national networks do not have an inter-connection arrangement.

'And people with low incomes may be struggling to afford the service.' Cable & Wireless's strong financial performance has only served to increase criticism. The company made profits of £377m in the year up to March and had a turnover of £3.2bn.

Its chairman Richard Lapthorne earned £396,000 over that time, while Italian chief executive Francesco Caio drew a salary of £1.9m.

The Ofcom spokesman added: 'It's disappointing that despite us publishing guidelines only eight months ago advising public sectors against using these numbers, this has occurred at such a tragic time.'

The watchdog is powerless to act, however, as the practice is not illegal. The computerised switchboard system which handles the 0870 calls is known as Casweb and automatically reroutes callers to other parts of the country when the Metropolitan Police lines become overloaded.

This has infuriated friends and relatives of those missing since the outrages. Gous Ali, who has been touring London's hospitals trying to contact his girlfriend, Neetu Jain, said: 'I have lost count of the number of times I have called this number.

'Each time it is the same - people answering the phone in some other part of the country who do not know anything of the geography of London. The last time I called, it was someone in the West Midlands.

'No one ever calls us back. It is hopeless. And to think that they are charging so much money for it makes it even worse.'

Last night Mr Lapthorne offered to make a donation to charity from the hotline revenues - but would not be drawn on how much this would be.

Speaking from his country home in Buckinghamshire, he said the charges of up to 50p per minute for calling 0870 numbers from mobile phones were dictated by mobile phone service providers.

Cable & Wireless levies the charge, however. He added: 'We are now in talks with Ofcom and service providers to work on a solution to this type of emergency.'

At last some journalists who understands this scam inside out.

Mr Derbyshire at the Daily Telegraph should be fired by the Editor of the Daily Telegraph for this disgraceful missed opportunity for his newspaper and for totally ignoring my suggestions that this was a story best covered by his hard news colleagues.

The Chief Executive of Pito and his whole board should resign.  None of the senior management of Pito were even in their London office on Friday which is a total outrage.  Nor have they read or replied to their email over the weekend.

Ms Beaton at the Met should resign for, on her own admission, previously being completely and utterly ignorant and uninformed about these calling costs when she is paid to be an expert on information and technology issues for the Met and is also a director of Pito.

She hasn't even managed to get the 020 Casualty Bureau properly listed as a full alternative to the 0870 number as she promised me would happen on Friday afternoon.  She hasn't even bothered to keep tabs on her email or on the content of this thread over the course of the weekend.

The Met and Pito is lying when it says it doesn't get a payment from the 0870 number for these calls.  The payment they are getting is the entire large minus number they should be paying to C&W for running this service for them on an 0800 number, although personally I would have thought that a company as large and profitable as C&W would have been delighted to run this vital service on an 0800 number at its own cost as well as clearly publicising an 020 alternative (for mobile and overseas callers).

It is also a disgrace that the overpaid and two faced bureaucrats at Ofcom have still not forced all the uk mobile operators to carry 0800 calls to the uk car breakdown services and to any other genuine emergency 0800 number free of charge.  Ofcom make the usual bland assertions that they hope more publicity will improve things while then still listing their own 0845 number for the choice level of customer abuse rendered by most of the staff in their so called Conact Centre.

"We are now in talks with Ofcom and service providers to work on a solution to this type of emergency".

...errr pretty simple really. Just issue a 020 number and inform the general public of the TRUTH: That this number will cost them the SAME from wherever they call in the country. Then use C&W extensive IP phone network to route calls as required at virtually no cost.

"Last night Mr Lapthorne offered to make a donation to charity from the hotline revenues - but would not be drawn on how much this would be".

On Monday, when Companies House website is open, I will find out Mr Lapthorne's HOME address, and we can all write to him directly there. I trust we will all keep our correspondence civil and polite. This is totally justified is such a terrible case.

Then when we have the results of the FOI requests with PITO/MET etc... we can calculate the income C&W made from this shocking an immoral scam perpetrated on the victims and families of the London bombings. Then we can tell him EXACTLY how much C&W should donate to charity.

Plus we can discover if C&W were suppling full call-centre services or just re-routing numbers.

Then I suggest we do the same for the Chairmans of O2; Orange; T-Mobile; Virgin etc... Of course they will try and claim that they can't tell how many calls were made from their networks to the emergency help line - but we know different. It's a simple matter.

I think you are being rather too hard on C&W who are only a typical commercial carnivore trying to earn as much money as they can from business given the failure of governement ministers, Ofcom and Pito to properly control this matter in the public interest.  It is the duty of all these people to consider the public interest,  it is not the duty of C&W who are merely delivering telecoms services (that have actually worked technologically) they have been contracted to supply by these public sector bodies

I think members of this site should be writing to the national newspapers demanding the resignation of the Chief Executive of Pito, Mr Phillip Webb and also of its Chairperson, Chris Earnshaw,  a former BT director who would have been only too well aware of the implications of using 0870 for this emergency number.  We should also demand the resignation of Miss Ailsa Beaton given her dual failure as Director of Information at the Met and as a Director of Pito to inform herself properly on the implications of using an 0870 number for this service.

In addition I would also call for the resignation of Stephen Carter, the CEO of Ofcom and his Policy determining director sidekick, Mr Kip Meek.  Above everyone else Ofcom and its predecessor OFTEL are most to blame for the scandal which they now purport to condemn.

I and other members of the public have complained to OFTEL and Ofcom about the commercially unethical and misleading aspects of the way in which it has allowed the commercial sector to mismarket and misuse 084/7x numbers ever since 1998 when the domestic telephone market began to be subject to open competition in the cost of carrying calls.

Throughout this period OFTEL maintained there was no problem as these were apparently value added services that we the customer had a choice about using them that, along with alleged competitive pressure would resolve matters.

Then Ofcom in their first consultation on the matter maintained that as not many members of the public had complained to them about the issue there was no need for them to do anything about it.  Then when the public told them they did have to do something in their second consultation Ofcom proposed that a few more price points for 087x and 084x calls were all that was needed.  It totally ducked issues like the disgraceful ripoff prices charges made by the uk mobile phone mafia for these calls.  Not our problem they say and up to market forces to put that right.

Now Matt Peacock and his other totally disingenuous PR colleagues at Ofcom cunningly attempt to try to shift the blame for their own organisation's absolutely massive regulatory failure in serving the public interest by attempting to shift the blame on to Cable & Wireless and Pito for a situation that is totally of Ofcom's making by failing to see the problem coming and by failing to go to Tessa Jowell to ask for legislation to be brought before parliament to end the whole scandal of standard uk fixed line customer service bureau calls being charge at massive premium rates, especially from mobile phones.

The very first heads to roll on this though should be Mr Stephen Carter's and Mr Kip Meek's and they should be followed soon afterwards by those of Mr Chris Earnshaw and Mr Philipp Webb.  In addition we should also demand the head of Ms Hazel Blears, the Police Minister, for immediately failing to intervene and demand that the Police provide an 0800 and 020 geographic number for this accident bureau .  And believe you me our friends at C&W can flip the switches needed to set up new 0800 numbers and geographic numbers in less than an hour.  I know this for a fact because they offer this very service to none other than the BBC.

Lastly we should also demand the resignation of Tessa Jowell for having so long failed to require Ofcom to satisfactorily deal with this whole disgracefull NTS call centre abuse issue.

What is quite incredible, but not surprising by this, is Ofcom's attempt to absolve itself from any responsibility. Whilst the Home Office, the Met and PITO in particular have behaved in a despicable manner and demonstrating incompetence at the highest level just for promoting a number that precludes callers from overseas, Ofcom has had sufficient representation in the past to understand that, given the obsession with these numbers, this was bound to happen.

On Thursday, because we're five hours behind here, I was just watching and waiting for the casualty number to be released. I knew it would be an 0870 number. I predicted it. I was 100% sure. One of the qualities civil servants need (and used to be appraised on) is foresight. Ofcom has shown none. PITO has shown none.

Resignations from Ofcom are not sufficient. It is time for this inept, corrupt organization to be discarded and replaced with a body that understands the technical, financial and social aspects and responsibilities of telecommunication providers. One wonders whether the incompetent fools in Ofcom, Home Office and PITO ever look at their own phone bills and see 0870 calls at nearly a fiver per hour. One wonders whether they ever travel outside their own county and attempt to call their bank, credit card company and the whole raft of organizations that extort money with 0870.

In the meantime, Webb has to go as does whoever is responsible for the whole corrupt NTS regime. As was pointed out earlier, the phrase "revenue sharing" is now inappropriate and should be removed. I can't think of a suitable short phrase at present - corruption and extortion are possibilities.

This whole disgraceful episode has shown that some government agencies are rotten to the core.

While we use this medium to express our disgust at PITO, Ofcom, the Home
Office and the Metropolitan Police, we should also spare a thought for the
individual identified in the 'thisismoney' article, Gous Ali, who is clearly in a distressed state:

"This has infuriated friends and relatives of those missing since the
outrages. Gous Ali, who has been touring London's hospitals trying to
contact his girlfriend, Neetu Jain, said: 'I have lost count of the number
of times I have called this number.

'Each time it is the same - people answering the phone in some other part of
the country who do not know anything of the geography of London. The last
time I called, it was someone in the West Midlands.

'No one ever calls us back. It is hopeless. And to think that they are
charging so much money for it makes it even worse.'"

Whilst Mssrs Webb, Carter, Meek, Brighton, Earnshaw and Ms Beaton are probably spending a relaxing Sunday afternoon sat on their ineffective butts, there are people like Mr Ali who are suffering and having to pay for the ineffectiveness and incompetence of government agencies and departments, and whilst most of us would be prepared to pay whatever it takes if we were in similar situations, the thought of UK agencies and private companies making a profit from death and injury is a disgrace. The costs of providing an 0800 number and a geographic equivalent are insignificant in comparison with the cost to people's lives, the cost of policing and the cost of the investigation. Imagine what the response would have been if New York City authorities issued a 1-900 number after the Sept 11 attacks.

There will also be thousands of relatives and friends that are calling this number from overseas. They will either be unable to get through and perhaps not understand why, or they will be paying a significant premium for the call - all due to the uselessness of the above organizations.

Given that the planning for a tragedy such as what happened last week will have been ongoing for several years now, the inability to provide something as relatively straightforward as a telephone number (free for UK, geographic for international) is inexcusable.

wrote on Jul 10^th, 2005 at 2:02pm:

In the meantime, Webb has to go as does whoever is responsible for the whole corrupt NTS regime. As was pointed out earlier, the phrase "revenue sharing" is now inappropriate and should be removed. I can't think of a suitable short phrase at present - corruption and extortion are possibilities.

Agreed Philip Webb must go and so must Chris Earnshaw Pito's Chairman who is probably even more guilty, given his expert telecoms background.  Plus don't forget that Ailsa Beaton of the Met is a board director of Pito so for her to try to pass the blame totally from her own hands to those of Pito, as quite incredibly she has done in an email to me, is simply beyond belief.

Neither Webb or Earnshaw were in the PITO office or available for comment on Friday and neither has issued any public statement

I have visions of both Webb and Earnshaw sunning themselves in their Tuscan villas on Thursday and Friday.  At least Miss Beaton was at her desk in London.

But Stephen Carter and Kip Meek at Ofcom must go too.   Theirs is the biggest failure of all in this whole sad and sorry saga.

As for C&W yes its shabby but we expect businesses to behave like this if left to their own devices.  The whole reason we appoint regulators and government ministers is to pass laws and regulations that protect the general public from some of the worst instincts of business.  In this case this simply has not happened.

I'm not a fan of the Daily Mail. Its right-wing clap-trap does a lot of damage, however its comment today is spot on:

A shocking exploitation

The courage and resilience of our rescue services as they cope with the danger, horror and complexity of the terror bombings has been rightly praised. We are fortunate to live in a country where such devotion and discipline exist.

But there has been one area of the emergency provisions that has not been up to the same standard. Relatives of the missing have sometimes been treated with less consideration than they deserve. Operators could have been more helpful to distraught callers who were anxious for any information, however sketchy.

And it is shocking that worried families have had to use an expensive 0870 number. The taxpayer would surely not begrudge the cost of a free call in such grim circumstances, and it is wrong that anyone should profit from grief and fear.

Emergency planners should ensure that these faults are fixed now.

Source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/newscomment.html?in_article_id=355308&in_page_id=1787

wrote on Jul 10^th, 2005 at 2:31pm:

I'm not a fan of the Daily Mail. Its right-wing clap-trap does a lot of damage, however its comment today is spot on:

You should not confuse the editorial political position of a newspaper with the quality of its journalism.

This is investigative journalism of the highest possible quality by the Mail on Sunday.  The article by Mr David Derbyshire at The Daily Telegraph represented press release regurgitation of the very lowest possible quality.

wrote on Jul 7^th, 2005 at 4:56pm:

The 0870 no is the Met Police Central Casualty Bureau no. The 0208 no is a British Transport Police No. The Met Police Casualty Bureau is now based at the Hendon Police College. Visit http://www.met.police.uk/casualty/info.htm

Presumably the British Transport Police are simply operating one of the many different casualty call centres for this emergency that are served by the 0870 number?

By calling the 020 number you are therefore simply being taken directly to one of the call centres that the 0870 number might have taken you to.

Re the Daily Mail.  I stand in the middle.... this article is very strong but it does have a stinking reputation for not letting the truth stand in the way of a story that matches its politics or social views on other issues! Nuff said...    ;)

wrote on Jul 10^th, 2005 at 2:52pm:

Re the Daily Mail.  I stand in the middle.... this article is very strong but it does have a stinking reputation for not letting the truth stand in the way of a story that matches its politics or social views on other issues! Nuff said...    ;)

But in this case everything they have written in this story is true.

Its just unfortunate that the Mail on Sunday would have missed the New Labour Stealth Tax angle on all this as that would have very fitted in stongly with their editorial political agenda.

I think it's worth contacting Panorama. I think this use of 0870 adds weight to the call to do something about them. Contact details here. They even have a phone number which isn't 0870!  :o

wrote on Jul 10^th, 2005 at 3:34pm:

I think it's worth contacting Panorama. I think this use of 0870 adds weight to the call to do something about them. Contact details here. They even have a phone number which isn't 0870!  :o

This is the reply I received from Frank Simmonds, Deputy Editor of Panorama, to my suggestion a few months ago that the time had come for the BBC to do an in depth feature on this issue.  But perhaps with the General Election safely out of the way they may now be more interested? ::) ;):-

-----Original Message-----
From: Frank Simmonds [mailto:Frank.Simmonds@bbc.co.uk]
Sent: 04 March 2005 11:46
To: NGM
Cc: Panorama; Andrew Bell-TVC
Subject: RE: Panorama In Depth Piece on Whole 084x/087x Money Making Scam?

Dear NGM -- Many thanks for your recent proposal for a Panorama investigation into 084x/087x call charges. We have decided to pass on it at this stage but will keep it on file. With an election looming the pressure on slots is intense at the moment. Best Wishes.

Frank Simmonds
Deputy Editor Panorama
Room 1118
BBC White City
201 Wood Lane
London W12 7TS

-----Original Message-----
From: NGM
Sent: 17 February 2005 20:48
To: Mike Robinson-Panorama
Cc: Panorama; Andrew Bell-TVC; Frank Simmonds
Subject: Panorama In Depth Piece on Whole 084x/087x Money Making Scam?

Dear Panorama,

Isn't it really about time that you considered devoting a whole program to the BT initiated 084x and 087x calling scam.  To how it has prevented proper competition in call prices for telecoms consumers, to how customers have been persistently lied to and misled over the actual call charges they are paying and also to the pots of money that BT earn out of calls routed to these numbers compared to numbers that start either 01 or 02.

Also to the reasons that until recently no one in the media was prepared to talk about this issue even though it is a multi billion pound industry.

I can't think of a better program than Panorama to do a proper investigation on something like this.

Regards,

NGM

I agree that C&W are just a corporate machine and will do almost anything to make a profit; nothing wrong in that, it's fair capitalism and produces many benefits.

Plus I agree this is really a massive failing of PITO/MET/GOV POLICY etc... who should be doing the right thing.

But in many ways C&W and the mobile companies are more vulnerable then government departments and organizations. C&W are rightly sensitive to to public opinion at all times as the consumer can stop buying or swap allegiances in a second.

The mobile companies in particular are very anxious to slow down their "churn" rates - and they have a soft underbelly for this sort of bad publicity.

Again a big calculation will be possible: Total number of calls and duration to casualty line; land line vs mobile calls; relative share of different mobile phone operators; mark-up of 0870 calls of different operators etc... Thus each of them should be given a figure they should donate to charity.

wrote on Jul 10^th, 2005 at 4:47pm:

But in many ways C&W and the mobile companies are more vulnerable then government departments and organizations. C&W are rightly sensitive to to public opinion at all times as the consumer can stop buying or swap allegiances in a second.

The whole point about 0870 numbers that have no alternative listed is that people cannot actually stop buying or change allegiances in a matter of seconds.  That is precisely what everyone here is so angry about.  It is an anti free market uncompetitive system.

If CW are really as worried as you make out how is it that my extensive emails to the Metropolitan Police and Ofcom on Thursday and Friday copied to Mr Steve Double and Mr Tim Stephens at CW produced not one response from them.

CW personnel do not respond because they are completely shameless and cynical on the issue as most more hard bitten corporate folk tend to be.

CW sold off their main retail telecoms business (One2One) some time ago and are now an almost entirely business to business operation.  So how exactly would you propose that the public goes about stopping buying their products to show its displeasure?

Pleased with the Mail article but annoyed re the comment that they didn't have the funds to run a free line.

Well what about a Geographic number then? Surely there is no cost to them for that.

No the police choose to run a revenue generating number instead. That is a deliberate decision. They could have gone for a geographic number if they didn't have the funds and even if contractually bound by C&W I can't see breaking the contract would have been an issue.  C&W wouldn't have sued under the circumstances - can you imagine the negative publicity if they did.

As far as I'm concerned the blame lies with the police and OFCOM alone. The police made the decision to go for an 0870 contract with C&W. They didn't have to. And OFCOM are just incompetent. I read their comment in the Mail with disbelief. It bore no resemblence to what I was told on the phone when I called them to complain (see earlier posting).

As far as I'm concerned C&W offered a service that the police took up. It's not C&W fault that it is completely inappropriate for this and many other circumstances. It is OFCOM's fault that it is allowed and it is the police's fault that they entered in to such an inapproriate contact.

As far as I can see there is a lot of backside covering here by both the police and OFCOM.

Surely it can't be difficult to regulate this. Surely no public body should be allowed to use an 0870 number under any circumstances. 0845 numbers should only be allowed by public bodies if accompanied by a cost disclosure and a geographic number alternative. Commercial organisations should be allowed to use 0845/0870, but only we a cost disclosure (and ideally a geographic alternative).

I'm new to these postings so I'm sure you will all tell me if I have this all wrong!

wrote on Jul 10^th, 2005 at 8:13pm:

I'm new to these postings so I'm sure you will all tell me if I have this all wrong!

I am very old to posting here but I am happy to tell you that you have it almost totally right and you appear to be one of the most perceptive people to have posted on the subject in this forum.  The only guilty people you have possibly missed out are Charles Clarke (Home Secretary), Hazel Blears (Police Minister) and Tessa Jowell (Culture Minister).

Clarke and Blears had the power to tell the Police they must use a geographic and/or 0800 phone number instead of which they have pressurised the Police to use 0870 by providing inadequate funding for this project.  Tessa Jowell is also guilty as a very long running and experienced culture secretary responsible for OFTEL and now Ofcom who has failed to act to force them to regulate to make 084/7x NTS revenue share illegal.  Jowell has also failed to ask Ofcom to propose regulations to make it illegal for mobile phone companies to grotesquely overcharge for 0845 and 0870 phone calls.

If you want to know what Ofcom is really like and just how much they are in bed with the Telecoms industry they are supposed to regulate then try reading some of these recent Ofcom NTS Focus Group Notes where they have been asking their telecom industry crony chums how they would like to be regulated! ::) :o

The comments from some of the lesser known Ofcom names at these meetings are especially illuminating.  It is interesting that Mr Matt Peacock, who likes us to believe that Ofcom is the consumer's friend and Ofcom's CEO, Stephen Carter, never shows their face at such events.  Also notable by his absence is the Ofcom Policy Guru, Mr Kip Meek.

See www.ofcom.org.uk/telecoms/groups/nts_focus/ to see just how bad things really are and just why it is that Ofcom talks a lot but never actually acts on this matter.

Particularly mystifying is that none of the major call centre operators are allowed to attend these so called "focus groups" and only the telcos attend.  This seems to show only too clearly exactly who are Ofcom's real masters. :o

I have sent this complaint earlier. I doubt whether the intended recipients will actually see the complaint however there will be a record of this in case they ever decide to do this again.

>>>

To Phillip Webb, PITO/CEO
To Stephen Carter, Ofcom/CEO
To Kip Meek, Ofcom/Competition Partner
To Geoff Brighton, Ofcom/NTS
To Matt Peacock, Ofcom/Communications
To Ailsa Beaton, Director of Information, Metropolitan Police

I trust that this morning, you will spare more than a moment's thought for
the efforts of emergency workers who have performed an outstanding job in
the aftermath of the London bombings last week and contrast these efforts
with your own activities in establishing a casualty bureau contact facility
which used an 0870 revenue generating telephone number. Such a number has
met with widespread condemnation this weekend and deservedly so. As well as
preventing many callers from overseas being able to contact the bureau, the
use of a number costing almost eight pence per minute from landlines and
significantly more from cellular phones and call boxes is both irresponsible
and distasteful, particularly when around four pence per minute is passed to
a commercial organization for it to profit from this tragedy.

I trust that, whilst you sit in your comfortable air-conditioned offices
this morning, you will also consider the friends and relatives that are
still seeking information about missing or injured persons being forced to
call a number that is charging up to fifty pence per minute from some
cellular networks and contrast this with your inability to provide a free
telephone number for UK callers and a geographic number for international
callers together with your incompetence in removing these despicable
numbers from the UK numbering system as they provide, with very few
exceptions, no tangible benefit to the UK telephone user.

Whilst PITO has to take responsibility for this specific shameful incident,
the wider blame for the rotten NTS regime lies firmly with Ofcom and its
ineffectiveness in providing both regulatory activity and protection of the
public. I note that in the UK media this weekend, Ofcom has attempted to
absolve itself from any responsibility for the use of what are, in all but
name, premium rate numbers (the description Ofcom's Matt Peacock gave for
0870 on a BBC radio programme) as an emergency contact and, despite many
complaints from the public, despite overwhelming condemnation of the NTS
regime from respondents to the recent Ofcom consultation documents, and
because of constant dithering and failure to act on continued abuses of
these rip-off numbers, it has failed to take any action to protect the
public.

Perhaps now, Ofcom will finally realize that the use of NTS by government
agencies, non-profit organizations and commercial bodies that can reasonably
expect to receive international inbound calls is unacceptable. As a British
citizen who is resident overseas, I am sick and tired from being denied
access to essential government services that use 0870, 0845 and 0844
telephone numbers. I am sick and tired of having to make Freedom of
Information requests to the DVLA, the Home Office, the Immigration and
Nationality Directorate, the Ministry of Defence and numerous other agencies
simply to obtain a number that I can actually call from the United States.
Ofcom has already provided a response to my FOI request that outlines the
difficulty for terminating international calls to 0870 numbers. As Ofcom is
clearly aware of this problem, and the COI has published guidance that is
seemingly ignored by agencies such as the Home Office, the continuing lack
of any action by the UK regulator demonstrates gross incompetence and a lack
of 'joined-up' government.

The whole NTS regime, particularly the 0870 and 0871 numbering schemes, is
shrouded in deceit as shown by Ofcom's redaction of the key financial
figures in its recent NTS consultations and action must now be taken to
prevent these numbering systems from ever being used again for any such
similar tragedy.

Foresight is a quality that senior civil servants should be fully familiar
with. The use of a premium rate (in all but name) telephone number for an
emergency center demonstrates complete cluelessness and a lack of any
such foresight. Those involved with this decision should, in my opinion,
consider their own positions - such a failure, given that there would have
been many months of planning for such an emergency, is inexcusable.

Finally, I hope that both PITO and Ofcom will find the time to issue an
apology for the abject failure to plan for this event and also to ensure
that the significant revenue generated from the 0870 number is used to aid
the victims of the explosions. I will be making a copy of this letter
available to my Member of Parliament in the United Kingdom.

Excellent letter IDB but you should have included the following in your circulation list:-

tessa.jowell@culture.gov.uk  Culture Minister

charles.clarke@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk  Home Secretary

john.gieve@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk - Permanent Secretary of Home Office (a top civil servant who has quite deliberately pushed the use of 0870 as New Labour stealth tax)

alan.gemmell@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk  Perm Sec's Assistant

hazel.blears@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk Police Minister

stephen.rimmer@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk Home Office expert Rep on Pico board

I should have thought commissioner@met.police.uk could also have been included in your list of recipients.

I deliberately omitted the government ministers and senior civil servants as I will be asking my MP to pursue this with those individuals and departments. Jowell and Clarke are not going to read, let alone respond to most public complaints as they are too far removed from the people they are supposed to answer to. My MP on the other hand does have access to these people and he is best placed to deal with ministerial responsibility or the lack of it.

I have emailed Panorama, giving them the link to this thread.

I think that it would be a good idea to contact Channel 4's Dispatches programme aswell.

wrote on Jul 10^th, 2005 at 9:15pm:

Jowell and Clarke are not going to read, let alone respond to most public complaints as they are too far removed from the people they are supposed to answer to.

I agree with you regarding Charles Clarke.

Jowell however appears to be conscientious.  I have received email read receipts at various odd hours of the day and night from her parliamentary email account.

My problem with asking my MP to pursue this for me is that I know him almost too well so it could be slightly embarassing.  Also he seems more obsessd with anything to do with child abuse than with this particular issue.

Even if the civil servants read it your email to Clarke or whoever still has an impact.

wrote on Jul 10^th, 2005 at 9:22pm:

I have emailed Panorama, giving them the link to this thread. I think that it would be a good idea to contact Channel 4's Dispatches programme aswell.

Good idea about Dispatches.  I also emailed Panorama the link to the Mail on Sunday article so they get the idea that this is a matter that is now being taken seriously by the media.

This link on the other page no goes to an article "Why we must not be rushed into pulling out of Iraq"  ???

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/newscomment.html?in_article_id=355308&in_page_id=1787

This is another worthwhile address at Ofcom to include in any email:-

consumerpanel@ofcom.org.uk

Those of you who keep up with such things will realise that the Ofcom Consumer Panel was one of Ofcom's sternest critics over Ofcom's original NTS Options for the Future so called consultative document.

Just announced on ITV, "It is an expensive premium rate number"

wrote on Jul 10^th, 2005 at 9:34pm:

Just announced on ITV, "It is an expensive premium rate number"

Where are Mr Philipp Webb and Mr Chris Earnshaw of Pito I wonder?  They didn't seem to be in their office on Friday and they don't read their emails at the weekend.

Perhaps they are both too busy quaffing the Chianti in their Tuscan villas

Looks like the solids are really beginning to hit the fan for these gentlemen.  As and when they get back to their offices of course ::)

wrote on Jul 10^th, 2005 at 9:32pm:

This link on the other page no goes to an article "Why we must not be rushed into pulling out of Iraq"  ??? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/newscomment.html?in_article_id=355308&in_page_id=1787

This link seems to work:-

www.thisismoney.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=402137&in_page_id=2

All excellent points of course; but although clearly the concentration in this thread is about the depth of total depravity in using a 0870 Premium number to defraud suffering relatives and friends of the injured, dying and deceased, please do not forget that this generic scam actually concerns a whole plethora of NGNs, which are all being abused in the same way.

The great danger in concentrating on 0870 and 0845 only in complaints and petitions is that Ofcom and the scammers will just move the scam to other NGNs (as they have done with GP's surgery abuses of 0870, just moving it to 0844). Please remember that all NGNs are ripe for the same identical rip-off, with call queuing being at the base of the maximisation of revenue generation (because it is allowed with all NGNs except 09) and 07 PNS having the very worst potential for these abuses because of the relatively high charge rates allowed, with queuing.

The emphasis therefore must be on the complete future prohibition of the abuses with all NGNs other than 09 being used as Premium numbers. That is now the only solution which will work to end the potential for all of these abuses, and to ensure that the relatives and friends of victims of any future similar disaster will not be exploited in the same way.

I've just emailed Channel 4 News aswell.

I realise that our main brief is to complain about the use of 0870 numbers.
But let us not forget that there are people out there still looking for missings relatives, friends etc.
These people are not bothered about the cost, they just want an answer.
The answer they are getting has also been broadcast on ITV.................. They are put on hold for 30 minutes, then they are told to call back later.

That is the whole point of 0870...... put them on hold.

They are no better than the scammers who get people to ring them on an 090x number and play sounds to them indicating that have been disconnected when in fact they are still paying ££.


By the way, the chap who has offered some sort of  donation to charity has some knowledge of where the funds are going, lets target him for starters. We know how much money has been made, lets see if he does?

C&W may be business to business - but they have a stock exchange listing and hate any bad publicity.

The mobile phone companies all have high "churn" rates; and are also sensitive. If we can one of them to make a big charity donation it could start the ball rolling with others.

Richard Branson @ Virgin Mobile would be best to start with. Does he still have a part of Virgin mobile?

wrote on Jul 10^th, 2005 at 9:34pm:

Just announced on ITV, "It is an expensive premium rate number"

Was this ITV News ??

Thanks
Daniel

Noted, but I was refering to whoever was responsible for making that number 0870 ..... nothing to do with the mobile phone operators.

juby

The calculation is quite simple - if 200,000 people have now called the number and the average length of the phone call is 10 minutes at say 4p per minute 'kick-back', then the calculation is simple.

They have made...200,000 X 10 X 4 / 100  = £80,000

It could be this amount, it could be less, it could still be
more, however in anycase, what a horrible surreptitious way
to generate money from concerned & worried people!

wrote on Jul 10^th, 2005 at 10:22pm:

The answer they are getting has also been broadcast on ITV.................. They are put on hold for 30 minutes, then they are told to call back later. That is the whole point of 0870...... put them on hold.

To be fair dorf the people manning these numerous call taking centres that the 0870 number distributes to are police staff of one kind or another.  They are not employees of cable & wireless who are getting the revenue share on the calls.  So I would not like to suggest that any police staff are deliberately extending these calls or have any incentive to.

But the point is that when Cable & Wireless set the specification for these emergency call handling systems for Pito they knew full well that because of the nature of the enquiries and the massive peaks in call volume that the calls would always be long and there would be queues.  So that is why they offered to provide the relatively complex call centre rerouting product (a more genuine reason for using the whole NTS system than those scammers who simply use 0870 to earn money on calls directing to only a single call centre) to Pito for nothing because they knew that although it was a more complex call centre rerouting system to set up and maintain (particularly due to the huge call volumes in the early days) the payback would be absolutely huge in a major incident like this one occurred.

The Pito people here though have behaved totally negligently by not setting a financial cap on what cable & wireless could earn in the original contract and also demanding that any money beyond this goes to charity or to the vicitims.  Also in view of the call volumes that were always likely to be received it is quite incomprehensible that they would have agreed to any worse a deal than the use of an 0845 number .  To have agreed to 0870 indicates the worst sort of negligence by the Pito people.  Or they could even have insisted on a 1p a minute at all times 0844 number which really nobody could have been very upset about as it is cheaper than a national call for most people at many times of day.  Except of course for overseas callers and mobile callers who would still be asked to pay ripoff rates.  That problem is a whole other problem that again reflects acute regulatory failure by Ofcom.

The gentleman offering the charitable donations is:-
richard.lapthorne@cw.com   You may care to email him with your suggestions.

wrote on Jul 10^th, 2005 at 10:30pm:

The mobile phone companies all have high "churn" rates; and are also sensitive. If we can one of them to make a big charity donation it could start the ball rolling with others.

It is likely that the mobile phone companies charging 30p to 40p per minute at all times will have made a far, far bigger profit than C&W where 0870 call rates fall to 1.5p at the weekend and the revenue share is less than a penny a  minute.  But the mobile phone companies will stil be earning 30p to 40p a minute on a Sunday.

So you are correct that the mobile phone groups are the biggest scammers of all here although their scamming was only made possible by what Pito and C&W originally agreed to set up.

I think Ofcom should be asked by Tessa Jowell to make emergency regulations here confiscating all the revenue share on calls to this 0870 number and handing it to a charity for the injured victims and the widows and orphans of the victims.

You can do honest business, or dishonest business.

The way I see it, anyone/company who operates, sells or promotes 0870 numbers is running a dishonest business. They are relying on ignorance to gain revenue.  Any company that deliberately makes money out of it's customers by hiding costs from them is dishonest. A company who uses an 0870 number is doing just that.

wrote on Jul 10^th, 2005 at 10:53pm:

You can do honest business, or dishonest business. The way I see it, anyone/company who operates, sells or promotes 0870 numbers is running a dishonest business. They are relying on ignorance to gain revenue.  Any company that deliberately makes money out of it's customers by hiding costs from them is dishonest. A company who uses an 0870 number is doing just that.

Have you ever worked for a commercial company.  Sadly unethical behaviour is considered ususal business practice much more of the time these days than you may realise if you don't work in the commercial sector.

Hi NGM, I did not suggest to whom the revenue was actually going.

Hi Alternative, I am afraid your calulations are incorrect. The average chargeable time per call has been 30 minutes. If there have now been 200 000 calls altogether then that will be at 4 p per minute for each call of 30 minutes - rather a larger amount than you suggest.  (I am not sure where you get the figure 200 000 from, since that is not a number which I have seen published yet.)

wrote on Jul 10^th, 2005 at 11:01pm:

The average chargeable time per call has been 30 minutes. If there have now been 200 000 calls altogether then that will be at 4 p per minute for each call of 30 minutes - rather a larger amount than you suggest.  (I am not sure where you get the figure 200 000 from, since that is not a number which I have seen published yet.)

A lot of the calls will have been in the weekday evening and the weekend though when the revenue share on 0870 is considerably lower than 4p per minute.

Its up to Mr Lapthorne at C&W to reveal what they have actually so far earned and what they will be doing with it.

The fact that he hasn't already promised to give all the money C&W have earned on this number to charity is very disappointing.

wrote on Jul 10^th, 2005 at 10:57pm:

Have you ever worked for a commercial company.  Sadly unethical behaviour is considered ususal business practice much more of the time these days than you may realise if you don't work in the commercial sector.

What a load of tosh. Unethical behaviour is NOT considered ususal business practice at all. There are always roques but in the end you can't build a business on deceit. It will blow up in your face.

Source: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=15721669&method=full&siteid=94762&headline=7-7--war-on-britain--helpline-cash-for-victims--name_page.html


CABLE & Wireless yesterday agreed to give profits from the police missing persons hotline to victims' charities - after pressure from the Mirror.

The phone giant was to make hundreds of thousands of pounds as desperate relatives were charged up to 50p a minute to trace loved ones.

But moments after the Mirror demanded answers from the £2million-a-year chief executive Francesco Caio, the firm promised to hand over the cash.

Communications chief Leslie Smith said: "We will donate any money made from the calls to victims."

But the wife of chairman Richard Lapthorne laughed off claims the firm tried to cash in.

At their £4million home in Western Turville, Bucks, Valerie Lapthorne rambled: "I know what you're thinking... fat cat, fat wife. Ha, Ha.

"Richard and the others have not had a chance to meet up to discuss any charitable donation."

Ofcom criticised the Police Information Technology Organisation for using the expensive 0870 number for helplines after it was offered the free 0800 or cheaper 0845.

A source said the choice was "inappropriate".

I've seen a reference to the high cost of making enquiry calls on teletext and today, on GMTV John Stapleton made reference to it. So slowly this is getting through, but will it do any good I ask myself.

Sadly, islandman, it probably won't do anything.
The Government have too strong a grip on matters, now.  The media is almost completely involved in the use (and profit from) 0870 numbers, so there will be no help from that quarter.
In effect this Labour Government have slowly but surely, during their term, cleverly drawn us all into a deceiptful scam from which I see little hope of extraction.
If they can get away with this disgusting use of 0870 then the field is wide open from here on...!
Or am I just an old cynic??

wrote on Jul 11^th, 2005 at 1:52am:

What a load of tosh. Unethical behaviour is NOT considered ususal business practice at all. There are always roques but in the end you can't build a business on deceit. It will blow up in your face.

You mean Ratners, AuctionWorld etc?

There are still a lot of other Ratners and AuctionWorlds firmly in business out there though.

Just look at DSG Retail Ltd and Comet and the appalling lies their staff tell customers about their 3 year warranties.

wrote on Jul 11^th, 2005 at 3:01am:

Ofcom criticised the Police Information Technology Organisation for using the expensive 0870 number for helplines after it was offered the free 0800 or cheaper 0845. A source said the choice was "inappropriate".

And who is going to criticise Ofcom and Tessa Jowell for having spent years pontificating over what to do about an issue that the public has already long been furious about.

Also who is going to criticise Ofcom for only holding regular meetings to dicuss what its plans are on NTS with the main industry telcos but not with either the main call centre operators or with any major consumer interest groups.

Also who is going to criticise Ofcom for blaming Pito and C&W for its own regulatory bungling or even blatant cynicism.

Or is that a newspaper story for 2006?

wrote on Jul 10^th, 2005 at 10:33pm:

Was this ITV News ?? Thanks Daniel

Only just seen your request, sorry. But yes it was the opening lines of ITV news at 2300 last night.

juby

wrote on Jul 11^th, 2005 at 3:01am:

At their £4million home in Western Turville, Bucks, Valerie Lapthorne rambled: "I know what you're thinking... fat cat, fat wife. Ha, Ha.

I didn't know she was fat, did anybody else?

juby

Just looked at the Google UK search engine.

Hang the mouse over the ribon and guess what .......

"Friends & family hotline for London explosions :

0870 1566 344

Does anyone have the time/contacts to put them right?

The Met website finally has an 020 number listed after the 0870.

But why on earth don't they just remove the 0870 altogether? Or at least put a warning:

To pay up to 50p a minute to find out if your loved ones are dead or injured call: 0870....

Or to pay just the cost of a regular call phone: 020...

Plus they have managed to correct the incorrect formating of the international number.

wrote on Jul 11^th, 2005 at 10:30am:

The Met website finally has an 020 number listed after the 0870. But why on earth don't they just remove the 0870 altogether? Or at least put a warning

It has taken them until today to put 020 on an equal footing because all the people at the Met who could request it and the web developers who could implement it had pushed off for the weekend.  Never mind that the relatives needed to call the number 24/7 and that newspapers publish at the weekend.  The fact is that from 5pm Friday to 9am Monday those who had the power to listen were putting their feet up.

The reason the 0870 number is still published is because the 020 number only goes to one of the 20 regional call centres thus if only the 020 number was listed this call centre would be permanantly engaged and no one able to get through.  But by leaving the 0870 number they ensure that when people get the engaged tone on 020 they will still call 0870 instead.

How very convenient that the 020 number is only finally published on an equal footing today when the number of calls made will have now slowed to a trickle.  Perhaps the staff at Pito own shares in the major uk mobile phone operators who have made far more out of this whole scam than C&W.

wrote on Jul 11^th, 2005 at 10:30am:

The Met website finally has an 020 number listed after the 0870.

Where?

Met site still gives 0870 no priority at this moment  see

 www.met.police.uk/news/terrorist_attacks/

As do London Ambulance,London Govt, Sky etc


Earlier today i heard Tessa Jowell say on TODAY she was looking into it.(Then again pigs might fly!!!)

Isnt it about time we had a statement from the Mobile Companies offering to make a substantial donation to the Disaster fund.

wrote on Jul 11^th, 2005 at 11:26am:

Where? Met site still gives 0870 no priority at this moment  see http://met.policeuk/news/terrorist_attacks/

At www.met.police.uk/news/terrorist_attacks but not at the incorrect web link that you gave which does not exist. ::)

As the original posters says the geographic number is now shown after the 0870 number as a direct alternative.  When added on Friday night it was then only shown as an 00 44 number to call from overseas.  As I highlighted they cannot withdraw the 0870 because the 020 number only links to one call centre.  They could of course by now have replaced the 0870 number with 0800 but presumably Pito wasn't willing to stump up the extra cash.  0800 numbers still cost a bomb to call from most mobiles or from overseas.

wrote on Jul 11^th, 2005 at 11:00am:

The reason the 0870 number is still published is because the 020 number only goes to one of the 20 regional call centres thus if only the 020 number was listed this call centre would be permanantly engaged and no one able to get through.  But by leaving the 0870 number they ensure that when people get the engaged tone on 020 they will still call 0870 instead.

But I recall arranging a very simple system (using Videotron, when they operated in West London) whereby we could hunt calls over the public network, using Videotron's Nokia switch, so that calls to a single number (081 as it was then), could be hunted over four switchboards - each on a different public exchange with destinations in 081 and 071.
Now if I could do that, having told Videotron what their switch could do, then why not the Met?
Sorry, silly question; but it should not be a silly question.

wrote on Jul 11^th, 2005 at 11:26am:

Isnt it about time we had a statement from the Mobile Companies offering to make a substantial donation to the Disaster fund.

Perhaps they would also care to donate the hundreds of millions a year they scam from broken down motorists who they charge premium rates to when calling the breakdown services 0800 numbers on their mobiles.

Or perhaps Ofcom and Miss Jowell could simply make it illegal to revenue share on or charge any more for calls to all 084/7x numbers.  But at the moment Ofcom's friends from the Telecoms industry aren't saying they want to lose this money at the NTS Focus Groups so Ofcom and Miss Jowell are ducking doing anything

Ofcom's NTS Options for the Future document by the way completely fails to address the whole issue of NTS call costs to mobiles, especially to 0800 numbers where no one thinks there is an issue on fixed lines but there most definitely is one on all mobiles apart from Orange contract mobile phones

I have been in contact with a GLA member I know and a  MP I know (not mentioning any names to ensure I don't embarass them if this doesn't go anywhere!).

As previously mentioned the GLA member has questioned the Chief Executive of the Metropolitan
Police, but han't had a response yet. The MP has put down questions on this in the house of commons.

Will let you know outcome.

As mentioned before I'm new to this forum, but I have ben waging my own personal campaign on this for sometime. It was the London Bombing helpline that made me go ballistic and I found this site.

FYI when I started my little campaign in 2002 I received a full refund from BT for all 0870 calls made by me amounting to about £135. The critical factor here was that they stumbled over the following wording when called:

'The rate for a national call'

and

'A national rate call'

To any normal person these would be the same thing and it was so easy to get them to say the wrong one for the wrong circumstances and hence quote the price incorrectly. They just tied themselves in knots without any help from me. This followed 2 genuine calls from me where I was quoted that 0870 numbers cost the same as a non local geographic number, only to find it hadn't when I got my bill.

I suspect it would not be so easy now.

wrote on Jul 11^th, 2005 at 11:34am:

Now if I could do that, having told Videotron what their switch could do, then why not the Met?

Because presumably you were willing to pay the call forwarding cost of these calls? ;)

The Met are not willing to pay anything for phone call handling or call forwarding.  They want the callers to pay the lot.

wrote on Jul 11^th, 2005 at 11:39am:

FYI when I started my little campaign in 2002 I received a full refund from BT for all 0870 calls made by me amounting to about £135. The critical factor here was that they stumbled over the following wording when called:

You must have written a very persuasive letter indeed.

The BT line to me when I have challenged them over 0870 for several years is that this is a special enhanced form of call switching that costs them more to run and so justifies an extra cost.

They never offered any satisfactory explanation whatsoever as to why 0870 was even excluded from Friends & Family.

I have just heard a member of the European Commission on Radio 4 You & Yours making pathetic pleas that if there is a bit more publicity for the cost of European mobile roaming costs on their website then the prices for call roaming will fall.

Get real this is like hoping to embarass bank robbers into returning the proceeds of their heist.  The only way to deal with crooks is to pass new laws against them and build more jails.

[quote author=NonGeographicalMan lAt www.met.police.uk/new/terrorist_attacks but not at the incorrect web link that you gave which does not exist. ::)

As you will see i amended it quite quickly after noticing my mistake!!! You appear to have missed an s off news on your posting ;)

With modern switches is it not possible to have exactly the same routing/switching facilities on geographical numbers,as you can have on 0870.

wrote on Jul 11^th, 2005 at 11:50am:

With modern switches is it not possible to have exactly the same routing/switching facilities on geographical numbers,as you can have on 0870.

There is a class of NGN starting 02something that are only charged to callers at geographic rates but that have all the call rerouting features of other NGNs such as 0870 and 0845.

They have not been very popular because the call recipient instead of the caller has to pay an extra amount for the facility although the cost per call is not as high as for receiving 0800 calls.  Equally importantly overseas and mobile phone callers are  not charged a premium as they would be on even an 0800 NGN phone number.

wrote on Jul 11^th, 2005 at 11:41am:

Because presumably you were willing to pay the call forwarding cost of these calls? ;) The Met are not willing to pay anything for phone call handling or call forwarding.  They want the callers to pay the lot.

No, there was no forwarding, merely intelligent routing in the PSTN to find a free answering board. That was why I suggested it - both to the client and here.

wrote on Jul 11^th, 2005 at 12:03pm:

No, there was no forwarding, merely intelligent routing in the PSTN to find a free answering board. That was why I suggested it - both to the client and here.

If what Big John says is true then it seems that BT withdrew this as a free facility on geographic phone exchange based numbers at the time that they invented NGNs.

The London Bombings Relief Fund has now been launched by the Red Cross.    

Yes  you have guessed it they are using a 08705 no (08705 125 125) supplied by BT.Will they never learn.

wrote on Jul 11^th, 2005 at 12:06pm:

Yes  you have guessed it they are using a 08705 no (08705 125 125) supplied by BT.Will they never learn.

Crooks never learn.  They are incorrigible.

Instead they have to be legislated and imprisoned (or in this case regulated) out of existence.

wrote on Jul 11^th, 2005 at 12:05pm:

If what Big John says is true then it seems that BT withdrew this as a free facility on geographic phone exchange based numbers at the time that they invented NGNs.

I think it was mentioned by the COI in the revised guidance notes on the use of 0870 numbers.Although i cant locate my copy at the mo.

wrote on Jul 11^th, 2005 at 12:05pm:

If what Big John says is true then it seems that BT withdrew this as a free facility on geographic phone exchange based numbers at the time that they invented NGNs.

BT were running NGNs at the time that we did this and we did not any. Videotron's Nokia switches enabled them to check for a free outlet before extending the call - all within the PSTN. Yes, the call came from outside Videotron and was delivered within their network, but did not C&W take over Videotron?
So it could all be handled within the PITO network if they could have been bothered to think about it.

These people just cannot get a grip of what the problem is here. Why are
these ministers so utterly incompetent? Do they ever read? Can they actually
read? This woman needs to be FIRED.

Source: http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-13384759,00.html

Home Office Minister Hazel Blears has said she understood the desperate need
of relatives and friends for information. [...]

The minister also announced an urgent review of a 40p-a-minute charge for
phoning the helpline.

Ms Blears said the helpline had been set up to deal with disasters and
terrorist incidents because it could handle 200 incoming calls rather than
the normal 40.

"But I am concerned about the cost) and, therefore, we are going to
review it urgently to see whether or not we can me sure people are not
having to pay for the local call," she said.

And more:

Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4671239.stm

A minister has pledged a swift review of the 40p-a-minute charges for ringing the London bombs emergency phone line.
Home Office minister Hazel Blears said she wanted to make it free, adding: "The last thing we want to do is to add to people's distress."

Telecoms regulator Ofcom says using an 0870 number is "inappropriate". Ms Blears said the 0870 line was picked because it can take 200 calls at once.

Callers pay 10p a minute from landlines and 40p from mobiles.

Asked about the cost, Ms Blears told the BBC: "That line was originally set up because it could take two hundred calls at once while the other line would only have been able to take 40 calls, but I am concerned about this.

"You know the last thing we want to do is to add to people's distress, so we are going to review the situation very quickly indeed.

"If we'd have just had the normal line, then people could have faced the prospect of getting the engaged single and that would have been dreadful."

Casualty line

Guidelines suggest public service bodies be wary of using the code partly because of cost and partly because it cannot always be accessed by people calling from abroad.

The casualty bureau line was organised by the government-funded Police Information and Technology Organisation (PITO), which provides communications services for the police.

An Ofcom spokesman said: "When we became aware that an 0870 number was being used we contacted the Metropolitan Police, PITO and the Home Office."

The number was provided by Cable & Wireless which said it had offered PITO a free 0800 number and a cheaper rate 0845 number.

Cable & Wireless pledged to donate any profits it made from the calls to charities working with the families of the bombing victims.

What is typical of these goons at Ofcom, HO, PITO, Ministers etc is that they are all running around trying to deflect the blame from their own inadequate actions. Laughable if it wasn't so serious. Shameful episode. TAKE RESPONSIBILITY - that's why you are paid so much and have big fat pension plans. Get off your backsides and DO SOMETHING!

It doesnt surprise me that she doesnt know her arspidistrus from her elbow.Her own dept The Home Office still even now make no mention of the geographical number   see

www.homeoffice.gov.uk/

The Home Office is a waste of space. It still hasn't provided a full response to my FOI request which is at the appeal stage. It so wants to hold on to its rip-off numbers but it will not be able to. This debacle strengthens my position given that the inability to call corrupt numbers from overseas is now more widely understood, and the idiots at HO must now realize that the IND can reasonably expect callers from overseas.

The HO also replied to my message of July 7. It stated:

>>

Date: 11-Jul-2005

TREAT OFFICIAL CORRESPONDENCE

Thank you for your e-mail of 07/07/05 16:14:47 regarding..... [Use of 0870 number for London casualty bureau]

The matters you have raised are the responsibility of Foreign &
Commonwealth Office (TO).

We have therefore transferred your e-mail to NM9@PSILINK.co.uk , who will
arrange for a reply to be sent to you.

Transfer Desk

<<

This is a hand-washing exercise. Nothing to do with us. CRETINS.

Below is my email to the Red Cross regarding their shameful use of an 0870 number for both the new bombings donation line and their main headquarters London switchboard.

Nick Young is their Chief Exec and Mr McClure is their Chairman while Amelia Lyons and Will Slater are their main press people.  You may find it useful to use the email addresses shown as their switchboard are rather precious about revealing them and their senior management are not shown on their website.

Sent: 11 July 2005 13:49
To: nyoung@redcross.org.uk
Cc: jmcclure@redcross.org.uk; alyons@redcross.org.uk; wslater@redcross.org.uk; stephen.carter@ofcom.org.uk; kip.meek@ofcom.org.uk; matt.peacock@ofcom.org.uk; geoff.brighton@ofcom.org.uk; gareth.davies@ofcom.org.uk; clive.hillier@ofcom.org.uk; charles.clarke@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk; stephen.rimmer@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk; john.gieve@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk; alan.gemmell@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk; tessa.jowell@culture.gov.uk; ben.verwaayen@bt.com; paul.hendron@bt.com; pierre.danon@bt.com; ian.livingston@bt.com; ian.bull@bt.com; paul.j.reynolds@bt.com; kath.embleton@bt.com; colin.annette@bt.com
Subject: Disgrace of New 0870 Number for Red Cross London Bombings Donation Line

Dear Mr Young,

I just wanted to complain in the strongest possible terms at your organisation's disgraceful and utterly crass decision to use an exploitative 0870 number for people willing to telephone you to make a donation to your London bombings appeal line.  I understand that calls to this number are being terminated by BT.

The Metropolitan Police and the Police Technology Organisation (www.pito.org.uk) have already been resoundingly condemned in several national newspapers for their misuse of such a number for their casualty enquiry line for the bombings and now you as a charity decide to perpetrate exactly the same kind of outrageous abuse.  This is beyond belief but it does show why Ofcom's and the Central Office of Information's policy of politely requesting that organisations do not use such numbers for these purposes is utterly doomed to failure.  I also note that even your main London switchboard number is only listed as an 0870 number with directory enquiries which surely says everything we need to know about the cynical attitude of the senior management in your organisation.

I forward below a copy of the email I sent to the Metropolitan Police on this matter and you may also find it helpful to study the press coverage on the issue at:-

www.thisismoney.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=402137&in_page_id=2

Also the recent advice of the Advertising Standards Authority guidance which indicates that you must reveal that 0870 calls are not charged at standard national fixed line rates:-

www.asa.org.uk/cap/news_events/news/2005/Hanging+on+the+telephone+on+and+on+and+on.htm

Suffice it to say that by using an 0870 number you make it impossible for many people who wish to donate from overseas to reach you and you also impose phone call costs on pay as you go mobile phone users (up to 50p per minute) in the UK that are out of all proportion to the small revenue take of 3p or 4p per minute that the Red Cross may receive.

If you want people to donate to you then you should get them to do so honestly but you should not do so by swindling them in a way that will undermine good will towards your organisation.

Yours in disappointment

NGN. Mark Astarita is the Director of Fundraising for the British Red Cross. He would be the person responsible for the use of 0870.You might care to add him to your list.

Also Peter Morgan BT,s Group Director of Communications has overall responsibility for BT Communications/PR/etc so it would be probaly be worth involving him.As he is no doubt aware of the backlash CW got.

wrote on Jul 11^th, 2005 at 1:26pm:

NGN. Mark Astarita is the Director of Fundraising for the British Red Cross. He would be the person responsible for the use of 0870.You might care to add him to your list.

Thanks.  Where did you track that down.

wrote on Jul 11^th, 2005 at 1:36pm:

Thanks.  Where did you track that down.

I rang them to complain and was given his name by the CEO PA a Sheila Ashbourne, she couldnt give me his e-mail address. As for the BT guy  i still do a bit of work in the comm,s business.

I have received a callback from some zombie like sidekick of Mr Astarita, the Red Cross funding director.

Quite unbelievable.

He tells me that they receive no revenue share from BT but that when they were moving offices they had to bring in the 0870 number because it would have been so difficult to redirect all those calls on to a geographic number.  Also they absolutely must have an 0870 number to get all those call logging statistics.  Then he tried to tell me that 0870 calls cost no more than 4.5p per minute (those of you who know the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy tv programs may perhaps be inclined to think of the Golgafrinchan captain sitting in the large bath for the last 3 years muttering about his trajectory thingy at this point).  I lost my patience with him at that point and asked if he hadn't read the Mail on Sunday article to which I had directed their attention.

When I pointed out that all of this call logging etc was available on an 0844 number at 1p per minute at all times or on an 0800 number that didn't seem to be in his BT salesmen provided pre-prepared defense script.  Also when I challenged him that he wasn't complying with ASA guidelines he had no answer.

He was particularly annoying because he was a well educated late 20 something but clearly someone who only rises up the ranks by absorbing politically correct buzz speak and mouthing management platitudes.  Someone like this would have no trouble at all in toeing the new management line in a totalitarian regime.

I was so angry that I ended up saying that perhaps he was too busy playing with his new company car or shiny ipod to notice what was actually going on in the real world.  He didn't seem to appreciate that.

So in other words another charity that has been suckered hook, line and sinker by BT and is ploughing callers money not into its own coffers but into those of BT shareholders.  Mr Astarita should resign over this one.  No wonder I rarely feel disposed to making donations to these kind of organisations knowing how most of my money would be wasted on salaries, glossy offices and marketing costs.

wrote on Jul 11^th, 2005 at 1:41pm:

she couldnt give me his e-mail address

asurname@redcross.org.uk as revealed by contact details quoted in one of their press releases.

Hi  All

In this post http://www.saynoto0870.com/cgi-bin/forum/YaBB.cgi?board=news;action=display;num=1120953321

"BT IS lobbying the media regulator Ofcom to scrap 0845 and 0870 numbers over claims that the supposedly low-rate prefixes are being used to rip off consumers.  "

Is this a case of the left hand does not know what the right hand does in BT

In some ways I wonder were we all better off when all we had was "The Post Office" providing UK phone services (except in Hull of course)

Dave

wrote on Jul 11^th, 2005 at 5:01pm:

Hi  All In this post http://www.saynoto0870.com/cgi-bin/forum/YaBB.cgi?board=news;action=display;num=1120953321 "BT IS lobbying the media regulator Ofcom to scrap 0845 and 0870 numbers over claims that the supposedly low-rate prefixes are being used to rip off consumers.

Yes the left and right hand not talking at BT is exactly it.  The outrageous BT scam perpetrated on a charity like the Red Cross is a case in point.  Well if what I am told is true and that they get no revenue share even though they use an 0870!!!

BT set up and masterminded the whole 0990/084/7 ripoff from the outset and have made a fortune from it over the years.  They pay the salesmen who con companies into it huge commissions too.

But now that the writing is on the wall for 084/7x BT wants to look like a decent corporate citizen so at board level has gone for scrapping 0845 and 0870 whilst still confusingly proposed that 0844 and 0871 (where there are numerous different call rates that are set by the call recipient) should remain and not be regulated by ICSTIS.

I think this is what is called trying to "have your cake and eat it".

Old proverb say that man from BT he speak with forked tongue.

wrote on Jul 11^th, 2005 at 5:09pm:

But now that the writing is on the wall for 084/7x BT wants to look like a decent corporate citizen so at board level has gone for scrapping 0845 and 0870 whilst still confusingly proposed that 0844 and 0871 (where there are numerous different call rates that are set by the call recipient) should remain and not be regulated by ICSTIS.

I suspect that the idea is to lose (stop) revenue share on 0845 and 0870, hence scoring huge numbers of brownie points, whilst going for the maxumim share on 0844 and 0871 ("up to" indeed, it will be the maximum save for those carriers offering cheaper calls). Even now the new interconnect agreements are probably being signed off.
>:(

Its strikes me that the people who should get  a repayment from this should be those who have been scammed -ie those who have used the number.

I think most of those who use landlines will get an itemised account showing the cost of 0870 numbers. On an itemised bill this number should show no charge. This should be easy to arrange in this computer age and then the various bodies who have profited by this would be forced to argue over the cost each should bear.

I have no idea whether mobile costs could be similarly treated - I do not use a mobile. What about calls from call-boxes, hotels  and overseas?

This really is a disgrace, keep it up.

I'm still firing off emails to anyone at the police, home office or anywhere that might do some good. Lets keep up the pressure. Well done everyone.

Now I've emailed everybody. I have just emailed Ofcom. I am a bit pissed off so it ended up being sarcy. This is part of it.....

"After emailing recently about this subject to your 'contact centre' with no reply to date, I am emailing you instead.

I would like to ask you why have approved an 0870 number is being used for this which costs up to 10p per minute to ring from a Landline?
I will not detail the costs of calling an 0870 number further as I'm sure you are aware of these(!?) As a regulator, Ofcom should have made sure this scam would have been culled from the very beginning. I would like to know what you are going to do about these 0870 numbers which for far too long have been ripping off the consumer in a most underhand way. The terrorist attack situation is the last staw. Are you finally going to do the job for which you are appointed,  i.e. Telecoms Regulator? and get rid of these numbers once and for all"

Might not do any good but made me feel better.

Over the weekend I emailed Steve Double of C&W:

Quote:

Dear Mr Double I, like everyone else was deeply saddened to hear of the terror attacks in London on Thursday. I was, however, completely disgusted to hear that the authorities have issued a revenue generating 0870 telephone number for contact. I understand that this number is operated by Cable & Wireless. If this is information is correct, does your company not feel that this number has been misused? Does it not think that it is morally reprehensible that it should profit from loved ones of the victims in this way? The 0870 numbers are a complete rip-off anyway, and it is companies like C&W which seem happy to keep the British public in the dark that they are premium rate.

Now I didn't expect a reply, but given all the uproar in the media, he has replied.

Quote:

Dear Mr Thank you for contacting us. We have taken the decision that any profits from the Metropolitan Police's casualty bureau number will be donated by Cable and Wireless to the appropriate victims' support charity. Please be aware that this particular type of number was chosen by a government agency, the Police Information Technology Organisation (PITO), from a number of other options. From media reports today, you will see that the government is now reviewing its arrangements. Regards, Steve Double

I also emailed Phillip Webb, CEO at PITO, and copied it to several people (highlighted by NGM) in the Met, Pito and Perminant Secretary at the Home Office. Needless to say, no reply from that one.

wrote on Jul 11^th, 2005 at 7:05pm:

I also emailed Phillip Webb, CEO at PITO, and copied it to several people (highlighted by NGM) in the Met, Pito and Perminant Secretary at the Home Office. Needless to say, no reply from that one.

I have also contacted Webb twice without any response to date. I'll be giving him a couple more days and if he and his agency continue to ignore me then PITO will get another FOI request. No response from Ofcom has been forthcoming either. These people should hang their heads in shame. They have acted in a disgusting way and haven't the decency to own up. Their actions have added to the distress of those in the most vulnerable situations.

Wow, thats good work.

I have just also copied my email to my local Conservative MP.

...."Unfortunately I have felt the need to write to you regarding an serious issue that I feel strongly about. As appalling as the terrorist attacks have been, equally appalling is the use of an 0870 number for an emergency hotline number for victims.

I copy to you an email I sent to the home office and Police. I wonder if you could raise some questions in Parliament regarding Ofcoms effectiveness as a telecoms regulator regarding 0870 numbers especially in these situations, and regarding other points made?"

I also received a reply from David Derbyshire of the Daily Telegraph, explaining why his report was so short. Still, at least any interest is better than no interest.

Quote:

Dear Mr Thanks for your reply on Friday. Unfortunately the story got cut hugely by our sub editors to fit the space (there was, as you can imagine, a lot of competion from other stories about the bombings) and many of the criticisms and facts about the 0870 scam were removed. However The Mail on Sunday appears to have followed it up so it wasn't a completely wasted opportunity! Best wishes David Derbyshire

Im sure we all rather the bombs hadnt happened. It is difficult since we dont want to be seen as raising the 0870 scam on the backs of those killed, injured or missing.

Notwithstanding similar action at the Ufton level crossing disaster in November, the unthinking issue on Thursday of a NGN  for the London bombs on has yesterday prompted even the ineffectual Ofcom to raise a mild rebuke and today we have Hazel Drears trying to defend the indefensible, with every prospect on more column centimetres on the subject in tomorrows newspapers.

As ever its simply the raising of the level of understanding on 0870 that will win the day.
Theres no argument once the fog is lifted.

It gives me, and I suspect most of us, no satisfaction that the London bombs may well help its demise.

PS can any knowledgeable say whether shes right re this 200 on NGN / 40 on GN simultaneous calls limit.

Does anyone have a link to a resource that gives evidence plain for people to see that it makes no difference if the line is 0208, 0800, or 0870.... it can still be set up to handle large call volumes??

I want to make my MP aware (and others) of this so that he can speak out against the claptrap that Home Office minister Hazel Blears said. (below)

"Asked about the cost, Ms Blears told the BBC: "That line was originally set up because it could take two hundred calls at once while the other line would only have been able to take 40 calls, but I am concerned about this. "You know the last thing we want to do is to add to people's distress, so we are going to review the situation very quickly indeed. "If we'd have just had the normal line, then people could have faced the prospect of getting the engaged single and that would have been dreadful."

Quote:

As ever its simply the raising of the level of understanding on 0870 that will win the day. Theres no argument once the fog is lifted.

True, but the problem is making this 'interesting' to Joe Public. Whether it's because they don't believe such a big scam can be pulled off that stops them from seeing it, I'm not sure.


Quote:

It gives me, and I suspect most of us, no satisfaction that the London bombs may well help its demise.

I agree. But, I think that it's fair to assume that this number has been in place for a while/long time for such an event. It is part of the emergency plans. The cost, which is the key point raised in the media is only the half of it as far as 0870 is concerned.

However, the fact that the people at the top of PITO and the Met didn't think about these call charges just shows how inadequate they are. They should all admit their mistakes and resign. But of course, this never happens.

If it does give 0870 some publicity, will people twig on that every day they are being ripped off when they phone one? Or will they just perceive that different 0870s are charged at different rates, and that the authorities have simply gone for the most expensive one to call?

wrote on Jul 11^th, 2005 at 7:53pm:

PS can any knowledgeable say whether shes right re this 200 on NGN / 40 on GN simultaneous calls limit.

Yup - it's drivel.

I've just sent a email Hazel Blears as I noticed she was (don't laugh) looking into this.  The email just mentioned my discuss of such numbers along with the lack of response from PITO and other general stuff (along the same lines as we have discussed here).  I also cc'd the following:-

tessa.jowell@culture.gov.uk; charles.clarke@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk; john.gieve@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk; alan.gemmell@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk; stephen.rimmer@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk
stephen.carter@ofcom.org.uk; kip.meek@ofcom.org.uk; matt.peacock@ofcom.org.uk; geoff.brighton@ofcom.org.uk; gareth.davies@ofcom.org.uk; clive.hillier@ofcom.org.uk

Does anyone know who the main people are within the mobile networks as I plan on emailing them and mentioning that C&W have decided to give the proceeds of this call centre number to charity and asking if they had any intention of doing the same.  I'll also cc the newspapers so the networks will probably be careful of their response and give in to pressure like C&W have.

wrote on Jul 11^th, 2005 at 8:06pm:

...If it does give 0870 some publicity, will people twig on that every day they are being ripped off when they phone one? Or will they just perceive that different 0870s are charged at different rates, and that the authorities have simply gone for the most expensive one to call?

I suspect the latter may well be the case here.  Things may change when (or if indeed ever) OfCOM decide to enforce the fact that companies/gov departments can no longer remain silent on the call costs or describe them as 'local' or 'national'

wrote on Jul 11^th, 2005 at 8:23pm:

stephen.rimmer@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk

he he he, rimmer. ;D

wrote on Jul 11^th, 2005 at 7:53pm:

PS can any knowledgeable say whether shes right re this 200 on NGN / 40 on GN simultaneous calls limit.

I think that's a typically confused argument from an "I'm out of my depth here so I'm going to revert to type and waffle" politician relating to an accommodation issue, not a telephony one.

AIUI, the Met's Casualty Bureau is located at Hendon now and it's likely there is a limitation on the number of call takers they can physically accommodate there - so that may be where the number 40 comes from.

Other sites have to be opened up to increase the number of call taker positions and, routing via the PNN, that can be anywhere in the country.  Logically (they're all on PNN), that means the Casualty Bureax at all 43 English and Welsh police forces could be taking calls for the same incident.  If the PNN was not planned to enable that, I'd be very surprised (or whoever didn't plan it that way should hang his/her head in shame).

That is the reason why I do not understand the 'routing' argument used to justify use of an 0870 number. Any police switch should be able to onward route at no cost.

wrote on Jul 11^th, 2005 at 7:55pm:

"Asked about the cost, Ms Blears told the BBC: "That line was originally set up because it could take two hundred calls at once while the other line would only have been able to take 40 calls, but I am concerned about this. "You know the last thing we want to do is to add to people's distress, so we are going to review the situation very quickly indeed. "If we'd have just had the normal line, then people could have faced the prospect of getting the engaged single and that would have been dreadful."

Has Ms Blears not acquainted herself with the fact that most of the UK's emergency braeakdown services use 0800 numbers and they handle hundreds of calls a minute across multiple call centres.  It is precisely the same NGN system that supports both 0800 and 0870 and for that matter 0906 as well.

I have had a long discussion with one of the leading and more ethical NGN firms who have assured me there is no problem using a conventional geographic number and then rerouting it around numerous call centres to handle the load using so called "intelligent call routing" systems, its just that it costs the client money to do this.  They apparently do that very thing for a company like John Lewis who objects to the use of NGNs on principle and is also attached to old well established geographic switchboard numbers.

There is also a class of NGNs that are not located on a specific physical exchange (something some companies deem important for national presence) but that start 02 and are only charged to callers at geographic rates.  The call recipients have to pay something for the call stats etc and redirecting the calls but significantly less than 0800.  These NGN numbers charged at geographic rates would in general actually be better than 0800 because they also don't ripoff payphone, mobile and overseas callers.  They are generally not popular apparently because the scam artist call centres would have to pay money instead of receiving money while the good boys of the call centre industry prefer 0800 as it is seen to be whiter than white even though they are worse than geographic numbers from mobiles and overseas.

In short Ms Blears has no excuse.  She seems to be using her own probable complete lack of personal interest in and/or understanding of how uk telecoms works (don't wish to seem sexist here but do we even have a single female member of this forum ;) ) to justify her telling what is in fact a quite blatant lie to try to defend the indefensible.

wrote on Jul 11^th, 2005 at 8:56pm:

he he he, rimmer. ;D

If he had been called Arnold it might actually have been worth mentioning. :D

wrote on Jul 11^th, 2005 at 7:55pm:

Does anyone have a link to a resource that gives evidence plain for people to see that it makes no difference if the line is 0208, 0800, or 0870.... it can still be set up to handle large call volumes??

Source updated version of COI better practice guidance for Govt Contact Centres see
www.coi.gov.uk/aboutcoi.php?page=58             You need to register to get the info.

It says NGN have traditionally provided advantages in terms of intelligent routing which helps to manage call flows,and can provide a better service to end customer.(although the more advanced networks can provide intelligent routing on standard geographical numbers and this should be explored as an option).

I have already written to the advisory board for Scotland at

advisorycommitteescotland@ofcom.org.uk

asking them to look at the present 'issue' and also the whole matter of 0870 NGN's.
Individual Members are also named so perhaps my 'local' Member can be 'lobbied' as well. More avenues used, the more pressure exerted??

wrote on Jul 12^th, 2005 at 7:08am:

I have already written to the advisory board for Scotland at advisorycommitteescotland@ofcom.org.uk asking them to look at the present 'issue' and also the whole matter of 0870 NGN's. Individual Members are also named so perhaps my 'local' Member can be 'lobbied' as well. More avenues used, the more pressure exerted??

Good idea. If you want to lobby your regions committee visit for details
http://www.ofcom.org.uk/about/csg/adv_cmmt_nations/#content

The Chairperson,s have recently changed see yesterdays posting on this sub forum.

Worryingly, 3 of the English members have registered their interests as shareholders in BT, Vodafone and Cable & Wireless.

I suppose we ought to give them credit for registering their interest but it doesn't bode well IMHO.

There is a very good letter in the no. 1 slot in the Daily Telegraph today.

By Nicky Bird it sums up the whole shambles perfectly.

juby

A colleague of mine just got a reply from Ofcom (Mr Peacock) in which he blames PITO & Home Office and says they are now 'addressing' the issue.
However the final paragraph  (which my friend let me copy) said:-

"Separately we are about to conclude a major review of the 084/7 regime which is intended to address the significant (and entirely valid) consumer concerns about the use of these numbers. This has proven to be a complex piece of work, not least because of the very broad range of organisations using these numbers - and in many cases, dependent upon them. However, our assumption remains that there is a significant consumer detriment at work here which we are seeking to resolve. We hope to conclude the review within the next few weeks."

Which seems to be saying that some firms DEPEND on these numbers - so why haven't they been forced to use 09 lines, for openess?!  
But he agrees that there is 'significant' detriment - so perhaps as the review is in it's final weeks(??) this event may well have given OFCOM a push towards our side, as commercial interests have caused a lot of 'flak' to be aimed at OFCOM (and they won't like that)!!

wrote on Jul 12^th, 2005 at 8:45am:

Which seems to be saying that some firms DEPEND on these numbers - so why haven't they been forced to use 09 lines, for openess?!   But he agrees that there is 'significant' detriment - so perhaps as the review is in it's final weeks(??) this event may well have given OFCOM a push towards our side, as commercial interests have caused a lot of 'flak' to be aimed at OFCOM (and they won't like that)!!

It should give Ofcom a push in our direction except that some of the bodies primarily dependent on these numbers seem to include New Labour, the BBC and all the major uk mobile phone operators.

Mr Peacock is very keen indeed for both himself and for Ofcom to be seen as good guys in all this even though their own record, and especially what goes on at Ofcom's NTS Focus Groups, does not always seem to bear this out - see www.ofcom.org.uk/telecoms/groups/nts_focus/

A point to remember is that if Ofcom had not already dithered and dithered for so long then the latest 0870 foul ups with the Met Police Casualty Bureau and the Red Cross could not have happened.

wrote on Jul 12^th, 2005 at 8:38am:

There is a very good letter in the no. 1 slot in the Daily Telegraph today. By Nicky Bird it sums up the whole shambles perfectly.

You mean this letter as rushing out to buy a Daily Telegraph would appear unnecessary:-

http://www.opinion.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?menuId=1588&menuItemId=-1&view=DISPLAYCONTENT&grid=P8&targetRule=0

Good letter although it seems to be more of an attack on the quality of Police information available at these call centres rather than primarily an attack on the 08x/087x scam.

I remember quite distinctly that when I spoke to the British Embassy in New York to complain about the 0870 number listed on Saturday that the guy on the phone had a couldn't care whethere I lived or died attitude, even though the people he was speaking to might well have included victims of the bereaved or injured.

wrote on Jul 12^th, 2005 at 8:35am:

Worryingly, 3 of the English members have registered their interests as shareholders in BT, Vodafone and Cable & Wireless

If you were aware of the bizarre recruitment methods used by Ofcom to fill these positions and the fact that you basically need to be a well off middle aged or retired person to afford to apply (members of these advisory committees are paid next to nothing for a pretty responsible role) then you would possibly be less surprised about who typically seeem to be their Advisory Committee Members.

I have just received this reply from someone at the Cabinet Office in relation to the complaint I filed on the DirectGov website - www.direct.gov.uk - about their listing of the 0870 Met Police Casualty Bureau number.  Note that even now they still don't list the 020 number on the DirectGov website even though they claim that they hope such numbers will soon be "phased out".

From this reply it would appear that the Cabinet Office believe they have no say in the number used by the Police for this incident so it seems that Mr Blair and his Cabinet colleagues are clearly a lot less powerful than I had foolishly previously imagined them to be.  So I wonder who is really running the country then? ::) ???


----------------------------------------------------------------

From: Stephen.Churchill@cabinet-office.gsi.gov.uk
[mailto:Stephen.Churchill@cabinet-office.gsi.gov.uk]
Sent: 12 July 2005 09:56
Subject: Re: Directgov - 0870 number?

Thank you for your email.

Directgov is a UK government website providing information and advice about
a wide range of public services.

The 0870 number published is the one issued by the Metropolitan Police Casualty Bureau for this series of incidents, which we therefore have no say in. We have reason to believe that they will be phasing this out in the near future for an 0800 number, and once they have done so we will obviously change this on our site. You would need to contact the Metropolitan Police themselves to query them as to their reason for using this number though.

http://www.met.police.uk/contacts/

Regards
Stephen Churchill
Directgov Helpdesk Team

wrote on Jul 12^th, 2005 at 8:35am:

Worryingly, 3 of the English members have registered their interests as shareholders in BT, Vodafone and Cable & Wireless

Better still one of them a Mr Inman of the English Board was a senior BT Executive.Wonder what side he will  he be on?

wrote on Jul 12^th, 2005 at 9:44am:

Better still one of them a Mr Inman of the English Board was a senior BT Executive.Wonder what side he will be on?

You are kidding surely.  I would have thought having worked at senior level for BT would automatically disbar one from such a supposedly indepenedent and advisory position.

Since the pay for this role is peanuts one wonders what the motivation is?  Unless of course it is looking after the value of one's shares in BT? ;)

wrote on Jul 12^th, 2005 at 9:20am:

You mean this letter as rushing out to buy a Daily Telegraph would appear unnecessary:- http://www.opinion.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?menuId=1588&menuItemId=-1&view=DISPLAYCONTENT&grid=P8&targetRule=0 .

Thanks for the URL of the DT letters page. As I have said before every little mention of 0870 (in a derogatary
manner) helps.

By the way thanks for your note, sorry only just seen it.

juby

[quote author=NonGeographicalMan You are kidding surely.  [/quote]

No Mr Derek Hilton was the former head of BT UK Central Region.I notice he declares his BT Shares,but no reference is made about a BT Pension or a deferred one.

What a wonderful democracy we live in!!
All these non-elected 'boards' and panels, which are able to be manipulated to become 'Ofcom clones' doing the Master's bidding.
Unfortunately we have puppet MP's in the main - so how can it ever change?

wrote on Jul 12^th, 2005 at 10:10am:

No Mr Derek Hilton was the former head of BT UK Central Region.I notice he declares his BT Shares,but no reference is made about a BT Pension or a deferred one.

Having a BT Pension would not I believe count as an interest that needs to be declared for such a post?

wrote on Jul 12^th, 2005 at 10:25am:

What a wonderful democracy we live in!! All these non-elected 'boards' and panels, which are able to be manipulated to become 'Ofcom clones' doing the Master's bidding.

Ofcom were advertising for a Manager for their Consumer Panel on the http://www.ofcomconsumerpanel.org.uk website (applications closed yesterday).

Yet despite the fact that the Consumer Panel is supposed to take Ofcom on over its misdeeds the Manager's position was to be that of an Ofcom employee.  This seemed to me to be quite wrong.

The Ofcom Consumer Panel and its Manager should be separately funded direct by Parliament and/or the government and not be under the Ofcom board's pay and control.

I have just received this amazing reply from the below gentleman at the Red Cross.

Although clearly he has no brain of his own and just absorbs the content of BT salesmen 0870 propaganda sheets perhaps you would care to email him or his boss (mastarita@redcross.org.uk) to try to set the record straight.  I am rapidly beginning to run out of energy with keeping up the struggle with these imbeciles.

Yesterday Mr Verden maintained on the phone that the Red Cross did not get a revenue share on their 0870 number although I note that in the reply below he clearly seems to be backtracking on this.

-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Verden [mailto:RVerden@redcross.org.uk]
Sent: 12 July 2005 10:12
Cc: Mark Astarita; Nicholas Young; Phil Talbot; Tania Cohen
Subject: London Bombings Donation Line

Thank you for your e-mails of yesterday and the opportunity to discuss your concerns in our telephone conversation.

To highlight the key areas:

We use an 0870 number as it gives us the flexibility to divert calls to different call centres and manage our call volume. It effectively enables us to filter between multiple sites at times of emergency and peak activity. In addition with our main switchboard we similarly use an 0870 number so that it can be diverted to a different location(s) and manage call volumes if required.

The primary aim in using the 0870 number is not as an income generator and we do not attempt to inflate the cost of the call. The revenue that comes to the British Red Cross is used to offset some of the cost of running the donation line.

We will review best practice and advice regarding the use of 0870 numbers (and similar) and also following your comments will certainly look into viable alternatives and indeed the ethical options you referred to.

I trust this goes some way to addressing your concerns.

Yours sincerely

Richard Verden

Could the repetition in the below paragraph have possibly resulted from him cutting and pasting from two almost identical section of BT advertising blurb?
Quote:

We use an 0870 number as it gives us the flexibility to divert calls to different call centres and manage our call volume. It effectively enables us to filter between multiple sites at times of emergency and peak activity. In addition with our main switchboard we similarly use an 0870 number so that it can be diverted to a different location(s) and manage call volumes if required.

OK I found the energy from somewhere.

Here is my reply to Mr Verden at the Red Cross.

-----Original Message-----
Sent: 12 July 2005 12:58
To: RVerden@redcross.org.uk
Cc: Mark Astarita; Nicholas Young; Phil Talbot; Tania Cohen;
pcollier@redcross.org.uk; alyons@redcross.org.uk;
wslater@redcross.org.uk
Subject: Absurd Attempt to Defend Red Cross Use of 0870 for Bombings
Donation Line

Dear Mr Verden,

Thank you for your email.  I do not intend to waste too much more of my time on you since you quite clearly do not have an open mind of your own capable of understanding these kinds of issues and instead are only capable of handing out the contents of outdated stock BT 0870 salesmen propaganda sheets.  I find the content of your reply to be simply quite incredible in view of the fire which the Police and the Home Office have come under over precisely this same issue.  But perhaps you and Ms Hazel Blears at the home officer really should consider meeting for lunch as you both seem to share the same altered sense of reality of the universe.

With regards to your comments about call filtering between different sites and call logging stats etc this is clearly utter garbage as the NTS system provides precisely the same facilities on an 0800 number or a 1p per minute at all times 0844 number.  In addition all the facilities that you mention can also be provided on a conventional geographic London 020 number by hooking it through into an NTS type call logging system.  In reality the only reason the Red Cross use 0870 is because you seem to believe the nonsense presumably quoted to you by the original BT salespeople that you can easily scam your supporters by claiming 0870 was the ordinary BT national rate whilst subsidising operating costs that should be paid for out of the donations made and/or from the main Red Cross budget.  Your response also makes no attempt to tackle ASA guidance that you must clearly show what the cost of these calls is per minute because it is not the BT standard call rate for normal phone calls.  I also note that when we spoke yesterday you maintained wholly inaccurately that the Red Cross does not get a revenue share on its 0870 number but your email response today now quite clearly admits that it does get such a revenue share.

The Red Cross quite clearly has precisely no concern whatsoever for either best practice or being unethical or you would not be using an 0870 number for your donation line and your main switchboard.  Your comments about using 0870 to route calls to different locations are also rendered senseless by the fact that the geographic phone numbers of your individual branches are all still listed by BT.  But perhaps I shouldn't have mentioned that as no doubt you and the great BT 0870 money making machine will now attempt to close out this loophole.

Lastly I am very disappointed that I have not received a reply on this matter from your Chief Executive.

Regards,

wrote on Jul 12^th, 2005 at 12:04pm:

Could the repetition in the below paragraph have possibly resulted from him cutting and pasting from two almost identical section of BT advertising blurb?

Where did that come from.  Or am I being thick?

The BBC are still advertising the 0870 casualty helpline number on CEEFAX with a note asking people to be patient.

wrote on Jul 12^th, 2005 at 12:46pm:

The BBC are still advertising the 0870 casualty helpline number on CEEFAX with a note asking people to be patient.

Not patient and affluent?

That is the normal rule for contacting any 0870 number ;) ;D

Patient in queuing and running up a large bill I think it must mean?

The Queen has just announced that she has made a donation to the disaster fund. Amount not stated but believed to be very substantial.

Can we hope that this will prompt C & W to do likewise from their ill-gotton gains, or as is to be expected will they simply pass the buck?

juby

wrote on Jul 12^th, 2005 at 4:55pm:

The Queen has just announced that she has made a donation to the disaster fund. Amount not stated but believed to be very substantial. Can we hope that this will prompt C & W to do likewise from their ill-gotton gains, or as is to be expected they will simply pass the buck?

C&W have already promised to pass all of their ill gotten gains on  this 0870 line to charity Juby.  I thought you would have picked up on this.

Of course they haven't offered to pass any of their other ill gotten 0870 gains to charity though.  Also they should be persuaded that it is the disaster fund that they want to make the donation too.  Not just any old charity.

Also as I have had pointed out to me by people at senior level at C&W a very large amount more of ill gotten gains will have been earned by the five uk mobile networks due to their exorbitant charges for calling the 0870 emergency number, especially on Pay as You Go.  So the Mail on Sunday and Daily Mirror should be encouraged to ask the mobile phone networks to surrender all their ill gotten gains as C&W have already promised to do.

Perhaps that is where we should direct our efforts.

Repky from Yvvone Peart, Casualty Bureau at MPS

Thank you for your email regarding the Casualty Bureau telephone number.

The 0870 telephone number used for Casualty Bureau was provided to the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) by the Police Information Technology Organisation (PITO).

The contract that dictates how the number is operated and the call charges was negotiated directly between PITO and Cable and Wireless.

By using this service, which allowed us to use the resources of all UK police forces by distributing calls, we were able to have five times as many people answering calls from concerned members of the public than we would otherwise.

If we did not use this system we would have had to rely on the Met's Casualty Bureau facilities at Hendon where 40 people can take calls at a time. The system PITO provided allowed 200 people to take calls.

The MPS does not profit from this number and is one of many forces that rely on this system to provide an emergency high-volume telephone number.

Naturally we would have preferred a number that did not impose a charge on the caller. However, there was no immediate alternative available to the MPS that would have allowed such a volume of calls to be taken in the hours after Thursday's incidents.

Once the issue was identified, the MPS arranged with PITO for a local London number to be activated. This gives callers an alternative means of contacting the Casualty Bureau.  This number is 0044 207 158 0010



Best regards

Yvonne Peart

Information Officer

>:(

Same crap that was spouted by Hazel Blears really

And my reply....

Dear Yvonne

Thank you for your reply. I note your points regarding call volumes. However, the system Pito have provided you does not have to be an expensive 0870 number. The 0870 number is a Non Geographical Number (NGN). It is quite possible to route calls to NGN's using 0800 numbers, as many organisations call centres do at present. For example the AA. In other words it is perfectly possible to have a freephone 0800 number which will handle the same amount of calls as the 0870 line does at present. The number prefix is not the limiting factor. I see that you have provided an 0800 number to use to give info to the police about suspected terrorists which also illustrates my point!

Your claim that the MPS does not profit from this 0870 number is untrue. 0870 numbers are revenue generating numbers and the money must be going somewhere.
If you do not believe me, I copy below a typical 0870 number providers website which shows the typical revenue stream that 0870 numbers provide:

About 0870 National Rate Numbers  

Our 0870 numbers can be called from anywhere in the UK giving your business a truly national feel.

In addition we will pay you up to 4.0p per minute for every call that you receive on your number allowing your business to generate a revenue stream.

The Benefits of 0870 Numbers  
Nationalises your company
Gives you an advantage over your competitors
Increases your advertising response and attracts new customers
Conveys a more professional image
Creates a revenue stream
Live call statistics
Connected within a few hours
Your number is portable and will never change
All content © Telecoms World PLC 2005 unless otherwise stated. Site developed by www.mcmnet.co.uk



It is actually cheaper to call America to their terrorist hotline than to call your 0870 number.

I note the provision now, of a geographical 0207 number to the hotline. This was only issued after such a fuss was kicked up by outraged people. This 0207 number has not been widely publicised. Why?  So that you can still receive plenty of revenue from 0870?. TV and Radio are still quoting the 0870 number. Please do not try to tell me this is because an 0870 number is cheaper to call for people outside London. It is not. The 0208 number is only 3p per minute daytime (even from Scotland) whereas the 0870 is at least 8p per minute.

I suggest a major review of your telecoms systems is carried out to prevent this happening again. You should scrap ALL  these revenue generating 0870 numbers ASAP.

I have also contacted my MP who is going to speak out on this issue in Parliament.

Ofcom reply
>
> Our view is that these numbers are inappropriate for use by public sector
> bodies. We published guidance to this effect last year, which was then
> adopted as best practice guidelines by the Central Office of Information
> (COI) and applied to all Government departments and agencies.
>
> Separately we are also about to conclude a major review of 084/087 numbers
> which is intended to address the numerous consumer concerns you rightly
> identify. That review will be completed in the next few weeks.
>
> Although both Ofcom and the COI have said publicly that these numbers
> should not be used by public bodies, for some reason the Home Office and
> the police service procurement agency PITO chose to institute a helpline
> based on an 0870 number.
>
> When we first became aware of this - shortly after the line was first
> publicised - we contacted the Met, PITO and the Home Office to raise our
> serious concern that this was an inappropriate use of this kind of number.
> I understand that as a consequence, PITO and the Home Office are now
> reviewing their approach.
>
> For clarity, we are not involved in other organisations' planning for the
> provision of helplines. If the Met - or any other organisation - had asked
> in advance for our advice on the best kind of number to use under these
> circumstances, we would have suggested it used a geographic number or
> toll-free option.
>
> Regards
> Matt
>
>
> Matt Peacock
> Director of Communications
> Ofcom

???Postive on the review bit. They seem to have the right idea but wholely useless in doing their job as regulator up to now. I did email a reply back suggesting 084/087 should be scrapped as a result of the review

wrote on Jul 11^th, 2005 at 9:43pm:

There is also a class of NGNs that are not located on a specific physical exchange (something some companies deem important for national presence) but that start 02 and are only charged to callers at geographic rates.

These might be National Dialling Only ranges, for example:
London 020 0001 xxxx, which is used by Citrus Telecom.

Unfortunately, these number ranges have other problems associated with them, namely that they're not normally supposed to be used for inbound calls. Consequently, they often can't be dialled from mobiles, or from outside the UK.  

wrote on Jul 12^th, 2005 at 5:51pm:

Unfortunately, these number ranges have other problems associated with them, namely that they're not normally supposed to be used for inbound calls. Consequently, they often can't be dialled from mobiles, or from outside the UK.

But such restrictions are entirely artificial.

And we all know that the answer is either
a) use a normal number or
b) remove the revenue share.

Just had a reply from the Red Cross to an email I sent complaining about their 'Donation Line' being an 0870.
I suspect their reply is a 'circular' sent to all who complain - let's hope so!  Must mean a lot of complaints!
Red Cross reply:-

Many thanks for your enquiry and comments.
Please read the following points for your consideration:
How much do calls to the London Bombings Charitable Relief Fund cost?
Phone calls to the London Bombings Charitable Relief Fund are charged at 6p per minute peak time (9am - 5pm), 3p per minute (evenings) and 1p at weekends.
Mobile phone users pay same rate as landline, although their carrier will impose a charge on top (typically pay as you go adds 1p per minute). Overseas will pay standard international rate.
Typically a call to the donation line would last two or three minutes. Therefore a three minute call at peak time a call would cost 18 pence * less than the cost of a first class stamp.
Does the Red Cross profit from calls to the donation line?
The Red Cross does not profit from calls to the donation line. The Red Cross does receive money for every call that is made to the donation line, however that money is credited back to the appeal and reduces our administration costs in running the telephone line.
For instance, of a call which is charged at 6p per minute, 3.5p goes to the service providers. The remaining 2.5p is used by the Red Cross to offset the cost of running the phone line.
This money reduces our administration costs and therefore means that more of your donation will be spent helping the victims of the bomb attacks.
Why doesn't the Red Cross use a free phone number?

A free phone number would obviously be free to the caller making a donation. Instead the cost of the call would have to be paid for by the money raised by the relief fund. With a high volume of calls that would add up to a substantial amount of money.
This would mean that less of your donation would be used to help the victims of the bomb attacks.

If the caller bears the modest cost of, at most, 6p per minute their donation will actually be worth more to the relief fund.

Why does the Red Cross use 0870 or 0845 numbers at all?

The nature of emergency appeals means that you need the facility to handle large numbers of calls at short notice. The cheapest and most effective way to do this is by using professional call centres. Using these numbers means that we have access to online management reports and can monitor the number of calls.

Using these numbers also gives the Red Cross the flexibility to divert the phone number to different calls centres essential during an emergency appeal when you might need to rapidly change the number of calls that the donation line can handle.
Any Telecoms supplier will have profit and shareholders.
I do hope this addresses your concerns.

Many thanks,
Information Resources
British Red Cross Society
www.redcross.org.uk

I will be emailing back to try and rectify some of the 'errors' in this 'essay'!

wrote on Jul 12^th, 2005 at 5:01pm:

....a very large amount more of ill gotten gains will have been earned by the five uk mobile networks due to their exorbitant charges for calling the 0870 emergency number, especially on Pay as You Go.  So the Mail on Sunday and Daily Mirror should be encouraged to ask the mobile phone networks to surrender all their ill gotten gains as C&W have already promised to do. Perhaps that is where we should direct our efforts.

I have just sent an email regarding this to the main networks and several of the newspapers that have published stories regarding the use of the 0870 number.

The email (worded nicely) points out that they must have made a significant amount of money from their customers ringing this helpline and I have included links to the newspapers that have done a story on this and I ask that they consider following Cable&Wireless by donating profits as well.

I know Cable&Wireless only did this because of bad press/story from the Mirror but have not mentioned this and have hopefully give the impression that Cable&Wireless did this of their own accord and not out of guilt.  I also only included the newspapers in this to 'prompt' the newspapers to ask the networks this same question and also I hope by including the newspapers that the mobile network operators couldn't give me a fob off story in case I passed it on to the newspapers.

The names of the main players within the networks was posted by Pricefighter from MSE forum and I've just guessed the email addresses.  I sent the email about 15mins ago and as yet not had any emails bounced back so for now I'm assuming I got the email addresses correct.  Here they are:-

Peter.Erskine@o2.com; Sanjiv.Ahuja@orange.co.uk; Brian.McBride@t-mobile.co.uk; Arun.Sarin@vodafone.co.uk

And I cc'd the following:-
mirrornews@mgn.co.uk; mailbox@mirror.co.uk; dtletters@telegraph.co.uk; stletters@telegraph.co.uk; editor@thisismoney.co.uk

Might I suggest others consider doing something similar.

wrote on Jul 12^th, 2005 at 7:04pm:

Just had a reply from the Red Cross to an email I sent complaining about their 'Donation Line' being an 0870. I suspect their reply is a 'circular' sent to all who complain - let's hope so!  Must mean a lot of complaints! Red Cross reply:- Many thanks for your enquiry and comments. Phone calls to the London Bombings Charitable Relief Fund are charged at 6p per minute peak time (9am - 5pm), 3p per minute (evenings) and 1p at weekends. Mobile phone users pay same rate as landline, although their carrier will impose a charge on top (typically pay as you go adds 1p per minute). Overseas will pay standard international rate. Typically a call to the donation line would last two or three minutes. Therefore a three minute call at peak time a call would cost 18 pence * less than the cost of a first class stamp.

Which telecoms company charges only 6p/minute for 0870 calls at peak times?

BT charges BT Together Option 1 customers 7.51p - and they're (AFAIK) the least expensive.

wrote on Jul 12^th, 2005 at 5:01pm:

C&W have already promised to pass all of their ill gotten gains on  this 0870 line to charity Juby.  I thought you would have picked up on this.

I said the Queen has made a donation.

Not promised.

And I did note that NGM, when it happens I will believe it.

Sadly those of us who are old enough can remember when Cable and Wireless was one the world's most respected companies.

Then they were privatised.

juby

wrote on Jul 12^th, 2005 at 7:38pm:

Which telecoms company charges only 6p/minute for 0870 calls at peak times? BT charges BT Together Option 1 customers 7.51p - and they're (AFAIK) the least expensive.

Richard Verden (Head of Individual Giving) at the Red Cross called me yesterday and told me that 0870 calls only cost 4p per minute in the weekday daytime.  Senior staff there don't seem to know or care about the real cost of these calls.

The thing one has to bear in mind about charities is that they can be very greedy indeed in their attitude that the public must given them money and that any means to get this money are justified.

There has been coverage in a program on BBC Radio4 of major uk charities that have been left properties by people who have died and who then take relatives to court and sue them for imputed lost interest on the money they are due if they have not sold the property and give them the money within a matter of months.

A lot of uk charities have flashy London offices and well paid staff.  They also often waste millions on inefficient mailshotting campaigns that endlessly target the same people who have made just one donation to them.  Often it seems more important to their funding directors to feel they are doing something than to actually look at its real efficiency as a business would.

These charities also often also waste hundreds of millions on the ground in places like Africa on aid shipments which are stolen/confiscated and do not reach the intended destination.

Their claims about mobile phone call costs are also completely untrue.  They have quoted the best case on some contract mobiles and not the typical case on most pay as you go mobiles used by most less well off people.

I refused to have anything to do with The Red Cross after they banned Christmas Cards depicting nativity scenes. The Staff in our local charity shop were told not to set up nativity scenes, Christmas trees or decorations with Christian symbols in case they offended Muslims and other non-Christians. I won't go in there any more and don't give them anything to sell either.

wrote on Jul 12^th, 2005 at 9:33pm:

I refused to have anything to do with The Red Cross after they banned Christmas Cards depicting nativity scenes. The Staff in our local charity shop were told not to set up nativity scenes, Christmas trees or decorations with Christian symbols in case they offended Muslims and other non-Christians. I won't go in there any more and don't give them anything to sell either.

No danger that they will be receiving any donations from me then!

Nor me.

I have just read on one of the Google Telecom Groups. That on BT Newsline today(I presume its an intl commununication line? unless you know different). That a second emergency response number was set up quickly by BT on thursday at the request of the Met.But wasnt needed.It didnt indicate if it was geo or ngn.

The big problem we now have with all charities in the UK is the same as they had in the USA, until there was campaigning to expose the contemporary exploitation. It is really quite similar to the NGN scandal in many ways, since it is all about deliberate deception.

Almost all charities of any significant size have now been taken over by the so-called "professional" fund raising executives. They are not actually professional at all, and are usually completely unqualified in formal management and marketing, which is what they however sell themselves as being "professional" at. These types of Hans Christian Andersen "Emperor's clothes" con-men (and women) have marched into and bamboozled former honest and pure charities into buying the imaginary wares which they claim to have. They then install themselves at salaries of typically £100 000/ annum or more, and then give their cronies highly-paid jobs under them, which the feckless donors then have to pay for, resulting in the actual yield to the deserving cause at the base of the charity being diminished to a much lower percentage of the total revenue into the charity. In the USA campaigners recognised this scandalous trend some years ago and managed to get the US government to recognise this corruption and pass legislation to force all charities to declare their position in this respect. In the USA all charities now have to state the % of money given which actually reaches the base beneficiaries and the salary of the highest-paid executive and so on. That is what we now need desperately here to end these similar abuses. Even charities like so-called Christian Aid, Tear Fund and the old British & Foreign Bible Society have been taken over by these deceivers now.

The USA approach now enables people to give to the charity through which the greatest % of the money which they give reaches the deserving cause and the least amount is dissipated in supporting charlatans, spongers and wasteful overhead spending.

The Red Cross here is one which has already been taken over.

wrote on Jul 12^th, 2005 at 9:40pm:

I have just read on one of the Google Telecom Groups. That on BT Newsline today(I presume its an intl commununication line? unless you know different). That a second emergency response number was set up quickly by BT on thursday at the request of the Met.But wasnt needed.It didnt indicate if it was geo or ngn.

This is apparently a telephone news service for BT employees only.

By the way Big John you do realise that there is currently no higher category of membership on this forum than Superior Member? ;) ;D

It was just that you looked as though you are desperately trying to head towards the 1,000 posts mark.  I am no shrinking violet on the posting front in this forum but even I cannot possibly keep up with your daily rate. :o

wrote on Jul 12^th, 2005 at 10:12pm:

I am no shrinking violet on the posting front in this forum but even I cannot possibly keep up with your daily rate. :o

You aint been doing to bad lately ;) Someone has to make up for the absence of Dave M :)

wrote on Jul 12^th, 2005 at 10:11pm:

These types of Hans Christian Andersen "Emperor's clothes" con-men (and women) have marched into and bamboozled former honest and pure charities into buying the imaginary wares which they claim to have. They then install themselves at salaries of typically £100 000/ annum or more, and then give their cronies highly-paid jobs under them, which the feckless donors then have to pay for, resulting in the actual yield to the deserving cause at the base of the charity being diminished to a much lower percentage of the total revenue into the charity.

Dorf,

We may disagree sometimes but you and I are as one on this matter.

My late father died from a sudden totally unexpected massive heart attack 8 years ago at the age of 64,  when he was at the peak of his career and in the midst of absolutely everything - no sign he was ill.

As a result of this enormous shock I broke the habit of a lifetime and subsequently made a donation for £30 in response to a charity mailshot (the only charity giving that I normally did was to buy poppies for armistice week and buy lifeboat stickers) from the British Heart Foundation.

As a result of this huge error of judgement on my part I was then subjected to a veritable orgy of begging letters, almost fortnightly, from their then funding director, Liz Mather, imploring me to sign up to monthly lifetime giving plans out of my salary and highlighting numerous schemes to make unhealthy fat people healthy because apparently having a heart attack was always entirely preventable and your own fault (I think not but that is how all their marketing of the time was pitched).

They then followed this up with one of the most tasteless tv ads I have ever seen where a gentleman was shown endlessly smoking, overeating and downing pints in the pub only to find himself in a busy station forecourt having a massive heart attack where he collapsed and probably died.  The message seemed to be that all heart attacks are self inflicted, a case which can only actually be made out for something like lung cancer.

I then wrote to all their board members (a considerable effort in 1998 as universal email did not exist) asking if their trendy young fund director, Liz Mather, actually knew what she was doing and citing my father's case.  I also cited that the BHF offered absolutely no counselling to those who had lost relatives through sudden heart attack death and also at the time was doing nothing to get more defibriolaters out there instead of berating people for smoking and eating and drinking too much.

I received a letter from their chief exex saying it was not their intention to upset me etc and also that they were in the process of reviewing this type of tv advertising campaign.

Interestingly since then they have never again carried out such an unpleasant television advertising campaign and they now extensively campaign for the provision of defibriolaters in public places.

I am sure that I was not the only one to write to them in these terms but it seems that sometimes some organisations do listen to criticism if there is enough of it.

It does seem a great shame that an organisation like the Red Cross, with such a good historical reputation, is now in the hands of such mindless and "polictically correct" people.

BT Newsline?
Have a look in http://www.btplc.com/News/index.cfm

I have picked the shortest URL, but it may be a help.

wrote on Jul 12^th, 2005 at 10:32pm:

BT Newsline? Have a look in http://www.btplc.com/News/index.cfm I have picked the shortest URL, but it may be a help.

BT Newsline is a telephone news service for employees only though.   It has nothing to do with the main bt.com news area of their website.

See http://www.btplc.com/Societyandenvironment/Socialandenvironmentreport/Employees/Employeerelations/Employeecommunications.htm

Tks, must look out an old copy of BT Today, I am sure that it had an 0800 number for the updates that you describe.
Unfortunately I can not remember the number. :-[
Still, much amused that the public site that I suggested makes no mention of the recent events. ;)

FOI response from MPA to my request of July 7. I will see what arises from my requests to PITO before deciding whether to request a review.

>>

Thank you for your email regarding the Casualty Bureau telephone number.

The 0870 telephone number used for Casualty Bureau was provided to the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) by the Police Information Technology Organisation (PITO).

The contract that dictates how the number is operated and the call charges was negotiated directly between PITO and Cable and Wireless.

By using this service, which allowed us to use the resources of all UK police forces by distributing calls, we were able to have five times as many people answering calls from concerned members of the public than we would otherwise.

If we did not use this system we would have had to rely on the Met's Casualty Bureau facilities at Hendon where 40 people can take calls at a time. The system PITO provided allowed 200 people to take calls.

The MPS does not profit from this number and is one of many forces that rely on this system to provide an emergency high-volume telephone number.

Naturally we would have preferred a number that did not impose a charge on the caller. However, there was no immediate alternative available to the MPS that would have allowed such a volume of calls to be taken in the hours after Thursday's incidents.

Once the issue was identified, the MPS arranged with PITO for a local London number to be activated. This gives callers an alternative means of contacting the Casualty Bureau.  This number is 0044 207 158 0010

I hope this information is helpful.  However, if you require further information on this matter you should contact PITO.  The contact details are provided below.


Corporate Communication Team
PITO
New Kings Beam House
22 Upper Ground
Blackfriars
London SE1 9QY

+44 (0)20 8358 5555

>>

My specific questions were:

1 - What is the underlying geographic number to 0870 1566 344?
2 - Why was a non-geographic number used for the casualty bureau?
3 - Does the Metropolitan Police recognize the difficulty in calling the
0870 number from overseas and if so, why wasn't an alternative number
provided?
4 - Which party receives the revenue generated from the 0870 number and how
much has been generated?
5 - Is the Metropolitan Police aware of the government's own advice
regarding call centers and 0870 numbers? This information is provided by the
COI and can be found at http://www.coi.gov.uk/ccg/download.php 'cost to
citizen' update.

wrote on Jul 13^th, 2005 at 1:53pm:

FOI response from MPA to my request of July 7. I will see what arises from my requests to PITO before deciding whether to request a review

It is a stock Hazel Blears repeated response that does not address your FOI concerns properly and is clearly also untrue given that it maintains there was no alternative to using an 0870 number.

In addition to my unanswered FOI request to the Met, passed to Pito, I have also emailed Mr Webb and Mr Earnshaw at Pito demanding that they resign.  I have received a reply from Olywyn Sayers (Earnshaw'sPA) saying that they think I should get the Home Office to look into my concerns!!  But the Home Office has delegated this decision making to them.  This is incredible.  The Met passes the buck to Pito.  The Home Office passes the buck to Pito and Pito passes the buck to the Home Office.  It could be time for the rare enlistment of the help of my MP.

Webb still hasn't even bothered to respond.  He should be isntantly fired.  Even looking at his picture on the Pito website does not give me any good vibes.

wrote on Jul 13^th, 2005 at 2:07pm:

But your reply seems to be from the Corporate Communication Team at Pito and not from the Met?

This was my first initial thought, however looking at what I specifically sent, this *was* my FOI request to the MPA. The response seems to, perhaps quite correctly, want to deflect any further enquiries to PITO. The response was from the MPA Information Officer. She is wrong about a number of assertions however I am mainly interested in the FOI responses to two requests I have made to PITO and one (or is it two) that I have made to Ofcom.

And there was me thinking PITO was a Home Office department which evolved from PAG(IT) [the Police Advisory Group (IT)] which, itself, evolved from PRSU [the Police Requirements Support Unit].

Perhaps I'm wrong.

Having read idb’s link below though, it appears they’re just re-inventing the wheel yet again:
Quote:

By 2007 a national police IT group within the NPIA would  take on key areas of Pito's work.

If questioned, they’ll probably set up a very expensive focus group to explain how ‘a national police IT group’ will differ from the former ‘Police Advisory Group (IT)’.

Or is that too cynical?

Just about sums things up:

Source: http://www.computerweekly.com/Articles/2005/07/12/210830/Pitofacestwoyearsofuncertainty.htm

The Police IT Organisation could have to wait another two years before its future becomes clear.  

The organisation, which is charged with steering national police IT systems and strategy, was slammed in an independent Home Office report last month.

The Report of the Review of Pito said the organisation should be scrapped. "The present structure and organisation of police ICT lacks clear definition or purpose, results in confused lines of responsibility and is almost certainly poor value for money," it said. [...]

wrote on Jul 13^th, 2005 at 3:23pm:

The Report of the Review of Pito said the organisation should be scrapped. "The present structure and organisation of police ICT lacks clear definition or purpose, results in confused lines of responsibility and is almost certainly poor value for money," it said. [...]

I think we would all agree Pito is poor value for money, especially in respect of its telecoms policy.

I would urge you to email demanding the immediate joint resignations of its Chairman and Chief Executive to:-

Chris.Earnshaw@pito.pnn.police.uk

and

Phillip.Webb@pito.pnn.police.uk

You should also cc this email to:-

john.gieve@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk

hazel.blears@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk

commissioner@met.police.uk

oliver.lloyd@mailonsunday.co.uk

dennis.rice@mailonsunday.co.uk

Following a complaint to my MP regarding the use of 0870 for the helpline, I have just received a reply from him in which he just copies me the email from BT to himself. There are some 'interesting' statements in it,

1) BT is lobbying the regulator Ofcom to either scrap non-geographic numbers such as 0870 and 0845, or insist that all operators charge exactly the same price for these calls.
Note the '..or insist all operators charge the same' bit! (The get-out clause??)
2) In situations when BT is the operator for an 0870 number, BT's share of the revenue is set by the regulator Ofcom and we are only allowed to recover our costs. BT makes no profit on these calls.
3) BT takes a tiny percentage of the revenue from customers' calls to premium rate numbers. For example, BT will take just 3p a minute from a call costing the caller £1.50 a minute.
Any comments?

wrote on Jul 13^th, 2005 at 11:51pm:

1) BT is lobbying the regulator Ofcom to either scrap non-geographic numbers such as 0870 and 0845, or insist that all operators charge exactly the same price for these calls.?

My reading of BT's proposals was that they suggested that revenue share was abolised on 0845 and 0870 and that these numbers were then neutralised by only being charged the same way by any telco as that telco's other charges for normal geographic phone numbers.

The sting in the tail came from the fact that BT made no request that revenue share be abolished on 0844 or 0871 (a proposal that is however made in Ofcom's own Option 4).  The way I saw it was that BT's idea was to allow all the companies who had been conned into using 0870 and 0845 numbers by smart salesmen to resume charging their customers normal call prices while allowing their more scamster minded call centres to carry on scamming by migrating to 0871 or 0844.  The idea seems to be that as these 0844 and 0871 numbers will no longer be able to be called national call rate and local call rate and as they will have multiple tariff bands (up to 10p per minute) there will no longer be misunderstandings about by customers calling them.  I don't agree as customers have already been conditioned to believe 087 is "national rate" and 084 is "local rate".  I would personally abolish all 084 and 087 revenue share except for approved legacy internet ISP numbers.


wrote on Jul 13^th, 2005 at 11:51pm:

In situations when BT is the operator for an 0870 number, BT's share of the revenue is set by the regulator Ofcom and we are only allowed to recover our costs. BT makes no profit on these calls.  BT takes a tiny percentage of the revenue from customers' calls to premium rate numbers. For example, BT will take just 3p a minute from a call costing the caller £1.50 a minute.

BT takes 3p per minute from 0870 calls at 7.5p per minute.  On my maths that's 40% of the total cost to the caller which does not appear to be tiny in anyone's book.  How typically cynical of BT to quote £1.50 a minute numbers which are not a serious problem because anyone using such numbers has a choice as these are sex, chat or legal advice lines.

But why not read BT's full proposal for yourself here:-

http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/ntsoptions/Responses/btrev.pdf

The revised BT proposal Option 2A starts on P23 of this document.

Further to my post #234 on the Red Cross use of 0870.

I responded, and pointed out that their reply said they made no profit from 0870, but in the next sentence say the revenue goes to pay their admin costs?!
Then I pointed out that 0870 were 8p/min, NOT the 6p they quoted.
I asked why they didn't use an 0845 (it would be slightly better for customers) and, could the Red Cross not 'persuade' providers to give them an 0800 for emergencies like this.

Their reply:-

Many thanks for your additional comments.

I can only reiterate the information we have already provided, which is accurate to the best of our knowledge.

You may also be interested in the following additional points:

we use a mixture of 0845 and 0870 numbers as appropriate to the situation.

Advise provided at the time of the 9/11 incident was not to use freephone numbers (0800) as unfortunately these numbers attract a high number of nuisance calls.  

The decision to use non-geographic numbers was made for several reasons, but primarily because of the ability to redirect the numbers to any nominated number at very short notice.  This is key to our flexibility in business continuity arrangements, and for resourcing emergency response phone lines.

I do hope this addresses your further concerns

Well, no, it didn't satisfy me - so there will be no Red Cross donations from here any more.

FOI Response - Ofcom:

1 - What involvement did Ofcom have, prior to the explosions in London on July 7, 2005, in planning for the telecommunication aspects of providing the casualty bureau?

None.


2 - Was there any prior liaison between Ofcom, PITO, The Home Office, the Metropolitan Police and any other relevant government departments and organizations?

No.


3 - Did Ofcom have any advance notice that the London Casualty Bureau number would use an 0870 number and if not, when did Ofcom first become aware that the 0870 number was being used?

No. We first became aware when the number began to be issued to the public via the media.


4 - After becoming aware of the 0870 number being used, did Ofcom make any representation to either PITO, the Metropolitan Police, the Home Office or any other relevant organization about the inappropriate use of such a number?

Yes. We contacted Met, PITO and Home Office in that order to say that this was inappropriate.


5 - Did Ofcom point out the problems that international callers may have experienced in attempting to contact a non-geographic number?

Yes.


6 - What steps is Ofcom taking such that a future incident (plane crash, terrorism, major accident etc) does not use a non-geographic number for international callers?

We have reiterated our guidance on the use of NTS numbers; additionally, we are recommending that toll-free plus geographic should be the best practice route for these kind of emergency helplines.


7 - How many complaints, wither by telephone, fax. email or mail has Ofcom received regarding the use of an 0870 number for this incident?

5 complaints have been logged to date

wrote on Jul 14^th, 2005 at 12:36pm:

5 complaints have been logged to date

It seems that emails to Messrs Carter, Peacock at senior level conveniently do not get logged in the complaints database.  So I had better log a complaint with the contact centre then - god give me strength!!

I do not believe that there were only 5 complaints (maybe only 5 logged). It would be interesting to know who else accessing this site complained. I certainly did and the operator I spoke to told me she had received other calls of complaint.

Does one have to do something special to get a complaint logged i.e. was my rant logged or is it only logged if I speciafically request it to be so.

wrote on Jul 14^th, 2005 at 1:27pm:

Does one have to do something special to get a complaint logged i.e. was my rant logged or is it only logged if I speciafically request it to be so.

Typical Ofcom Contact Centre staff technique is to dodge responsibility for and not log every call they take to make their stats look better.

They always tell you the matter you have called about is not Ofcom's area of responsibility (even when it is) and either there is nothing that can be done or that another body (eg Pito) is repsonsible and to complain to them.

So only if you inisit on it being lodged as a formal complaint with them and insist on a formal reply will it count in their complaint stats.  Ofcom are totally cynical and ever devious on such matters.

On Tuesday 12th, I emailed the main four networks (cc'd newspapers & ofcom) and have today received my first reply - from Brian McBride, MD, T-Mobile:-

Quote:

We are looking at the mechanics of doing this. It's a small number of calls (less than 1000) and small revenue (£500). We will do what's right. We will not seek to profit from these terrible events.   Regards,   From Brian.   brian.mcbride@t-mobile.co.uk

Now assuming it is from Brian himself as I think the way its been signed isn't professional in anyway, then at least we have one network willing to donate the profits.  The other people on my list haven't answered yet but most have read the email I sent.

wrote on Jul 14^th, 2005 at 1:51pm:

Now assuming it is from Brian himself as I think the way its been signed isn't professional in anyway, then at least we have one network willing to donate the profits.  The other people on my list haven't answered yet but most have read the email I sent.

Why didn't you complain about the generality of their unfair prices for 0845, 0870 and 0800 numbers on most pay as you go mobiles and some contracts?  For instance Vodafone has a "stop the clock" deal where you only pay for the first 3 minutes and then the next 57 minutes are free in the evening and at the weekend.  This deal even applies to cross network mobile calls as well as to 01 and 02 numbers.  But it does not apply to 0845, 0870 or 0800 calls.

When you look at the termination charges there is no reason for them treating these calls worse than a cross network mobile call.  Its pure cynicism.  On Vodafone Pay as You Go the 0845 and 0870 charges are not publised on their website or published in their Pay as You Go leaflet.  They are only available by voice on their customer services line!

wrote on Jul 14^th, 2005 at 1:41pm:

They always tell you the matter you have called about is not Ofcom's area of responsibility (even when it is) and either there is nothing that can be done or that another body (eg Pito) is repsonsible and to complain to them. So only if you inisit on it being lodged as a formal complaint with them and insist on a formal reply will it count in their complaint stats.  Ofcom are totally cynical and ever devious on such matters.

I don't believe I asked it to be logged it as a formal complaint. Primarily because I didn't know I should and I wasn't asked if I wanted to do so, so didn't know I needed to go thru' that process.

However I was told that it wasn't their responsibility and there was nothing they could do about it. I was told I should complain to the Home Office (seems to fit in with your reply)

So by all accounts it would seem my complaint was ignored even though it must have been very clear from the emotional nature of my call that I was very angry.

How many others fall into that catagory?

The person I spoke to was also very defensive, as if I was blaming them. I made it very clear that I wasn't blaming them for the 0870 number, but I wanted them to do something about it.

wrote on Jul 14^th, 2005 at 2:45pm:

However I was told that it wasn't their responsibility and there was nothing they could do about it. I was told I should complain to the Home Office (seems to fit in with your reply) So by all accounts it would seem my complaint was ignored even though it must have been very clear from the emotional nature of my call that I was very angry.

They always, always say your issue is nothing to do with them and they are always very defensive.  The defensiveness seems to come from the fact that most of the contact centre staff are neither very bright or very well paid.

Their callers are usually always passionate but they are always bored and apparently wishing desperately to get to the end of their shift and get out of the place.  Its a  huge mismatch.

Perhaps if Matt Peacock, their Communications Director, spent a week working in the contact centre it might well open his eyes to what really goes on there.

May be you should call them back and check your complaint is now fully logged with them on their database.

Have they provided you with a reference number?

I 'corresponded' with the Ofcom Contact Centre last year when the BT Standard tariff was abolished. I received an emailed reply with a reference number.

I wrote to them in October saying that I had written to them previously and quoting the reference number.

The reply I received was very abrupt and they basically told me to "go away":

Quote:

Thank you for your email of 11 October 2004, the contents of which has been added to our records here. As you say, we have previously corresponded on the issue of non-geographic numbers and revenue sharing. Ofcom’s current position on this subject is as set out in http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consultations/past/0845/?a=87101.  Further information on the work of Ofcom on 0845/0870 numbers will also be published on our website.  If you are interested in receiving further updates on this, you can do so by registering on Ofcom’s website at http://www.ofcom.org.uk/static/subscribe/select_list.htm. Yours sincerely Steven Parker Ofcom Contact Centre

With the same reference number, it would have probably been kept as one complaint, despite the fact that the first letter sent to them was 6 months previous and on a different subject!

Hi All

"We are looking at the mechanics of doing this. It's a small number of calls (less than 1000) and small revenue (£500). We will do what's right. We will not seek to profit from these terrible events. "

Well done T-Mobile

Lets hope ALL other mobile Co's follow his fine example

Nice one Brian

Dave

wrote on Jul 14^th, 2005 at 3:42pm:

The reply I received was very abrupt and they basically told me to "go away

There is a very abrupt lady called Natalie Siege in charge of the contact centre who seems to be responsible for most of their anti customer and pro worker rights oriented culture.  Needless to say she was originally employed by OFTEL!

The OFTEL Contact Centre set a standard in rudeness that even Ofcom has found it hard to keep up with.

I sometimes wonder if Matt Peacock has ever visited the Contact Centre, even though he is of course the Communications Director. :o ::)

wrote on Jul 14^th, 2005 at 1:58pm:

Why didn't you complain about the generality of their unfair prices for 0845, 0870 and 0800 numbers on most pay as you go mobiles and some contracts?

I thought if I moaned too much they would simply ignore my request and not bother even donating their huge profit to charity.  This way was all nice and I specifically cc'd the newspapers so as to push the networks into agreeing to donate.

I will put this question to Brian and await a reply and the others if and when I get a reply from them.

I know that I shall get my head bashed for this but here goes:

You are a RAF officer who has been shot down over occupied France in the second world war. The germans capture you and you become a prisoner of war.

Bemoaning your fate, you are much cheered up one day when a parcel arrives from the Mayor of London "To show our gratitude".

Shortly followed by the British Red Cross with a bill (which you cannnot afford) for its delivery....

The quarter of a page that the advert took in the DT was partnered by - guess who - Dell Computers!

I have finished ranting now, you may continue with your discussion.

juby

wrote on Jul 14^th, 2005 at 7:29pm:

The quarter of a page that the advert took in the DT was partnered by - guess who - Dell Computers!

Don't get me started on Dell.  Some of the worst PCs and PC customer support out there somehow amazingly presented as some of the industry's best!

You can't even see one of their b***** machines before you buy one.  But then perhaps that's because they know no one would ever buy a Dell if that happened.

I emailed my MP the other day and have received his posted reply today (don't they use email to reply?), saying that he has written to Charles Clarke at the Home Office. So I will wait to see what he has got to say.

wrote on Jul 14^th, 2005 at 10:41pm:

I emailed my MP the other day and have received his posted reply today (don't they use email to reply

It depends entirely on the MP.  They are all effectively self employed in terms of how they do stuff like this.

Some are old fogeys with ancient secretary's using typewriters.  Others are young and modern and would definitely use email to reply.

Presumably Charles Clarke will pass the letter to Hazel Blears and you will then get the usual nonsensical response about having to use 0870 to have more than 40 phone lines available.

Nice headline from the Socialist Party:

http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/2005/401/index.html?id=np4.htm (scroll to bottom of page)

Capitalists cash in on greed

WHILE EMERGENCY service workers and others such as building workers across the capital put themselves out to help the wounded by donating blood and aiding and comforting people, many in the capitalist class just went in for blatant profiteering.

Phone giant Cable and Wireless cashed in on the grief of families and friends by charging up to 50p a minute on the missing persons' hotline. Over 200,000 calls were made on that 0870 line in the first few days. Cable and Wireless has a £3.2 billion annual turnover and profits of £377 million in the year up to March. Its chief executive drew a salary of £1.9 million.

wrote on Jul 15^th, 2005 at 1:57am:

Nice headline from the Socialist Party:

Should these people otherwise be known as the New Communists?  Or are they what used to be called the Socialist Worker Party?

I couldn't help but notice that Marx and Engeles were amongst the main icons shown on their website.

Even so its nice to see that 0870 is now upsetting these kind of people rather than simply being ignored.

I was on holiday in St Lucia  at the time of the bombings and the BBC World News on the TV did actually give out  a regular phone number as well as the 0870 number.   Cant remember what it was though, but it was on the screen several times along with the 0870 number.

I've just got a reply from Richard Poston from o2 concerning possible donation of profit made:-

Quote:

Thank you for your email to Peter Erskine which has been passed to me. We at O2 obviously recognise the enormity of the events of last Thursday in London and much effort was put into ensuring that all our employees were accounted for and that they were kept updated during the day as the tragedy unfolded in order that they could ascertain whether friends/family were safe, at the same time providing them with information on alternative means of transport and accommodation should they have been unable to return home that evening. In addition to immediately accounting for our employees the following actions were undertaken: >>  Working extremely closely with the Emergency Services, we ensured that the O2 network was upheld and to this end we doubled the capacity of the network in the relevant areas.  We also responded to the request to restrict access, in certain areas, to high priority emergency service personnel only. >>  O2 Airwave rapidly deployed services into the underground to enable the British Transport Police and Metropolitan Police to communicate in the tube tunnels.  (For your information see The Guardian 14 July 2005) Immediately following the events of Thursday 7 July, on behalf of The O2, a £100k donation was made on Friday morning to the London Bombings Relief Fund set up by the Evening Standard and Ken Livingstone. (For your information see the Evening Standard 13 July 2005). At the request of the police, in the early hours of Saturday morning O2 donated and delivered 50 phones and unlimited free call time (and international access) to the Bereavement Centre set up by the London Resilience Team and Westminster Council. We also enhanced the coverage and capacity of the network to meet the increased demand in the area near the bereavement centre to ensure good mobile coverage, all at a cost to the Company of some £20,000. A specific customer care support line was also set up to assist. As you can see from the brief overview above, we take our responsibility towards our employees, customers and those communities we serve extremely seriously Calls to the 0870 helpline number, which was set up by the police, were charged at a customer’s normal voice call charge (charges will, of course, vary according to what plan and bundle each individual is on).  Our customers are not charged on a premium rate basis by O2 therefore the consequences of us donating the profits made from people ringing the London Bombing Helpline would be insignificant in comparison to the donations already made by O2 and the facilities put in place mentioned above. We are very mindful of our obligations to the communities which we serve, not least when a disaster of this magnitude occurs. I believe that we responded appropriately with speed and genuine conviction and that we have done far more than what would have been achieved by donating the small revenue generated from the helpline calls in the way you suggest. I do hope that this explains the viewpoint of O2 and if I can be of any further assistance please do not hesitate to come back to me. Regards Richard Poston Director, Corporate Affairs

As you can see they did more than what T-Mobile appear to have done.  I did notice that he mentioned that calls to the helpline were charged at normal rates as opposed to premium rates and I have sent a reply pointing out the rates as advertised on their website for calls to 0870 (35ppm) and whether their customers were charged this rate or for just this helpline number, charged normal geographical rates.

wrote on Jul 15^th, 2005 at 8:06am:

I was on holiday in St Lucia  at the time of the bombings and the BBC World News on the TV did actually give out  a regular phone number as well as the 0870 number

The 020 number became available late on the Friday night uk time but only after our many protests.

It was initially shown as only being a number to call for those living overseas and not as a direct altenative to the 0870 number.  Many uk sources still only published the 0870 number.

wrote on Jul 15^th, 2005 at 9:39am:

I've just got a reply from Richard Poston from o2 concerning possible donation of profit made.  As you can see they did more than what T-Mobile appear to have done.

The Airwave contract for the emergency services is very valuable to them in commercial terms.

Therefore it suits their book commercially to deply more resources in the event of such an outrage.  Some  of the extra resources that O2 deployed would have been in line with the terms of the Airwave contract and not out of the goodness of their own heart.

They still haven't dealt properly with charging people £21 an hour to call the helpline, thus making it unaffordable to call the casualty line for anyone of restricted financial means or who was running low on credit.  There is no commercial basis for this level of call pricing to 0845 and 0870 numbers.  It is pure highway robbery.

wrote on Jul 15^th, 2005 at 9:57am:

...They still haven't dealt properly with charging people £21 an hour to call the helpline, thus making it unaffordable to call the casualty line for anyone of restricted financial means or who was running low on credit.  There is no commercial basis for this level of call pricing to 0845 and 0870 numbers.  It is pure highway robbery.

I agree and that is why I asked for clarification on this as he pointed out that the helpline was charged at normal voice calls but their pricing of 0870 says otherwise.

normal for O2   >:(

As far as profiteering from mobile companies is concerned, O2 should be given credit for what it has so far done.

They have donated far more than T-Mobile.  As a former T-Mobile customer, I know they treat their customers like dirt, and forget to acknowledge calls to cancel contracts, thus keeping customers longer.

O2 on the other hand include 0870 numbers in their inclusive minutes.  Whilst I agree PAYG customers and those who used all their minutes are paying more than geographic numbers, it is very rare that you can get 0870 calls included in such a package nowadays.

This effectively means you can use your inclusive minutes to call abroad, and to call companies where you just can't find a geographic number.

Let's see what Vodafone, Orange, Three, and Virgin have to say on the matter.

wrote on Jul 15^th, 2005 at 2:15pm:

As far as profiteering from mobile companies is concerned, O2 should be given credit for what it has so far done....

I agree with this.  I was surprised at them providing 50 phones with unlimited credit (inc international access) and the £100k donation.  As NGM says their contract with the police over o2 airways probably includes emergency bandwidth and priority, etc.

I have also just received a reply from Orange and they also state they have donated £100k as well.  I'm not going to quote their reply as it would be too long for this forum and didn't contain anything different or new (just that they were shocked and ensured that their staff were safe, etc).  They did mention that "though rates may vary depending on tariff, the standard rate to this helpline is 8ppm".  I've just emailed their general customer services for confirmation that they do indeed charge around 8ppm (I'm not sure at all with orange).

I've yet to receive a reply from Vodafone though the email I sent to Arun Sarin has been received.

http://www.richmondandtwickenhamtimes.co.uk/news/localnews/display.var.614488.0.heartbreak_wait_for_news_of_emily.php

includes:

Twickenham MP Dr Vincent Cable said that he planed to question the Prime Minister this week about the implications of the decision to switch 1,500 Met officers to the Gleneagles summit including terrorism specialists.

"I have also been asked to question ministers about why premium rate - 0845 and 0870 - numbers have been used for casualty help lines, penalising relatives of those who may be missing or injured. It is really a bit sick to take advantage of people in this way."

wrote on Jul 15^th, 2005 at 2:47pm:

I've yet to receive a reply from Vodafone though the email I sent to Arun Sarin has been received.

Arun Sarin is no  longer with Vodafone and has been replaced by Tim Miles.

I have had my complaint acknowledged and passed to another director to deal with as Mr Miles is on holiday.  No reply as yet though.

Vodafone behave particualrly disgracefully for 0800, 0845 and 0870 for by not publishing prices on the website for Pay as You Go customers and not publishing them in the printed leaflet even though this does include rates for  AA RoadWatch and various 0906 premium rate lines.

I think they are having an awkward time trying to think up any possible reasonable excuse.

wrote on Jul 15^th, 2005 at 5:27pm:

Arun Sarin is no  longer with Vodafone and has been replaced by Tim Miles.

Sarin is still the CEO of the whole Vodafone Group. Miles is the CEO of Vodafone UK.

Well I wonder if my email to Arin, that has been read, will be forwarded on to the relevant person?  That is what has happened with the other networks so far as it was someone else who responded except T-Mobile where Brian responded himself.

wrote on Jul 15^th, 2005 at 9:39am:

I did notice that he mentioned that calls to the helpline were charged at normal rates as opposed to premium rates and I have sent a reply pointing out the rates as advertised on their website for calls to 0870 (35ppm)

35p a minute peak rate is what they charge to call a NGN on the online tariff. Once you have used up your inclusive minutes.Its also what they charge there online Payg customers.I think its different if you are on  the High Street Tariff?.

Thanks BigJohn,

I have just read o2's website (highstreet PAYG) and it isn't very clear.

It reads:

Quote:

Standard Calls*  -  25p for the first 3 mins/day then 5p/min for the rest of the day

but the small print for * reads:

Quote:

* UK to UK standard fixed line numbers. 0845, 0800 and 0870 numbers are charged at a fixed rate at all times.

Now that to me reads that calls to NGN's are always charged at a fixed rate (I assume 25ppm) and therefore don't go down after 3 minutes which is still contrary to the reply from o2 I got as he said they were charged as normal voice call charges.

wrote on Jul 15^th, 2005 at 6:35pm:

Now that to me reads that calls to NGN's are always charged at a fixed rate (I assume 25ppm) and therefore don't go down after 3 minutes which is still contrary to the reply from o2 I got as he said they were charged as normal voice call charges.

That's because these tariffs are so evily deceitful and the NGN costs are so deliberately hidden that no one knows what is going on other than the mean spirited accountant who devised these strange and hidden NGN rates.

On the Vodafone PAYG I am now on (SmartPlus) it turns out to be 30p per minute to 0800, 0845 and 0870 in the weekday peak and 10p to 0845 and 0870 in the weekday evening and weekend and 5p to 0800 in the weekday evening and at the weekend.  But on another PAYG tariff (SmartStep) it is 30p per minute, however many minutes in the weekday peak and then 30p per minute for the first 3 minutes in the weekday evening and weekend before falling to 10p (0845 and 0870) or 5p (0800) thereafter.  This is all also subject to 2 minutes minimum connection charge per call.

It seems to be done in such a deliberately obtuse way that no one can possibly understand it.  Not even, or possibly especially, their own customer services staff.

Have Cable and Wireless coughed up yet?

juby

wrote on Jul 15^th, 2005 at 9:15pm:

Have Cable and Wireless coughed up yet?

Have any pigs done any flights in your neighbourhood lately ;) ;D

I have just received an email from Stephen Rimmer, HomeOffice (the return path I noticed was Anne Spoore). I and few other forum members were cc'd.


Quote:

Message from Stephen Rimmer To: Councillor Julian Shersby Mole Valley District Councillor for Caper, Leigh and Newdigate Dear Councillor Shersby CASUALTY BUREAU HELPLINE NUMBER You will recall that we spoke by telephone last Friday, in response to your E-mails to the Metropolitan Police and copied to, among others, Sir John Gieve, the Permanent Secretary at the Home Office.  You may also be aware that your point has been echoed by a number of E-mail correspondents and in Parliamentary Questions.  Both you and other correspondents have also made specific application for information under the Freedom of Information Act. 2.  First of all, may I say that we welcome the detailed and persuasive argument that you have put forward for a change from the current arrangement to use an 0870 number to access the national helpline at times of major incident such as so tragically occurred last week.  You will also be aware that, on Friday evening, at the Metropolitan Police Service's request, PITO provided a geographic number 020 7158 0010 to sit alongside the 0870 number already operating, and both numbers were published on the Metropolitan Police Service's website.  The next step, as the Minister for Policing Hazel Blears has announced today, is to conduct an urgent review into the use of the 0870 number.  I am leading that work.  I enclose a copy of the Minister's statement for information. 3.  I should make absolutely clear that neither the Home Office, nor PITO nor the police service has profited financially from the use of the 0870 number.  Cable and Wireless, who are the current contractors providing the telephony service for the Police National Network, have already offered to donate their profits from the use of the 0870 number last week to the London Bombings Relief Fund and Hazel Blears has asked other major service providers to waive the charge to their customers or, if that is not possible, to make commensurate donations. 4.  The purpose of this E-mail is to assure you that the issues you have raised are being addressed as a matter of high priority.  I shall ensure that you receive a full response as soon as possible.  In the meantime, I would be grateful if you would direct any further comments and queries to me in the first instance. 5.  I have taken the liberty of giving this E-mail the same wide circulation as you have so that all copy recipients are aware that I am leading on this work.  I have also copied it to other correspondents who have expressed similar views to yours. Stephen Rimmer Director of Policing Policy

I have a few questions as follows:-

Concerning point number 2:-
2.1.  Would the geographical number have been released at all if it wasn't due to the public discuss and bad press?

Concerning point number 3:-
3.1.  Did you receive any money whatsoever (no matter what it was used for) with regards to the use of such number?

Can anyone else think of other points I can raise?

UPDATE:  I'm being a bit lazy here can anyone tell me has an FOI on The Met or home office revealed if they received any payments back whatsoever (no matter what they were used for) as I can't exactly remember?

I also received the email from Stephen Rimmer. The following was also attached:

HAZEL BLEARS’ STATEMENT
15 July 2005

"We will be working closely with ACPO to determine whether 0870 numbers, which have proved resilient to the demand resulting from last week's attacks, are the most appropriate way of providing Casualty Bureau access to the public. We will announce the result of the review in due course. Clearly the top priority is that anyone ringing the Bureau for information about their loved ones should receive an efficient service.
"Neither the Home Office, the police service or the Police Information Technology Organisation have made money from this facility. Cable and Wireless, the service provider, have agreed that they will donate the profit they made to the London Bombings Relief Fund.
"I have also written to all the telephone companies who have received calls on this number, to ask that they do not charge customers for those calls or, if that is not possible, that they donate their profits to charity in support of victims and their families.
"From Saturday 9 July, an 0207 number ran alongside the current 0870 number. The 0207 number enables greater accessibility for international callers and cheaper calls for landline and mobile users on certain tariffs."

wrote on Jul 12^th, 2005 at 8:41pm:

I said the Queen has made a donation. Not promised. And I did note that NGM, when it happens I will believe it. Sadly those of us who are old enough can remember when Cable and Wireless was one the world's most respected companies. Then they were privatised. juby

Have they coughed up yet?

I live next an airport and the flying pigs only go up on airshows, lots of fun tho'

Please let me know when they do.

juby

"Neither the Home Office, the police service or the Police Information Technology Organisation have made money from this facility"

They've been watching too many episodes of "Yes Minister"; Sir Humphrey would be proud of them. Yes, technically, they have "made no money". But they have received thousands of pounds of call centre facilities and call routing for free or at reduced cost.

Indeed if they've been using 0870 numbers and received no benefit - then the Public Accounts Committee should be investigating why companies like C&W are making profits at the public's expense.

These guys need a FOI request to determine the monetary value of these services.

"cheaper calls for landline and mobile users on certain tariffs"

...and another FOI request to ascertain exactly on which tariffs landline or mobile telcos they think charge less, or the same, for calls  to 0845 and 0870 numbers vs geographic numbers. If they know of any I'd like to sign up!!

All these emails from bigwigs is good news; but it's tragic that it has taken such evil acts as these bombings to bring this giant scam to wider attention.

wrote on Jul 15^th, 2005 at 5:09pm:

http://www.richmondandtwickenhamtimes.co.uk/news/localnews/display.var.614488.0.heartbreak_wait_for_news_of_emily.php includes: Twickenham MP Dr Vincent Cable said that he planed to question the Prime Minister this week about the implications of the decision to switch 1,500 Met officers to the Gleneagles summit including terrorism specialists. "I have also been asked to question ministers about why premium rate - 0845 and 0870 - numbers have been used for casualty help lines, penalising relatives of those who may be missing or injured. It is really a bit sick to take advantage of people in this way."

In an earlier posting I mentioned that a GLA member had promised to question the Chief Executive of the Metropolitan Police Authority for me and that an MP has promised to put down questions in the house on the use of these numbers for me and that I would supply feedback when I had it. The MP was Vince Cable. The GLA member is Dee Doocey. Good to see approaching them has caused some action.

Re the comments in letters in later postings that none of the public bodies involved in the helpline profited from the 0870 number - this is either tosh or absolutely appalling negotiating on behalf of these bodies for the 0870 contract. I suspect, as has already been suggested that it might be that costs were reduced.

As far as I can see there are 3 possibilities:

a) No profit was made in which case someone needs firing for negoatiating the only 0870 contract that didn't show a return.

b) They are lying.

c) There was a cost ofset i.e. there was a return for using the 0870 number.

wrote on Jul 15^th, 2005 at 9:53pm:

I have just received an email from Stephen Rimmer, HomeOffice (the return path I noticed was Anne Spoore). I and few other forum members were cc'd.

I wonder why Mr Rimmer should choose to treat one of his correspondents on this subject as being the lead one?

You would have thought that he might simply have replied to all his correspondents using the To email function equally?

As far as I can tell though from his email recipient list there are only four people who have been directly bothering the Home Office and Mr Rimmer on this.  So do not be complacent and imagine that by now there are hundreds of campaigners beating on the home office's door.  In fact there are only the four.   The other recipients in the email are the people being asked to answer and account for their actions.

Does anyone want to own up to being any one of these people, even if only by sending me an Instant Message. ;)

The guardian online are still advertising the rip-off 0870 number on the front page of their website at http://www.guardian.co.uk/

I have written to their editor.

It's an uphill struggle this.

wrote on Jul 15^th, 2005 at 6:54pm:

Not even, or possibly especially, their own customer services staff.

How true especially on cost of calls to 0844 numbers.I contacted 02 online customer service about them and there first response was there is no such code on my database do you mean 0845.After a bit of pushing they confirmed they were charged the same as 0845/0870.

On Virgin Payg ,in there up to date literature they still continue  to describe 0845 as Local Toll Rate Numbers 10p a min,and 0870 as National Toll Rate Numbers 15p a min.But funny enough both 0844 and 0871 are also classed by them as National Toll Rate Numbers and are also charged at 15p a minute.

Its time for for Telecom call providers both landline and mobile to be upfront about the cost of calls to NGN.I notice that Onetel have sneakily increased the cost of calls to 0844 by 10% in the last couple of weeks.

For those (like I did) that jumped straight to this thread may want to read a new thread started by idb here as David Derbyshire from the Telegraph has done a more indepth story on the governments increasing use of 0870 numbers.

BT said: "We would like these numbers swept away.", David Derbyshire

So why did BT invent them, persuade the gutless non consumer oriented morons ot OFTEL to allow them and then spend so many years converting  most major business call centres over to using them.

Me thinks that man from BT speaks with forked tongue!

Derbyshire has still missed the main point of the outrageous call costs from most mobile phones and BT Payphones and not being able to call these numbers either at all or only at massive premiums from overseas.  Also he misses the point about BT Options 3 and other inclusive calling plans and ending up with another 50 quid on your quartely phone bill as a result.

I'm not sure why idb started a new thread for this.  He should have made his post about the new article in this thread.

I think that David Derbyshire has done us proud considering who he works for, he may have missed a few items but I agree with idb, it is a good article.

juby

wrote on Jul 16^th, 2005 at 9:57am:

I think that David Derbyshire has done us proud considering who he works for, he may have missed a few items but I agree with bbb_uk, it is a good article.

I would still like David Derbyshire to concentrate on these other missing facts about 0870 numbers in next week's consumer section of the Telegraph.

Press coverage at this time is vital to force Ofcom to scrap revenue share on these numbers, instead of merely tinkering with the current corrupt system as they seem to be thinking of doing.

Quote:

Arun Sarin is no  longer with Vodafone and has been replaced by Tim Miles.

Really? This hasn't been reported in any of the financial press including the FT.  It's certainly news to me.

wrote on Jul 16^th, 2005 at 1:54pm:

Really? This hasn't been reported in any of the financial press including the FT.  It's certainly news to me.

My misassumption.  None of us can be right all the time.

The Red Cross put an advert in The Times today (and possibly other papers?).

They list an 0845 number for folks to call who need help/counciling etc... over the London bombings.

They then list a 020 number underneath for "callers from abroad". But this is listed as: 00 44 (0) 20 7xxx xxxx DOH! "00" is NOT a universal prefix for international dialing as I'm sure you all know. And why put the "(0)" in if people are calling from abroad.

Shocking that people will be calling the 0845 number unaware of how much it might cost them.

This is why I NEVER give money to charities.

There was an advert for the Red Cross's aid efforts in Africa on television today (unfortunately don't remember which channel) that quoted an 0800 number to call.

Unless the Red Cross has had a rapid about face and a rapid reproduction of its tv adverts I can only assume that raising aid for Africa is a higher priority for them than raising aid for the London bombings!

At least I can't think of any other reason for giving an 0800 number on one aid appeal and an 0870 number on another! ::) :-/