At the risk of sounding stupid - do we know how much it will cost to ring 03 numbers for telcom companies other than BT.
My land line (Talk Talk) does not charge me for any number starting 01 or 02 9&32 other countries).
However they DO charge me ofr a FreePhone call to an 0800 numbers.
My mobile likewise but also get cross network calls so 01, 02 & 07 numbers.

Do we know how companies like these will charge for 03 numbers.

Got a feeling the question hasbeen asked on a separte thread, if so I apologies I can't find it.

Cheers All  -Good site.

Haven't our old friends OfCom specified they have to be included in calling numbers?

Call the RSPCA number (0300 1234 999) for a few seconds and see if it appears on your next bill is a suggestion (or even if you can call it!)

Minardi

Minardi wrote on Dec 29^th, 2007 at 1:01pm:

Haven't our old friends OfCom specified they have to be included in calling numbers? Call the RSPCA number (0300 1234 999) for a few seconds and see if it appears on your next bill is a suggestion (or even if you can call it!) Minardi

Using Voipstunt, "the number you dialed is invalid"

derrick wrote on Dec 29^th, 2007 at 1:43pm:

Minardi wrote on Dec 29th, 2007 at 1:01pm: Haven't our old friends OfCom specified they have to be included in calling numbers? Call the RSPCA number (0300 1234 999) for a few seconds and see if it appears on your next bill is a suggestion (or even if you can call it!) Minardi Using Voipstunt, "the number you dialed is invalid"

Works via 3 Mobile and Virgin Media Landline

03s are charged at no more than 01/02 rate. So in your case they will be inclusive at no extra cost.

I am with Sky talk £5 inclusive package. I made a call to book a driving test on  the 0300 number given on their website and have been charged .072p inc. vat for under a minute call! I understood these numbers were to be part of all inclusive or charged at the same as 01 and 02. Sky is describing this call as a NGN!

parttimepar wrote on Jan 1^st, 2008 at 2:30pm:

I am with Sky talk £5 inclusive package. I made a call to book a driving test on  the 0300 number given on their website and have been charged .072p inc. vat for under a minute call! I understood these numbers were to be part of all inclusive or charged at the same as 01 and 02. Sky is describing this call as a NGN!

If you have (sensibly) left your line rental with BT (BT Together Option 1 @ £10.50/month incl. VAT if you pay by DD and opt for the 50p/month discount for paper-free billing), dialling 1280 to 'hop back onto BT' - the prefix to override the CPS programming for an individual call - will overcome Sky's greed in future.

Better still, get yourself a 18185 account and use that prefix - your 03 calls will then cost you 5p (regardless of duration) at any time.

If Sky landline calls are "free", then aren't they in breach of the Ofcom guideline that says 03 numbers must be charged at the same rate as 01/02 numbers, including being "free" like landline calls? You can probably report Sky to Ofcom (for all the good it will do you!)

jgxenite wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2008 at 10:37am:

If Sky landline calls are "free", then aren't they in breach of the Ofcom guideline that says 03 numbers must be charged at the same rate as 01/02 numbers, including being "free" like landline calls? You can probably report Sky to Ofcom (for all the good it will do you!)

I had exactly the same thought. They are free through Virgin Media.

I have been emailing VM re my broadband/cps phone with them and thought it might be of interest to show their view of 03 numbers;-

Dear Shakir,

Thank you for your prompt reply, can you tell me when/if Virgin are to include 03 numbers on their geo call charges i.e. include or charged at 01 & 02 prices as per Ofcoms indications?

Thanks

Derrick


Dear Derrick,

Thanks for your email.

I would like to inform you that we keep on reviewing our packages and always try to add something more good and interesting features to our packages but as of now we have not included 03 numbers free in the package.

Many Thanks

Shakir

VM tarrifs can be found here;- http://allyours.virginmedia.com/html/phone/callingcosts.html   UK non-geographic calls, (page 19 for 03), where you can see they are charging at geo rates, but are not including them in packages,   this pdf lists their Residential tariffs(page 4 for 01/02).

As I've just pointed out to someone similarly complaining about Sky charging 03 at apparently NGN rates, doesn't this mean Virgin Media is also in breach of their contract as Ofcom has said 03 should be charged at geographic rates and including in free landline call bundles?

VM's booklet for Non-Geographical Charges is here:

http://allyours.virginmedia.com/pdf/uk_non-geographical_calls_a.pdf

See page 19: Calls to all 03xx prefixes are 6p connection plus 3 pence per minute at all times. This is the same as the geographical dial-up internet numbers which are identified.

Virgin Media is doing exactly the opposite of what Ofcom wanted with 03 numbers! They point of 03 numbers were that they would be charged at geographic rates (01/02) and included in any free bundles! See here.

Dave wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2008 at 11:39am:

VM's booklet for Non-Geographical Charges is here: http://allyours.virginmedia.com/pdf/uk_non-geographical_calls_a.pdf See page 19: Calls to all 03xx prefixes are 6p connection plus 3 pence per minute at all times. This is the same as the geographical dial-up internet numbers which are identified.

I have already pointed to that page in my post above, however it turns out that page is full of mistakes and is to be pulled and rectified, i.e. geo calls are now 4ppm, conn charge is 7p etc

Dave wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2008 at 11:39am:

VM's booklet for Non-Geographical Charges is here: http://allyours.virginmedia.com/pdf/uk_non-geographical_calls_a.pdf See page 19: Calls to all 03xx prefixes are 6p connection plus 3 pence per minute at all times. This is the same as the geographical dial-up internet numbers which are identified.

I have been speaking with VM.

I am awaiting formal confirmation, but I believe that VM is complying with the Ofcom regulations, including 03 in packages and charging for them at no more than 01/02. This is the information given on the main web pages.

Giving rates for calls to 03 numbers in a table of "non-geographic" numbers, labelling them as "geographic" does seem a little odd. The charge is however less than for true geographic numbers when not both are not free. On package "M" a daytime call to a 01/02 number is charged at 3.25ppm, an 03 number at 3.00 ppm (a 7p connection charge applies to both).


The current VM tariff came into effect on 1 November 2007.

There are problems with the briefings issued to customer support advisors and with the charges applied to "legacy" packages or bundles, for which there is no published price list.


I have found that there are serious problems with the pdfs accessible from their website, as out of date versions seem to be provided to some when following the current links.

The URL quoted above provides two versions of the document. One, dated 1 November 2007, correctly shows the connection charge as 7p and omits separate weekend rates. Another, dated 6 October 2007, shows the connection charge as 6p and separate weekend rates. **

The calling costs page also provides access to a Residential tariffs document:

http://allyours.virginmedia.com/pdf/residential_tariffs_a.pdf.

This has only been found to exist in the 6 October 2007 (out of date) version, advising a connection charge of 6p and excluding 03 from the definition of "geographic calls".

Google appears to have found the 1 November 2007 version as its html cache shows the connection charge as 7p and includes 03.**

I will post again when I receive confirmation of all the above, and advice of the action that will be taken to put it all right, from VM.

David

** Internet gurus may like to explain how one URL can give two different results during the same time period (Use of Ctrl-f5 shows that it is not the cache on my pc). Members may like to advise which versions they get!

I suspect it's probably lack of communication with c/s as to why VM have stated that calls to 03x aren't included.

Not sure about SkyTalk.  I'm on SkyTalk so I've today made a test call and will wait a few days for it to be listed on my itemised bill then ring Sky and see if i've been charged.

I'd be surprised if any company charged for these calls if you're on an appropriate inclusive tariff and suspect it's a mistake on their website along with, as mentioned above, lack of correct communication given to c/s with regards to 03x numbers.

Still getting negative response from Virgin;-

Dear Derrick,

Thanks for your email.

Please understand that the link that you have mentioned in your emails is not a Virgin Media’s link and as informed you before also that we cannot promise any offer from our side and can only give you the information about which we have been updated, however if you still want to discuss this issue further then please contact our Customer Support Department on 0870 013 0070.


This is the link I supplied;- http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/numbering03/summary/ )  and I have replied back saying it is an Ofcom regulation and that they should be abiding by it.

Am awaiting their next reply, and informed them I will not call their 0870 CSD number!

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2008 at 3:26pm:

** Internet gurus may like to explain how one URL can give two different results during the same time period (Use of Ctrl-f5 shows that it is not the cache on my pc). Members may like to advise which versions they get!

Many larger or busier websites are handled by several machines, for performance or reliability reasons.  They are supposed to be kept identical, and a proper implementation would have content sourced by a central database, or at least a replication scheme to keep things in sync.  It sounds like VM's isn't, and different servers have different versions of the files.

irrelevant wrote on Jan 4^th, 2008 at 11:20pm:

Many larger or busier websites are handled by several machines, for performance or reliability reasons.  They are supposed to be kept identical, and a proper implementation would have content sourced by a central database, or at least a replication scheme to keep things in sync.  It sounds like VM's isn't, and different servers have different versions of the files.

Rather like their Customer Services then!

I have just been in contact with Virgin Media and they assured me that all calls to both 01/02 and 03 numbers will be included in my unlimited call plan.

I quizzed the young lady, she then went and checked that this was the case, she again assured me that 03 numbers were part of the call unlimited package

Please let me know if you hear any differant

Time Will Tell.

Bazzerfewi

Baz

irrelevant wrote on Jan 4^th, 2008 at 11:20pm:

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Jan 2nd, 2008 at 3:26pm: ** Internet gurus may like to explain how one URL can give two different results during the same time period (Use of Ctrl-f5 shows that it is not the cache on my pc). Members may like to advise which versions they get! Many larger or busier websites are handled by several machines, for performance or reliability reasons.  They are supposed to be kept identical, and a proper implementation would have content sourced by a central database, or at least a replication scheme to keep things in sync.  It sounds like VM's isn't, and different servers have different versions of the files.

Thanks for the info. My attempts to look into this further have been rendered worthless,  because...

The problem with out of date versions of the main pricing documents has now gone away for me. Both

http://allyours.virginmedia.com/pdf/residential_tariffs_a.pdf
and
http://allyours.virginmedia.com/pdf/uk_non-geographical_calls_a.pdf

now show the 1 November versions, reflecting proper treatment of 03 numbers. If the incorrect out-of-date 6 October versions "return", then this is an internet problem.

I believe that we should now take the position that concern about access to 03 numbers is not a significant issue. It seems that the glitches we have encountered are all easily resolved.

If anyone is unable to contact Ofcom on its 03 numbers, or is wrongly charged by their provider, then Ofcom must be on to them swiftly. If not, then both must be rightly castigated. Unintended cock-ups that are corrected once they have been pointed out must be forgiven in this age when we depend on unreliable technology and oversimplified processes.

The campaigning pressure must now be on organisations (especially public bodies) who have good reason for using NGNs, i.e. other than wishing to provide a chargeable premium service, to adopt them, not providing them with excuses for not doing so.

David

Hi David

I fully agree with everything you say, the trouble is I am a Yorkshire lad and I am still more than a little sceptical about 03 numbers and VirginMedia I will be keeping an eye on them


Bazzerfewi

Baz

bazzerfewi wrote on Jan 6^th, 2008 at 6:38pm:

the trouble is ...

This is not trouble, it is most valuable.

I try to be sceptical looking in both directions, before making judgements. We must however assume that there is some capacity to do things right, otherwise we are completely wasting our time.

Baz, I welcome you (and others) keeping an eye on me in case I go too soft.

Thanks.

David

Very naively, I had thought what I had originally read (calls to 03 nos to be charged at no more than calls to 01/02 & to be included in inclusive call packages) was absolute fact.   However, from posts here it seems that is not the case so I thought I would email my telecoms co (Utility Warehouse/Telecomplus) and ask for confirmation that calls to 03 nos are included in my package.   The eventual reply so far has been that mine is the first such enquiry they have received (!?) and which 03 number did I wish to call!   I have responded giving my understanding of the plans for calls to 03 nos and a bit of background, again as I understand it, and await their reply.   I am astonished that they have had no other queries and do not seem to be aware of 03 nos.   Will post response when received.

parttimepar wrote on Jan 1^st, 2008 at 2:30pm:

I am with Sky talk £5 inclusive package. I made a call to book a driving test on  the 0300 number given on their website and have been charged .072p inc. vat for under a minute call! I understood these numbers were to be part of all inclusive or charged at the same as 01 and 02. Sky is describing this call as a NGN!

Yes, I still pay line rental to BT and subscribe to 18185.
I have now called Sky Talk and after I referred to the Ofcom statement of 13/2/07 and he sought guidance from his sales dept. the Customer Services chap informed me that 03 numbers were not part of their inclusive plan and there was currently no plan to include them in the future, but he kindly said he will keep me updated! During our conversation I mentioned the high cost of calling Sky and he said that Sky intended to change from 0870 to 03!

Further to my post above, I have now received a reply from Utility Warehouse which I will forward in full to someone to post if they let me have an email (don't like to presume on those who have let me use their's in the past).   Basically, they are NOT including calls to 03 in packages AND are charging for them as "Specialised Services" 4.16ppm peak, 1.7ppm evenings and 1ppm weekeds, (all plus VAT) PLUS a 6p (inc VAT) connection charge!   Needless to say, I have forwarded the email to Clive Hillier at OFCOM as a complaint, was also going to send to their general complaints but there is no email address on their website.   Am I correct that UWDC are in breach of the rules (I know there is no requirement for all telecos to carry 03 calls)?   If they can do this, WHAT IS THE POINT OF 03 NUMBERS???

They will only be in breach of it if their costs are more than what they charge for landline calls (if they were outside of free minutes etc.) They are supposed to be included in free minutes but I don't know if this is a requirement or a "suggestion". You should wait to hear back from Ofcom about it, but they probably should be including them in free minutes if that is what they offer you.

Thanks, jgxenite.  Yes, they ARE above landline costs, even, I believe, above their charges for calls to 0870 & 0845!

jgxenite wrote on Jan 11^th, 2008 at 10:44am:

I don't know if this is a requirement or a "suggestion".

It is a requirement under GC 17. It is likely that this OCP simply does not understand this, despite Barbara's efforts.

I have tried asking its sales department about this, calling the 0800 number published on its website in the context of an enquiry from a possible new customer. She confirmed that the company was properly registered as an OCP and thereby obliged to comply with Ofcom regulations. She had however never heard of 03 numbers and was not prepared to take the trouble to look into the matter for the sake of my potential business.

I strongly suspect that this is one of a number of operators who have not got themselves sorted, partly because very few calls are being made to 03 numbers.

There are some of us who want use of 03 numbers to grow, despite the fact that this could perhaps risk making Ofcom look to have got something right. We must be very careful not to inhibit this growth by creating an unfair impression about the extent to which 03 is up and running. It is important that the minority providers, which we may tend to favour disproportionately, are fully in compliance; this thread provides an opportunity to address the possible rogues and exceptions. We must however apply some sense of proprtion in drawing general conclusions, remembering that the major providers still cover the vast majority of those whose interests we seek to advance.

Whilst there are glitches that must be resolved, the primary message must be that 03 is working and should be used by all those who need a NGN but do not wish to impose a charge for the service they provide to all incoming callers.

I've just tried dialling AA's 03 test numbers from our TalkTalk landline at home, and all I am met with is a "beep" after about a second of dialling the number. Therefore I presume that TalkTalk/CPW is not currently supporting these numbers. Is there anyone else who is on TalkTalk that could follow this up with them? I am not the account holder so can't presently follow it up with them...

Thank you, SCV - I have just sent a short email to UWDC suggesting they check OFCOM GC17 as it may be helpful.   I have also received an acknowledgement from CLive Hillier saying my email has been passed to those dealing with 03 numbers.

Hi there everybody

It appears that there are a number of us that are having problems with the 03 numbers, I researched them with Virgin Media when David (Silent Victim) said they were not aware of the 03 numbers.

Virgin Media a major player in the telecoms industry and they are not aware of the 03 market How daft is that? So if a company like VM have not briefed their staff on the new 03 number range I doubt if any other company will bother to promote the 03 nmbers.

I did contact VM about the 03 numbers and after 10 minutes the operator did inform me that they were included in the talk unlimted package.

Why is 03 not yet well known and well used?

There is some chicken and egg here, but I would emphasise the latter.

I will try to avoid going into detail and assigning blame (no matter how well deserved), because I want things to move forward. My reading of the situation is as follows.

Ofcom, an independent body, saw a need for the public sector in particular to be able to use NGNs without befitting from revenue sharing or seeing callers subjected to surcharges. It therefore introduced 03 and the surrounding regulations. Because of its independent status, Ofcom cannot demand that anybody adopts 03 numbers, nor which numbers any particular body must use – it can only restrict. It also could not (or felt unable to) define the terms on which service was offered to those who rented 03 numbers from the start. (It may feel better able to intervene if it could be shown that the market is not working properly.)

Because managers in the public sector are used to being told what to do by those with exhaustive powers, providing justification for “their decision” after the event, they looked to Ofcom to provide specific instructions - I have seen many references to this misunderstanding of Ofcom’s role and powers. There are also suggestions that Ofcom did not completely “toe the line” by prescribing a detailed sub-range numbering structure that fitted precisely with proposals in the Varney review.

Published correspondence suggests that there may have been a bit of a spat between Ofcom and those responsible for guiding the administrative activities of the public sector.

We have therefore enjoyed a lengthy (and not unfamiliar) period of inaction, whilst pressure over 0844 and 0845 public sector numbers has rightly mounted, underneath the continuing annoyance about the drawn out 0870 fiasco.

We may have to await further developments on both of these fronts (and others) before organisations start rushing to use 03 numbers. I believe that the telcos are largely ready for this and that remaining glitches will be swiftly resolved once these numbers are being used widely.

I suggest that campaigners focus efforts on pressuring those who may be (or should be) ready to move to 03 numbers to give this move some momentum. I also suggest that we should be ready to be patient and try to avoid drawing unnecessary or disproportionate attention to any difficulties that may be encountered. I am quite sure that there will be plenty; however these should be expected to diminish as more 03 numbers come into use.

David

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Jan 12^th, 2008 at 12:41am:

Why is 03 not yet well known and well used?

Answer because Ofcom who introduced 03 in August 2007 have done zero so far to publicise its launch to the public or to the contact centre industry.  And why is this?  Due to political pressure that it would be inconvenient for Ofcom's political masters and their call centre business friends if Ofcom did so.  It is notable that Ofcom took full page national newspaper adverts when they decontrolled BT's line rental and call prices to say what a good thing they thought this was but they have made no such equivalent effort regarding the launch of 03 numbers. :o >:( >:( >:(


Quote:

I believe that the telcos are largely ready for this and that remaining glitches will be swiftly resolved once these numbers are being used widely.

If I attempt to call Ofcom's 03 contact centre number with the Post Office Homephone I am connected to a message saying they are closes.  But if I try with www.18185.co.uk I get a hopeful message saying 0p per minute but then followed by clickety click and the unobtainable tone.  Someone at www.18185.co.uk has clearly removed the bar on calling 03 numbers but one of www.18185.co.uk's intermediate voip call suppliers is clearly still refusing to carry the call.

Should I file this as a complaint with the Ofcom Contact Centre I wonder? ;) ::) :'(

NGMsGhost wrote on Jan 12^th, 2008 at 1:32pm:

Should I file this as a complaint with the Ofcom Contact Centre I wonder?

Yes, but after asking your providers why they seek to prevent you from doing so!

Ofcom rightly expects you to raise issues with providers first to ensure that this is not some administrative error or oversight. Providers are also required to adhere to standards in dealing with customer service matters. This is notwithstanding the fact that low cost providers proudly offer a lower standard than others. If however they fail to meet the minimum requirements, then this could provide grounds for a further complaint to Ofcom.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Jan 12^th, 2008 at 2:26pm:

Yes, but after asking your providers why they seek to prevent you from doing so!

The Finarea telecoms brands such as 18185 do not consider it cost effective to respond to customer comments, even though they provide a form on their website for doing so.


Quote:

Ofcom rightly expects you to raise issues with providers first to ensure that this is not some administrative error or oversight. Providers are also required to adhere to standards in dealing with customer service matters. This is notwithstanding the fact that low cost providers proudly offer a lower standard than others. If however they fail to meet the minimum requirements, then this could provide grounds for a further complaint to Ofcom.

The Finarea telecoms brands do not belong to an Alternate Dispute Resolution procedure such as that offered by www.otelo.org.uk  This is in spite of previous complaints a year or more ago specifically about Finarea's lack of an ADR to Ofcom Director of Investigations, David Stewart.

"qui custodiet custodies" ;) ::) :'(

NGMsGhost wrote on Jan 12^th, 2008 at 4:22pm:

The Finarea telecoms brands such as 18185 do not consider it cost effective to respond to customer comments, even though they provide a form on their website for doing so.

Thanks for the consumer tip.

I have been recommended to use these services, but as the provider is are clearly unwilling or unable to operate properly I will avoid them. I would also strongly advise others not to provide credit card details to any organisation like this, if there was little hope of getting a genuine error (which any business is likely to make) corrected.

I do not see their failure to allow access to 03 as any good reason to discourage 03 numbers from being adopted.

Should there be a saynoto18185.com website and a campaign to put these people out of business, or are some consumers happy to benefit from very low cost services run on very tight margins, which cannot fund overheads that could be thought necessary?

There are many such businesses in many sectors, many of which are celebrated and popular (until they crash). Regulators are reluctant to shut them down (as they probably should) because they fear being accused of being in league with the established industry and stiffling competition.


NGMsGhost wrote on Jan 12^th, 2008 at 4:22pm:

"qui custodiet custodies"

"caveat emptor"


(Perhaps a new thread is needed to develop this discussion, in English)

The problem of charging correctly does not appear to be confined to one or two suppliers,as according to the magys residential cost comparism pages at http://www.magsys.co.uk/telecom/residx.htm
apart from BT all the Major Suppliers are treating 03 numbers as specialised service numbers and charging to call them accordingly. EG.  Talk Talk, Tiscali,Virgin Media,Kingston Comms,  etc

Go to  supplier and run down list,and your see Location Independent (g21) 03/055/056,and prices where they know what they charge. Apart from BT who treat them as Geo Calls,other major suppliers all seem to charge specialised service rates.

Weekend:1.18 per min
Cheap:2.00 per min
Standard:4.89 per min.
All incl of Vat.

If as you state providers are charging for 03 numbers and they are not included in the all inclusive minutes in particular Virgin then they need taking to task because I have been informed on a number of occassions by different sales agents from Virginmedia that 03 minute are included in the talk unlimited package.

I have not had cause to use an 03 number as yet but this issue appears to be anther service that has been launched half heartedly. Surely all providers should be bound by the Ofcom rules and if they are providing a telecoms service they should provide it within the guidlines stated.

Baz

Apologies in advance I have made a number of spelling errors in the my last posting:-[

moneysavin wrote on Jan 13^th, 2008 at 3:41am:

apart from BT all the Major Suppliers are treating 03 numbers as specialised service numbers and charging to call them accordingly. EG.  Talk Talk, Tiscali,Virgin Media,Kingston Comms,

Yes they might class them as Special Rate Services numbers as technically speaking they are not geographic numbers in their call routing methods.  But what actual prices are they charging on phone bills?  I bet this turns out to be the same as an 01/02 number.

As far as I understand it all 03 number should be charged at the same rate as 01/02 numbers.

I have not had a definitive answer though to my question, Virgin say that 03 minutes are included in the call unlimited package and other operators say they are not included.

Surely this should be mandatory otherwise the 03 range will not work in the way it was intended

Baz

bazzerfewi wrote on Jan 13^th, 2008 at 12:04pm:

Surely this should be mandatory otherwise the 03 range will not work in the way it was intended

According to the rules bringing in 03 numbers it is compulsory to charge the same as for 01/02 calls and to include the calls in inclusive call plans.

Unfortunately Ofcom seems to have made no effort whatsoever to ensure this is universally understood and nor do any of the telcos seem to live in fear of offending Ofcom rules because it almost never fines anyone and when it does those fines are always derisory and laughable.

If that is the case then I say we boycott the 03 numbers just as we boycott the 08 numbers because again the public are being ripped off.

If this was the financial services industry heads would roll, as it is being missing sold?


Baz

bazzerfewi wrote on Jan 13^th, 2008 at 12:15pm:

If that is the case then I say we boycott the 03 numbers just as we boycott the 08 numbers because again the public are being ripped off.

NO NO NO

Is anyone actually being ripped off?

Ofcom has done a poor job (no job at all) in promoting use of 03 and information about it.

Very few numbers are being used and so there is no pressure for telcos to get things right as they undoubtedly would if it became a serious issue.

"Ofcom compliance" is taken very seriously in terms of public reputation by those who rely on it, if not out of actual fear of penalty.

I don't think that we should be boycotting 03 numbers at all. We should be proud of the fact that a number of companies have either changed or have expressed an interest in changing to them. The RSCPA for example has now removed its main 0870 numbers and replaced them with 0300 numbers - this is a great start in my opinion! Others have mentioning changing their numbers in the future too.

I think we need to keep ensuring that we contact telcos that aren't supporting 03 numbers, mention companies that have already changed (the RSCPA could be used as a vital example of the need to connect to 03 numbers) and encourage them to read the Ofcom advice about 03 numbers so that they know what they need to do and can be persuaded to support them properly.

jgxenite wrote on Jan 13^th, 2008 at 12:33pm:

I think we need to keep ensuring that we contact telcos that aren't supporting 03 numbers, mention companies that have already changed (the RSCPA could be used as a vital example of the need to connect to 03 numbers) and encourage them to read the Ofcom advice about 03 numbers so that they know what they need to do and can be persuaded to support them properly.

I am a customer of Virginmedia, Orange and Vodaphone (as well as BT). All three had doubt about 03, which was resolved with some difficulty. One would not necessarily expect the smaller operators to be more "on the ball" with a relatively new development.

I have today contacted four others mentioned recently in the thread. One gave the correct answer after lengthy investigation and then confirmed that the published information was indeed incorrect. Another was able to give me the answer on the spot as he had dealt with other similar enquiries today (I wonder where these came from !); he also confirmed that the published information was incorrect.

I am told that doubt in respect of the other two is currently being investigated, although as I can only make a vague sales enquiry I cannot be confident of a speedy (if any) response.

Please forgive my earlier over-strong reaction, Baz. In the terms which apply (although we may wish it were different) this is early days for 03. We are right to be cautious and perhaps cynical, but let us try to make 03 work - if this is what we want and believe to be possible. It is much harder to make things better than to rightly criticise the way they are. This is especially true as one has to sometimes live with serious wrongs that one cannot hope to change, in order to address less important issues that one can.

David

bazzerfewi wrote on Jan 13^th, 2008 at 12:15pm:

If this was the financial services industry heads would roll, as it is being missing sold?

I agree the FSA does a better job in some areas of consumer protection than Ofcom (hardly difficult) but it is far from universally effective.

For instance when Barclays cut the interest rate on the cash element of my Self Select ISA and PEP to 1% without telling me that didn't seem to be a matter that the FSA could do anything about.

I was informed by VM on more than one occassion that 03 numbers were inclusive and I have rang them a number of times in this regard and had the same response

WHAT A SHAM

RESPONCE FROM VIRGIN

Dear Derrick,

Thanks for your email.

I would like to inform you that we keep on reviewing our packages and always try to add something more good and interesting features to our packages but as of now we have not included 03 numbers free in the package.

Many Thanks

Shakir

bazzerfewi wrote on Jan 14^th, 2008 at 8:12am:

I was informed by VM on more than one occassion that 03 numbers were inclusive and I have rang them a number of times in this regard and had the same response WHAT A SHAM RESPONCE FROM VIRGIN Dear Derrick, Thanks for your email. I would like to inform you that we keep on reviewing our packages and always try to add something more good and interesting features to our packages but as of now we have not included 03 numbers free in the package. Many Thanks Shakir

The customer service drones of this world such as Shakir will always be ignorant and always get it wrong.  The only substantive proof that these companies are not charging 01/02 rates for 03 calls worth pursuing is what appears on your phone bill.

If you get a phone bill showing 03 calls being charged above 01/02 rates then immediately make an official complaint to the company and copy it to Ofcom.

RESULT!   I have received an email from the Communications Director at Telecomplus/Utility Warehouse stating that they were contacted by OFCOM (following my email to OFCOM) and 03 numbers will now be treated as standard geographical numbers and "included in our free UK call offers from our next bills".   I think this is a success, I am encouraged that OFCOM did take this seriously and this is an example to other telecos that 03 SHOULD be treated as OFCOM require.  This also supports Silent Calls Victim's comments about supporting 03 numbers and the telecos will act.   (OK, someone will probably say what about any calls made by customers of UW to 03 nos up to now, will they be refunded? but I do not feel inclined to pursue that.)

Barbara wrote on Jan 15^th, 2008 at 2:49pm:

RESULT!   I have received an email from the Communications Director at Telecomplus/Utility Warehouse stating that they were contacted by OFCOM (following my email to OFCOM) and 03 numbers will now be treated as standard geographical numbers and "included in our free UK call offers from our next bills".   I think this is a success, I am encouraged that OFCOM did take this seriously and this is an example to other telecos that 03 SHOULD be treated as OFCOM require.  This also supports Silent Calls Victim's comments about supporting 03 numbers and the telecos will act.   (OK, someone will probably say what about any calls made by customers of UW to 03 nos up to now, will they be refunded? but I do not feel inclined to pursue that.)

Barbara it is good that by considerable personal effort you have forced this company to change its policy to conform with telecoms regulations.

Nonetheless it is a remarkable commentary on the spectacular ineptitude of the telecoms regulator Ofcom that telecommunications providers were not made fully aware from the outset at high level that 03 calls would be treated on the same basis as 01/02 calls so that this matter was corectly handled from Day One without citizen consumers having to perform numerous handsprings in order to make these companies do what they are supposed to do in the first place.

With respect I think you should attempt to recover any excess charges for 03 calls imposed by Utility Warehouse on your own phone bill as a matter of principle and threaten a complaint to the telecoms adjudicator Otelo if they do not comply.  After all you could imagine what might happen if you were late on paying even a single phone bill to Utility Warehouse.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Jan 12^th, 2008 at 5:48pm:

Thanks for the consumer tip. I have been recommended to use these services, but as the provider is are clearly unwilling or unable to operate properly I will avoid them. I would also strongly advise others not to provide credit card details to any organisation like this, if there was little hope of getting a genuine error (which any business is likely to make) corrected. Should there be a saynoto18185.com website and a campaign to put these people out of business, or are some consumers happy to benefit from very low cost services run on very tight margins, which cannot fund overheads that could be thought necessary? There are many such businesses in many sectors, many of which are celebrated and popular (until they crash). Regulators are reluctant to shut them down (as they probably should) because they fear being accused of being in league with the established industry and stiffling competition.

Sorry SCV but I don't regard the current failure to carry calls to all 03 numbers as primarily Finarea's fault but as Ofcom's fault for not making clear to all the intermediate telecoms carriers that Finarea deal with that the call should be carried at 01/02 rates.

Finarea have removed the bar from connecting calls through to 03 that used to exist and calls are only failing because the intermediate middle men they they are using to connect the calls have not removed the bar.  This is because Ofcom in turn have failed to adequately communicate the situation.

Finarea are based in Switzerland and offer low cost call brands in many countries and their itemised billing is 100% accurate.  My only ever previous complaint was about price rises that I did not always get email notification of.

But it is not Finarea's job to ensure that everyone involved in routing UK calls understands 03 calls are the same as 01/02 for consumer charges. It is Ofcom's job to ensure this as it is its regulatory rule.  And it is Ofcom's incompetence that is causing the current failure to universally implement the rule.  It is also Ofcom's pathetic lack of direct regulatory enforcement and fines that has caused its pronouncements not to be regarded as unbreakable rules by those in the telecoms industry.

As to Finarea's non membership of an ADR at the end of day I regard it as Ofcom's fault for not universally enforcing its rules and only acting after hundreds of consumer complaints are made.  If Ofcom's rules are in effect largely voluntary for small telecoms providers and Switzerland is a long way from Ofcom's regulatory arm you can hardly blame Finarea from not incurring additional costs which appear to be largely voluntary.

Barbara wrote on Jan 15^th, 2008 at 2:49pm:

RESULT!

Well done Barbara. Well done O..... (perhaps I had better not say it!)

A small victory - yes! But that is how it goes.

Campaigners here may justly claim some parental rights over the infant 03. It must be protected from all challenges to its validity and health, so that it can develop into the sizeable grownup that we wish it to become.

We must also encourage everyone to recognise it as a loveable child before it has a chance to prove its worth as an adult, regardless of understandable doubts raised on account of some of its parentage.

David

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Jan 15^th, 2008 at 3:19pm:

Campaigners here may justly claim some parental rights over the infant 03.

Yes well I certainly can because I proposed the idea to Ofcom at the November 2005 meeting they held for stakeholders representing consumer interest groups.  At the meeting Ofcom were saying oh but what is the alternative to using 084 and 087 numbers to which this was my response - that an 03 code code charged to callers at geographic rates and where the company who is called paid for their extra convenience in NTS call routing was the answer.

It is a pity they did not also pick up my other suggestion that if moving all non Freephone 084/7 numbers to 09 was politically unpalatable (as it probably was in spite of being the purist solution favoured by most members of this group) they should move them on to the unused 06 prefix code instead where they would at least be clearly differentiated from numbers charged at geographic rates and from Freephone numbers.  Of course we all know why that didn't happen. ;) ::) >:(

NGMsGhost wrote on Jan 15^th, 2008 at 3:13pm:

Ofcom in turn have failed to adequately communicate the situation

We all wish that Ofcom had done more to publicise 03 and was doing so now.

I have only seen Ofcom's public announcement of the change, I cannot say whether Ofcom applied s48(6)(a) of the Communications Act correctly in respect of Finarea.and others.

It appears that some recipients were content with the notification that they received, as they are complying with the revised conditions.

---

NGMsGhost wrote on Jan 15^th, 2008 at 3:51pm:

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Jan 15th, 2008 at 3:19pm: Campaigners here may justly claim some parental rights over the infant 03. Yes well I certainly can

I must then add: Well done NGMsGhost.


It is unfortunate that your partner was not able to show the same fecundity from other doses of your seed.

I have had the same problem, with the same partner, alhough in a different area. Being currently out to consultation, she is therefore “in season”, and I am now rogering away in the hope of the sibling that our firstborn badly needs.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Jan 15^th, 2008 at 6:27pm:

It is unfortunate that your partner was not able to show the same fecundity from other doses of your seed. I have had the same problem, with the same partner, alhough in a different area. Being currently out to consultation, she is therefore “in season”, and I am now rogering away in the hope of the sibling that our firstborn badly needs.

Hmmm I see you have no problem with advanced uses of the English Language requiring at least A level English Literature, even though you do not seem to approve of the use of Latin quotes. ;) ;D

To be honest I would much rather have learnt Spanish instead of Latin (in addition to my more useful French 'O' level) as I then may have become fluent in it due to the number of holidays I have spent in the country.  However having wasted 5 years or so on Latin learning I like to still get some use out of it.

No doubt if this government is in office long enough they will also ban the use of Latin shorthand in official government publications or indeed may even make it illegal in the national newspapers too.  Obviously it goes without saying that commerical companies would still be allowed to use their discretion over Latin use in the interests of not interfering unduly in the commercial marketplace. ;) ::)

NGMsGhost wrote on Jan 15^th, 2008 at 6:38pm:

A level English Literature ... Latin quotes ...

Our OT diversions may be entertaining to ourselves and perhaps other readers, but we must try to keep them brief and relevant.

My few years of studying Latin enable me to cope with common tags, such as those we exchanged (both making valid points). I asked that we return to English because my Latin was never up to conversational standard.

I am not sure which words from my previous posting would only be encountered on studying English literature up to 'A' level. I am not prepared to discuss at precisely what stage of my long past teenage years "rogering" became part of my life.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Jan 16^th, 2008 at 8:55am:

I am not sure which words from my previous posting would only be encountered on studying English literature up to 'A' level. I am not prepared to discuss at precisely what stage of my long past teenage years "rogering" became part of my life.

I would suspect that "rogering" is now an antique slang phrase more familiar to the Famous Five or even the Bulldog Drummond generation and is an expression perhaps most frequently used by much the same people as would be at home using the words "tally ho" whilst seed (as in "demon seed") as a proxy for a 5 letter word that might well be censored by the American forum software has distinctly biblical conotations.  The current teen generation would probably know about planting lettuce seeds in the ground (although I wouldn't even rely on them knowning about that either as it might mean leaving the HDTV or the Ipod on one side).

I suspect that fecundity is also a word that many 18 year olds may no longer be aware of and is again most likely only regularly to be come across by students of English Literature and especially of Chaucer or Shakespeare.  Finally "in season" has very specific animal fertility associations and again I do not seem to have heard the phrase quoted very much in recent years.

I fear you may be being dated by your generation in your use of English SCV without even realising it.  Its also interesting to hear that you were a student of Latin.  My bet though would be that this was probably at the local grammar school though rather than at a Public School. ;) :P :D

Well I can confirm that SkyTalk do charge for calls to 03x.

I made a test call on 2nd January to 0300 123 4999 (RSPCA) which lasted 1min 30sec and cost £0.158.

I just spoke with SkyTalk c/s and the guy hadn't heard of 03x numbers (no surprise) and he said he would credit it back and pass on to the powers that be that calls to 03x are being charged for when they should be included in inclusive minutes.

bbb_uk wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2008 at 6:24pm:

I just spoke with SkyTalk c/s and the guy hadn't heard of 03x numbers (no surprise) and he said he would credit it back and pass on to the powers that be that calls to 03x are being charged for when they should be included in inclusive minutes.

You take this so calmly bbb when it is quite outrageous that what is now one of the larger telecoms call carriers in the country is failing to follow clearly given Ofcom rules.

Surely you will at least also be emailing Clive Hillier, Geoff Brighton, and Ed Richards at Ofcom about this quite outrageous and shambolic failure on their part to clearly notify and publicise the cost status of 03 telephone numbers to al major uk telecoms carriers?

Still what can we expect from bloated  and overpaid civil servants who are so complacent that they cannot even be bothered to subscribe to or respond to the dialogue in this important discussion thread.

Do you think we should challenge Mr Hillier that he needs to commence such active participation in this thread in order to be able to do his job properly? >:( >:( >:( [smiley=thumbdown.gif] [smiley=thumbdown.gif] [smiley=thumbdown.gif]

bbb_uk wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2008 at 6:24pm:

Well I can confirm that SkyTalk do charge for calls to 03x. I made a test call on 2nd January to 0300 123 4999 (RSPCA) which lasted 1min 30sec and cost £0.158. I just spoke with SkyTalk c/s and the guy hadn't heard of 03x numbers (no surprise) and he said he would credit it back and pass on to the powers that be that calls to 03x are being charged for when they should be included in inclusive minutes.

Well, I can confirm that they're treated the same as 01 & 02 numbers if you're on Primus Saver Option 2 / Penny Mobile 2 CPS:

Quote:

Dear Customer As 03 numbers are standard landline numbers, they are charged in exactly the same way as 01/02 numbers. They are included within your free calls. Best Regards Primus Telecom

Last weekend I wrote to Alan Cook, CEO of the Post Office, about the existence of 03 numbers and their classification not being shown at all on its website and about the fact that Post Office HomePhone is still calling 0845 and 0870 prefixed calls "Local Rate Call" and "National Rate Call" (as compared to Local and National for actual geographic numbers) on its phone bills.  He said that he had referred the matter for investigation but I am still waiting for any form of response.

I have just checked my last PostOffice HomePhone paper bill that I have just received (no online billing with Post Office Homephone) and see that I have been charged for calls to 0333 numbers to Andrews & Arnold on Saturday 15th September and to Ofcom's Contact Centre on Saturday 22nd December, even though calls to geographic numbers are supposed to be free calls in the evenings and all weekend with PostOffice Homephone.  I see that in each case the call has been charged as a "Multimedia Services" call with a call charge of 3.5p + VAT = 4.11p. These are for call durations of 2 seconds, 7 seconds and 36 seconds and 0 seconds.  There is also a further call of 0 seconds to Andrews & Arnold on Saturday 15th September for which I have been charged 2.5p + VAT = 2.94p.  But as the Post Office Homephone has a connection charge alone of 3p heaven only knows where they are getting these rates from.  They don't even say which Multimedia Services rate they are charging and how can I be charged for a call of zero seconds duration!

Utterly Disgraceful.  I am now writing to Alan Cook, Post Office CEO, to tell him that further to my previous general enquiry they are definitely wrongly charging a Multimedia Services Rate for what should be 01/02 calls that are part of my free geographic calls call allowance for calls of up to 60 minutes in the evenings and at the weekend! >:( :o :'( [smiley=thumbdown.gif] [smiley=thumbdown.gif] [smiley=thumbdown.gif]

bbb_uk wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2008 at 6:24pm:

Well I can confirm that SkyTalk do charge for calls to 03x.

My post of Jan 1st confirmed this!



~Edited by bbb_uk: Fixed quote box

bbb_uk wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2008 at 6:24pm:

Well I can confirm that SkyTalk do charge for calls to 03x. I made a test call on 2nd January to 0300 123 4999 (RSPCA) which lasted 1min 30sec and cost £0.158. I just spoke with SkyTalk c/s and the guy hadn't heard of 03x numbers (no surprise) and he said he would credit it back and pass on to the powers that be that calls to 03x are being charged for when they should be included in inclusive minutes.

So Magsys is correct on this carrier then, as  they are being charged at the moment. http://www.magsys.co.uk/telecom/tarifres1.htm

Some recent posts had gone off-topic and as such I've moved them to here.

I shall delete this specific post and possibly the thread above shortly as it serves no use unless anyone has any objection.  If so, then please PM me.

parttimepar wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2008 at 11:22pm:

My post of Jan 1st confirmed this!

I know, that's why I checked.  I was in a state of denial as I couldn't believe an OCP such as SkyTalk would charge despite being told they can't (assuming one has an inclusive call package).


NGMsGhost wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2008 at 6:31pm:

You take this so calmly bbb when it is quite outrageous that what is now one of the larger telecoms call carriers in the country is failing to follow clearly given Ofcom rules.

To be honest I don't blame Ofcom because all OCP's are aware of this as they've been well notified by Ofcom so unless Ofcom are notified to the contrary then why should they double-check to see if OCPs are complying!

I personally am surprised that this is true especially, as you put it, for a large provider such as Sky to do this despite clear ofcom rules stating they can't.

I have, naturally, made an official complaint to Ofcom regarding this.

However, I agree that Ofcom could have done more to advertise 03x numbers because right now very few know about it!

Barbara wrote on Jan 11^th, 2008 at 10:32am:

Further to my post above, I have now received a reply from Utility Warehouse ... they are NOT including calls to 03 in packages AND are charging for them as "Specialised Services" ... Am I correct that UWDC are in breach of the rules?

An update today at the following link shows that Telecom Plus ("The Utility Warehouse") has been found to be in breach of other Ofcom regulations:

http://www.ofcom.org.uk/bulletins/comp_bull_index/comp_bull_ocases/open_all/cw_960/

This is a quite unrelated matter and we have yet to see what will transpire, but customers may be interested to learn about the behaviour of their supplier.

Further to an e mail I sent a week ago to Sky I have had verbal confirmation this morning that after a meeting this week on the subject Sky will indeed include 03 numbers in their inclusive packages and I will be refunded the costs of last months 03's to DVLA!

parttimepar wrote on Feb 1^st, 2008 at 2:00pm:

Further to an e mail I sent a week ago to Sky I have had verbal confirmation this morning that after a meeting this week on the subject Sky will indeed include 03 numbers in their inclusive packages and I will be refunded the costs of last months 03's to DVLA!

BRAVO

We could ask if there will be a press release and what about the others who were overcharged, but that would be to decry your achievement - well done.

As I have often been tempted to do, you should send a bill for your time to Ofcom. You may wish to let Ofcom know and ask it to confirm that the overcharging did occur as a general issue, so that Ofcom could take whatever action it feels is necessary. If Ofcom believes that every instance of a systemic overcharge arising from a breach of regulations has to be pursued by the customer, then Ofcom must publish the general details of every such case so that customers can be aware.

parttimepar wrote on Feb 1^st, 2008 at 2:00pm:

Further to an e mail I sent a week ago to Sky I have had verbal confirmation this morning that after a meeting this week on the subject Sky will indeed include 03 numbers in their inclusive packages and I will be refunded the costs of last months 03's to DVLA!

Reference the above Sky have now credited my account in full for all calls made to 03 numbers to date!

NGMsGhost wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2008 at 9:27pm:

Last weekend I wrote to Alan Cook, CEO of the Post Office, about the existence of 03 numbers and their classification not being shown at all on its website and about the fact that Post Office HomePhone is still calling 0845 and 0870 prefixed calls "Local Rate Call" and "National Rate Call" (as compared to Local and National for actual geographic numbers) on its phone bills.  He said that he had referred the matter for investigation but I am still waiting for any form of response.

The Post Office Home Phone Pricing Table says:


Quote:

Free calls – Evening and Weekend National and local voice calls that begin with a 01, 02 or 03* prefix are free for 60 minutes in the evening and weekend charge period. After 60 minutes calls are charged at 3p per minute. … *With effect from 1 June 2008

According to Sky's website they are now including 03 numbers as part of their packages

UK calls include calls to 01, 02 and 03 numbers only (excluding the Channel Islands).
lifted from http://www.sky.com/portal/site/skycom/skyproducts/skytalk/pricesandoptions

Now all we've got to do is to get them to use the buggers themselves!

They try to get you to phone them on an 0844 number for all queries but don't give you an email address - anyone have such an address so I can "suggest" to them that they move to an 03.. number for all their enquiry lines

Does this help?


http://www.sky.com/portal/site/skycom/service/description?srp=%2Fportal%2Fservlet%2Fssorouter%3Ftc%3Dportlets-tools-page%26ts%3DToolsRedirectServlet%26event%3Demail&rp=%2Fportal%2Fsite%2Fskycom%2Fservice%2Fdescription&lid=Email_icon&lpos=CONSOLE

Just for the record, I called O2 (Carphone Warehouse) this morning about O3 numbers, and first of all they said that they would charge 20p/min, even for free minutes. Then I mentioned OFCOM, and they put me on hold, made some enquiries further up the chain, and then changed their minds and said that 03 calls were included in free call bundles.

willyg wrote on Aug 11^th, 2008 at 11:48am:

Just for the record, I called O2 (Carphone Warehouse) this morning about O3 numbers, and first of all they said that they would charge 20p/min, even for free minutes. Then I mentioned OFCOM, and they put me on hold, made some enquiries further up the chain, and then changed their minds and said that 03 calls were included in free call bundles.

I just took out a O2 sim only contract with free unlimited landline calls bolt on ,and they clearly state It offers unlimited calls to UK landlines (starting 01, 02 or 03) at anytime in the UK.

Same response with my talktalk landline account (converted from onetel!) initial reply was 03 numbers will not be included in your inclusive "bundle". I mentioned that Ofcon had said these numbers will be and as I was dialling one of these numbers I wanted to know the exact price structure before calling.  Was asked to hold while it was referred to a senior manager!!!! (I managed to get a call center in Scotland, at least the person had a scottish accent).  After a few minutes was advised that it was NOW included.  What is going on-one questions how ofcom have cascaded information regarding the costing of these numbers to the telcos and if the telcos are just waiting to see how many people realise and complain, and then react accordingly.

oldharryrocks wrote on Aug 11^th, 2008 at 11:57am:

willyg wrote on Aug 11th, 2008 at 11:48am: Just for the record, I called O2 (Carphone Warehouse) this morning about O3 numbers, and first of all they said that they would charge 20p/min, even for free minutes. Then I mentioned OFCOM, and they put me on hold, made some enquiries further up the chain, and then changed their minds and said that 03 calls were included in free call bundles. I just took out a O2 sim only contract with free unlimited landline calls bolt on ,and they clearly state It offers unlimited calls to UK landlines (starting 01, 02 or 03) at anytime in the UK.

Yes - but it's worth noting that O2 and 'O2 Carphone warehouse' are different companies, with different rules.

As this thread has gone quiet in the last few months I presume that most of the main landline and mobile phone telcos are now charging for calls to 03 numbers at 01/02 rates and/or as part of any inclusive calling plan and as part of bundled minutes allowances?

However the recent replacement by Surrey County Council (a council I am a council tax payer of) nearly two weeks ago of its main 0845 contact centre number with an 0345 number and various other 0300 numbers for individual services caused me to test connectivity to these numbers with www.18185.co.uk - one of the stable of Finarea indirect access call brands that also include www.1899.com and www.18866.co.uk

On doing so I was rather perturbed to find that my call was not connected and that I instead received the message "This is a BT announcement.  The telephone network is busy please try again later".  This message was played repeatedly no matter how many times I dialled the number.  These were the same symptoms I had formerly experienced a few months ago with www.yourcalls.net (a WLR provider who I pay my whole phone bill to but who do not block access to indirect access carriers like Finarea) when I tried to dial the BBC Information call centre directly without any prefix so that the call would route with yourcalls.net and their telecoms partners.  In that case I reported the problem to www.yourcalls.net who told me to dial 1280 to ensure BT routed the call for the time being but also reported it as a fault. However when testing calling the new Surrey CC Contact Centre main number (03456 009009) using my www.yourcalls.net line 10 days or so ago without a prefix I got straight through, unlike with 18185.  

So I emailed both the main commercial manager of Finarea Igor Tracchea (igor.tracchia@finarea.ch) and the CEO of BT, Ian Livingston (ian.livingston@bt.com) indicating my concern that calls to 03 numbers using Finarea calling brands with UK indirect access codes were being blocked with the message "This is A BT Announcement.  The Telephone Network is Busy. Please Try Again Later".  I received no reply from Mr Tracchea but Ian Livingston did get one of his senior BT network managers to reply claiming that the blocking of the Finarea calls was nothing to do with them.

So anyhow today I thought I would just try giving Surrey County Council a call on their 0345 6009009 new main number using 18185.  So I dialled the number with the 18185 prefix and what do you know I got straight through to their automated menu system.  I listened for a while and then checked my 18185 online billing account and sure enough it was charged at flat 5p rate indicating that 18185 are now treating 03 calls as being charged the same way as a call to geographic 01/02 number.  If it was being treated as an NGN then there would have been a 5p connection charge and the per minute charge too to that as the minimum call charge.

So it seems even a budget overseas telecoms carrier like Finarea can in fact manage to carry calls to 03 numbers once they have come under enough pressure to do so. [smiley=thumbsup.gif]

My next question though is what about Skype?  Does anyone use them and if so can you connect to 03 numbers with them and are they charged at the same rates as calls to other UK 01/02 prefixed phone numbers or instead still at g6 multimedia rate?

Also is anyone here who is based in the UK using a UK telecoms carrier who is still not connecting their calls to 03 numbers and giving the "telephone network is busy" message instead.  Or is anyone using a call carrier who is still trying to bill them at g6 multimedia rate for 03 calls instead of as per an 01/02 number and so out of their inclusive call package minutes where appropriate?

Also lastly what about our overseas members like idb.  Can you call 03456 009009 at your normal call package rates for calling UK 01/02 prefixed phone numbers?

All information that people can report on any continuing issues with calls to 03 numbers not being connected and charged as per calls to 01/02 numbers would be very much appreciated. [smiley=thumbup.gif]

I know that 18185 did used to allow 03 calls a few months ago and they were charged as 01/02 numbers are.

NGMsGhost wrote on Dec 14^th, 2008 at 2:17pm:

... indicating my concern that calls to 03 numbers using Finarea calling brands with UK indirect access codes were being blocked with the message "This is A BT Announcement.  The Telephone Network is Busy. Please Try Again Later".   So it seems even a budget overseas telecoms carrier like Finarea can in fact manage to carry calls to 03 numbers once they have come under enough pressure to do so. [smiley=thumbsup.gif]

I think it was just a temporary congestion issue you encountered the other day.

They have been able to do so for some time, as you can read elsewhere

Oddly, various Betamax VoIP brands (who sometimes appear to have things in common with Finarea), could not reach some numbers I tried for several months after 18185 could, but I just called a couple successfully a few minutes ago

Dave wrote on Dec 14^th, 2008 at 2:39pm:

I know that 18185 did used to allow 03 calls a few months ago and they were charged as 01/02 numbers are.

If that is the case then I think it must depend on which 03 number with 18185 it was as it appears some 03 numbers were being blocked due to lack of a connectivity agreement on that particular routing path.  This led to the message "the telephone network is busy".

This problem was not unique to Finarea as I was also getting this issue before when dialling 03 numbers on my www.yourcalls.net line unless I used the BT 1280 override code.  Although calls dialled with 1280 eventually end up back on my yourcalls.net bill the actual carrier is always BT in that instance and yourcalls.net then rebills those to me when BT passes the charge across to them.  The danger of course is that I will not be given the call as a free call out of my 01/02/03 calling plan as that may only be for calls routed with yourcalls.net themselves.  In fact I had better check my online bill to see what happened on those BBC calls where I had to use the 1280 prefix code to get through.

andy9 wrote on Dec 14^th, 2008 at 3:19pm:

I think it was just a temporary congestion issue you encountered the other day.

It seems odd there would be congestion calling just 03 numbers but not 01/02 numbers when so few of them are being called at the present time.  I have never had that message with 18185 when dialling a UK 01/02 number or a UK mobile number.

I did try calling the Surrey County Council 0345 number several times over a period of a day or more and always received the same message that "the telephone network is busy".

I've had problems within the last ten days dialing my own 0333 numbers via voipcheap.com (betamax) getting an "invalid number" type message.

I'm happy to report that Localphone now charge 03 numbers at the same rate as their 01/02 numbers (1p per minute).

NGMsGhost wrote on Dec 14^th, 2008 at 2:17pm:

Also lastly what about our overseas members like idb.  Can you call 03456 009009 at your normal call package rates for calling UK 01/02 prefixed phone numbers?

I have just tried the 0345 number above, and also an Ofcom 0300 number, from one of my calling cards (OneSuite.com), initiating the call from an AT&T landline and using a local access number, and both numbers connect and are charged at exactly the same rate as a geographic number (2.2c/min). The same provider charges 32c/min for all calls to +44 8XX. I'll try other providers later.

idb wrote on Dec 18^th, 2008 at 12:41am:

I have just tried the 0345 number above, and also an Ofcom 0300 number, from one of my calling cards (OneSuite.com), initiating the call from an AT&T landline and using a local access number, and both numbers connect and are charged at exactly the same rate as a geographic number (2.2c/min). The same provider charges 32c/min for all calls to +44 8XX. I'll try other providers later.

idb,

I trust that you will be making this point about the much lower calling cost of 03 numbers from overseas when you respond to the Department of Health's current consultation exercise on the need (or otherwise) to force doctors currently using 0844 numbers to replace them with 01, 02 or 03 prefixed phone numbers.

See http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7783963.stm

www.e-health-insider.com/news/4413/official_consultation_on_084_numbers

and

www.dh.gov.uk/en/Consultations/Liveconsultations/DH_091879 for the consultation itself.