Hi Everybody "DOWN WITH THE WRIP OFF 118 SERVICES"

THIS IS THE BEST ALTERNATIVE 118 SERVICE I COULD COME UP WITH

I WOULD RATHER IT WAS FREE TO THE CUSTOMER BUT THAT IS NOT POSSIBLE

I have created a programme called "RingLcoal THE ALTERNATIVE LOCAL 118 SERVICE" it is an alternative 118 programme soon to be launched in the Barnsley Area. If this programme is successful the plan is to introduce it to other areas of the UK. It goes against the grain a little but I have to deliver this service via an 0845 number this is because there are only 2 of us running this project and we do not have the funds at our disposal that other telcom companies have and this is the only way we could think to dleiver the service without it costing us a forturne:- Here Goes-suggestions welcome

The call will be delivered via an 0845 Number (we have looked into 03 numbers but they are not suitable)
A live operator will then pick up the call
The operator will then search for the number required (local van hire for example)
The caller will hear a strapline ad (This Call IS SPONSORED BY A LOCAL BARNSLEY Firm)                     e
The advert part pays the call and the client pays 5p per minute for the call duration(Reverse Charge Call)
Research Suggests
The customer is happy because they have been connected with the service they are looking for
The client is happy because they are connected to a potential customer
The client is also happy because they only pay for the call when they are connected
At RingLocal we guarantee first connection every time or your money back                                            I would appreciate constructive feedback please.

---

This thread is now closed as there is a later one that has been started by the same member:

Click here to go to "118 FREECALL" thread

'morning. Seems a cracking idea.

But, fearing for the flak, why was 03x unsuitable? Lack of routeing flexibility, live, dynamic delivery or what? And will 0845 still be acceptable after the BT &co tariff changes (9p connection, ye gods).

Yours, nervously, Tanllan.

If the service relies entirely on subscribing businesses, and every call carries an advert, why should the caller have to pay at all?

Could it not be on a freephone number, for landline callers only?

It is hit and miss as to whether a business of the type required has subscribed anyway. Callers may therefore enjoy the sponsor's advert in return for nothing at all.

This is use of a revenue sharing number simply to deliver advertising. I don't think that it fits very well with the concepts of saynoto0870.

Will an alternative geo number be published in the database?

Beware of complaints to Trading Standards about use of the term "lo-call".

Good luck with the business, but I would suggest that this is not the place to promote it, in its present form.

I take on your points an 01/02 alternative number can be made available, one of the main reasons for the 0845 number is for the portability and more importantly it has to be memorable (0845 2 118 118 not live at present) also we will be using operators in Australia and other ex pat countries this will enable us to provide a 24 hour service. If the programme is to work it has to generate its own revenue as we are only 2 working from home with an idea that may provide a suitable alternative to the present wrip of 118 services. Also I am no experit in the telecoms industy I have jiust researched the 118 services and I feel that there is a need for a suitalbe alternative.

All help and suggestions welcome, I am a Barnsley lad and if there is any body out there with suggestions please let me know.

Baz

I reply to your earlier coment

I have now researched the alternative 0345 2 118 118 the only draw back is that we have to wait for ofcom and they say it could take up to 3 months the change the number but in the mean time I will publish the STD alternaternative on this site when the service is up and runnig.

Feed back as always please.

Baz

bazzerfewi wrote on Jul 29^th, 2009 at 5:02pm:

I have now researched the alternative 0345 2 118 118 the only draw back is that we have to wait for ofcom and they say it could take up to 3 months the change the number but in the mean time I will publish the STD alternaternative on this site when the service is up and runnig.

0345 is set aside for migration from 0845. Can you not have a 033x number?

Hi Dave

I have been in contact with Ofcom and they advised that the 0345 was the local option, because that is the number set aside as an alternative to the 0845 number.

As you are aware this will enable customers to ring all numbers including mobiles for the price of a local call, this number is better than an 0800 number because mobile providers hike the cost to the customer.

If there is something I have not covered your input would be appreciated

(I don't know about you but I remember the 0345 number ranges the first time around)

Baz

bazzerfewi wrote on Jul 29^th, 2009 at 5:19pm:

Hi Dave I have been in contact with Ofcom and they advised that the 0345 was the local option, because that is the number set aside as an alternative to the 0845 number. As you are aware this will enable customers to ring all numbers including mobiles for the price of a local call, this number is better than an 0800 number because mobile providers hike the cost to the customer. If there is something I have not covered your input would be appreciated (I don't know about you but I remember the 0345 number ranges the first time around) Baz

Yes, I remember 0345 used to be local rate. Those numbers were migrated to 08457.

All (the new) 03xx numbers are charged the same. So it is not the case that 0345 is the same as a "local call" and others such as 0330, 0333, 0370 are not.

Thus, if you are looking to take the 03 route, then 0330 and 0333 will charge just the same as 0345.  ;)

Hi Dave

If the charges are the same for the 0345 as the 03 numbers then the 0345 number has got to be the best option because the number that is available is 0345 2 118 188(not live yet) - it is an 0845 number at present but ofcom say the number can be changed to form 0845 2 118XXX to 0345 2 118XXX.

I am in contact with the company that has the number, problem is that it will take around 3 months to port the number.

Unfortunately the only alternative is to use an 0845 2 118 number in the first instance, but I will post the alternative STD number on the site assuming everything comes togeather, there are still a number of hurdles to get over the biggest one being the customer awareness.

I am very passionate about RingLocal and I am sure that if we get it right it will be a winner,  it has been a long hall and still a way to got yet but I am plodding on.

What are your thoughts on RingLocal Dave, my biggest fear is that there are plenty of companies out there that could provide this service, I just wonder why they haven't.  

Thanks for your feedback I always read with interest.


Baz

I just wish you would stop referring to ANY call as a "local" call, (including your terms, "RingLocal" and, "THE ALTERNATIVE LOCAL 118 SERVICE"), as there is no such term, and in fact breaks the Consumer Protection Act 1987 Part III,Misleading price indications!

All numbers beginning 01/02/03 regardless of distance are charged at the same rate as your originating telco, this has been the case since July 2004, i.e. they are charged as a mobile does!

Baz

Nothing personal, as many members would wish you well in realising your business objectives. We must however be fair minded and surely should not be using this forum to help promote a service that will rely on use of a revenue-sharing number, no matter how reluctantly. You may wish to look at the way in which other attempts to justify use of revenue sharing numbers are handled in this forum, where any modest inaccuracy is treated very unkindly.

Whilst some may disagree, I do not see publishing a geographic alternative on this site as the complete answer to our objections to use of revenue sharing numbers. If you can present a proposal that refuses to benefit from use of a 0845 number, then you may expect our whole-hearted support.

From your recent responses it sounds as though you are already committed to 0845 2 118 118, as you refer only to migrating to the 0345 equivalent.

Perhaps with regret, you must be subject to the same criticism that is offered to any other user of 0845 numbers. We can show sensitivity to the reasons for the decision to use 0845 and sympathy for the problems of changing, but we must oppose.

---

derrick wrote on Jul 30^th, 2009 at 11:16am:

I just wish you would stop referring to ANY call as a "local" call, (including your terms, "RingLocal" and, "THE ALTERNATIVE LOCAL 118 SERVICE"), as there is no such term, and in fact breaks the Consumer Protection Act 1987 Part III,Misleading price indications! All numbers beginning 01/02/03 regardless of distance are charged at the same rate as your originating telco, this has been the case since July 2004, i.e. they are charged as a mobile does!

This point is true in general, but not totally accurate. A service and a call can be "local", the question is about a "local RATE".

The distinction between "local" and "national" calls does still exist and is applied to some landline tariffs, however the vast majority of residential landline callers presently pay the same for both types of call. Talk Talk has recently re-introduced the distinction with its "free local calls" offer. There is no indication of anyone else copying this, however the possibility cannot be ignored.

For the time being, and in general, there is no such thing as a "local call rate". That is the term that must not be used.

NOTHING PERSONAL BUT YOU MUST GET YOUR FACT RIGHT If that reply is not personal I don’t know what is you have attacked a service that you appear to know very little about. What I actually said was that the 0845 service would be used temporarily as it takes around 3 months to sort the 0345 number.  An 0345 number is not for revenue share according to Ofcom, it is to stop companies charging a fortune for services they provide. The 0345 number has restrictions and even when called from a mobile the tariff cannot be hiked up as it is a NONE REVENUE SHARE NUMBER IF YOU HAD TOOK TIME CARRY OUT THE RESEARCH IN THE FIRST PLACE YOU WOULD HAVE KNOWN THIS.
At RingLocal we have spent a great deal of time and effort keeping it to a minimum cost for the caller, if I was here to rip people off the service would have been up and running a long time ago. I am attempting to offer a local cost effective alternative to the high cost 118 services and you are doing your best to jeopardise that
I am not committed to anybody or any service provider it is just that the number is an 0345 2 118 118 is memorable and promotes the local alternative service. Also if in my last post I stated that I would publish the STD number for use on this site, in any event the 0345 is a none revenue share number none geographical number in my book that is LOCAL RATE, and that term was used by the Ofcom agent.
RINGLOCAL IS TO BE SET UP TO ATTACK THE EXPENSIVE 118 SERVICES AND IT SITS VERY WELL WITH SAYNO AS EARLIER STATES 0345 IS NOT A REVENUE SHARE SERVICE

Apologies, naive question, though it is on the local number theme:

if it's in Barnsley, and promoting businesses local to Barnsley, what's wrong with using a Barnsley number?

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Jul 30^th, 2009 at 11:47am:

derrick wrote on Jul 30th, 2009 at 11:16am: I just wish you would stop referring to ANY call as a "local" call, (including your terms, "RingLocal" and, "THE ALTERNATIVE LOCAL 118 SERVICE"), as there is no such term, and in fact breaks the Consumer Protection Act 1987 Part III,Misleading price indications! All numbers beginning 01/02/03 regardless of distance are charged at the same rate as your originating telco, this has been the case since July 2004, i.e. they are charged as a mobile does! This point is true in general, but not totally accurate. A service and a call can be "local", the question is about a "local RATE". The distinction between "local" and "national" calls does still exist and is applied to some landline tariffs, however the vast majority of residential landline callers presently pay the same for both types of call. Talk Talk has recently re-introduced the distinction with its "free local calls" offer. There is no indication of anyone else copying this, however the possibility cannot be ignored. For the time being, and in general, there is no such thing as a "local call rate". That is the term that must not be used.

The following is a quote from; - http://www.asa.org.uk/cap/news_events/news/2005/hanging+on+the+telephone+on+and+on+and+on.htm  and whilst it is a few years old the contents still applies. In other publications similar advice is given!

"Consequently, the CAP Copy Advice team advises:

• Marketers should not describe 084 and 087 numbers as ‘local’ or ‘national’
• Marketers should not be silent on price
• Marketers are unlikely to know the maximum charges for calling their services made by non-BT phone companies (largely because there are so many of them and their prices change reasonably frequently).  If they do, they should state the maximum cost of the call or price per minute (ppm)
• Those marketers who do not know the maximum cost charged across the different phone companies should state the cost (either per minute or per call) for BT customers.  For example, marketers could claim “Calls to 084XX from BT landlines will cost 5p pm "



With TalkTalk, they are just muddying the waters,(as BT do), and is related to an area and,I think, relates to people opting in to that scheme which I understand makes those 'local' calls inclusive of their call package(?), but anyone on TalkTalk will still call 01/02/03 numbers for the same cost irrespective of distance!
The very small percentage that "local" relates to is so inconsequential that it is not relevant and Ofcon, ASA, CAP etc all tell that the term should not  be used, you know this yet continue to trot out the misinformation!



From East Sussex TS; -
http://www.eastsussex.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/735C4641-4E0A-48DA-BA19-8A5007CE0AB6/0/BSN0800numbers.pdf


"For the small minority of BT customers who remain on BT standard rates eg. residential 'light user' customers), '0845' is still charged at local rate and '0870' at national rate.
However, for most callers, including those on BT together and most other landline, cable, mobile and VoIP providers, it costs more to call '0845/0870."

Again historical re the date of the pamphlet, but still relevant under Consumer Protection Act 1987 (Part III) Misleading Price Indications

I have been giving some serious thought to the RingLocal service and how it would be behest delivered, it is my intention to come up with a programme that will accommodate most people.

There needs to be 3 access numbers this will give the caller the choice to use the most appropriate number

1) 0345 this will enable callers to ring mobile numbers and std numbers at low rate tariff
2) 0800 this number will enable callers to ring numbers free excluding mobiles

If both these numbers are published as well as the std number I think this will enable all callers to access the service at either a reasonable call cost or for a FREE call.

I welcome your feedback


Baz

Excuse my ignorance, what an earth is a STD number? Is it a number that has been infected? ;D

As I understand it the terminology is as follows but I am no expert

STD Means standard calls                    01/02 etc
0345 means local including mobiles
0845 we don't want to use this only as a last resort
0800 numbers can be used at all times but not very economical from mobiles

Please let me know you thoughts in this matter


Baz

I think the termonolgy STD (Subscriber trunk dialling) is no longer in use. I have not heard that being used for years. I mean do we still make trunk calls?

See here


  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subscriber_trunk_dialling

In response to Baz and Derrick, neither of whom did I intend to offend:

If RingLocal can operate without use of revenue sharing numbers, there is no reason why it should not be celebrated in the forum. If we are to accept “I did not want to do it”, “it’s only temporary” or “there is an alternative in the saynoto0870.com database” as justifications for revenue sharing, then we must apply the same generous approach to everyone. If we did, then many of those who are vilified in this forum would be excused.

Considering the many factors that may present jeopardy to this business such as being unable to recruit a sufficient number of subscribers to make it viable as a worthwhile service, or failing to generate enough high quality enquiries to meet their expectations, not to mention dealing with the attacks from competitors that will ensue if it is to become effective, I am astonished that a few comments that were critical only of the choice of this forum as a source of advice are seen as a matter of any concern whatsoever.

---

In my posting I referred to the term “local call” in both the general and the particular sense. I did not however apply it to the 0845 prefix (which is used for national calls), nor did I make any reference to “national rate” or 0870. Misrepresentation of the rates applicable to calling these numbers is indeed a serious problem. That is however nothing to do with whether one can ring a local number. One would however perhaps expect a recognisably local number to be used for a service with this purpose. The exception would be a nationally managed and promoted service where calls were filtered to local centres according to the location of the caller.

As I read the terms of the Talk Talk “local rate” offer, it does offer some actual benefit. It does however muddy the waters, as do the historic BT tariffs that remain in force for a tiny number of residential customers. Further clouding is provided by business tariffs.

As the distinction between “local” and “national” calls remains and does apply to some tariffs and arrangements between telcos, we cannot assume that the difference will never be generally re-applied to call charges. Talk Talk claims its move was prompted by research, and the local / central cycle is a well known feature of all business. That is not however to say that a non-geographic code to offer the benefit of a local rate on a non-local call is bound to re-emerge, or that it would be 0845, or that it would involve revenue sharing.

---

With many providers in a supposedly competitive market it is very difficult to make clear and simple rules. Furthermore, each has the opportunity to introduce their own terminology using common words with particular meanings applied to them.

I will resist the temptation to get involved in arguments about simplistic universal definitions for dialling code prefixes. I will however point out that whoever introduced the word “local” to apply to 0345 prefixes did so without any authority that I am aware of. When someone makes an important  statement that may be relied upon it is necessary to check the disclaimer at the bottom of the email or, if made by telephone, to verify that they are authorised to do so on behalf of the organisation that they purport to represent.

Hi Andy9

The reason why I am using the 0800 the 0345 and also the STD numbers is because if the service is succesful in Barnsley we will roll it out to neighbouring areas.

Mobile users get ripped off when they ring 0800 numbers
If the 0345 number is available mobile users will be charged the local rate at all times

STD alternative numbers will be published on this site for people that prefer to use them

0800 numbers will also be published for people that do not have talk unlimited on their landline phone

The main perpose of this service is to attack the 118 service and my research suggests that we are going down the right track. I have not had one person that said they use the 118 service only when they have to.

118 is an even worse rip off service than the 0870 numbers I am attempting to start an alternative 118 service.

Constructive Feedback welcome

As I stated before, do we still make trunk calls?

If I understand you correctly a trunk call needs to be connected by the operator and the caller is normally charged for the service at RingLocal callers are not charged for call connection all services to the caller are totally free of charge.

Callers using the RingLocal service will never be charged for the operator to connect the call. If the service that is requested is a RingLocal client the caller will be connected Free of charge.
If the service that the caller requires is not a RingLocal client the caller will be given the number verbally and the number will not be connected
The customer will NEVER  NEVER  pay to be connected to any service.

I hope that this clarifies the matter




Baz

derrick wrote on Jul 30^th, 2009 at 11:16am:

I just wish you would stop referring to ANY call as a "local" call, (including your terms, "RingLocal" and, "THE ALTERNATIVE LOCAL 118 SERVICE"), as there is no such term, and in fact breaks the Consumer Protection Act 1987 Part III,Misleading price indications! All numbers beginning 01/02/03 regardless of distance are charged at the same rate as your originating telco, this has been the case since July 2004, i.e. they are charged as a mobile does!

Trading Standards Institute Article 180805  says that the designation of 0845 being 'local rate' has become misleading and that they have now been changed. It goes on to say that under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008, it is an offence to give misleading price indications to consumers and to omit details about prices if they also mislead.

This was formally covered within the Consumer Protection Act 1987 Part III, as derrick points out.

The point here is that terms like "local rate", "local call rate" and "lo-call" are considered misleading with respect to 0845 pricing. For this reason, you should avoid using them.


However, derrick takes this further and says that there is "no such term" as "RingLocal" or "The Alternative Local 118 Service". I think that this is merely his own phobia of the use of the word "local" with respect to telecommunications services.

Only if it can be shown that "local" - as in equivalent to a local call rate - is used to represent the cost of calling the 0845 number is a complaint valid. The service Baz has been working on was called "RingLocal" since before he decided that it will probably use one of these numbers. I have always taken this name to imply that it is a service where one can "Ring a local company" and not that the call would be a charged at local rate.

The strap line "The Alternative Local 118 Service", again there is nothing to suggest that the word "local" is referring to the call rate. So I have no concern with the use of either of these terms.

I do, however, note that Baz has used the term "Lo-Call". Lo-Call was a BT trademark for 0845 and prior to that the old 0345 range (which was moved to 08457). Therefore, I urge that any reference to this term should be binned as it clearly refers to the call charge rate that service users will incur with their own telephone providers for ringing the service.


What I don't particularly like, but which is not against any legislation, is the use of the term "local rate" with respect to charges in general. It's fine where a particular telephone service tariff charges different local and national rates, but as a more generic term it helps reinforce the myth among consumers that a national call does cost more than a local one. If tariffs with aligned local and national call rates were rare "special cases" that made clear this fact, then perhaps it wouldn't be so bad.

Saying that 03xx is "local rate" or "the same price as a local call" has not been ruled misleading by trading standards or Ofcom, but as a campaigner looking to dispell myths and make telephone services clearer and better understood, I would advise against it. Ideally, I'd like to see something like "geographical rate" or "landline rate" be more prevalent.

---

On the point about use of the revenue sharing 0845 number, its use, even for a few months is still use of a revenue sharing number. This is regardless of the motive to obtain a 03xx number ending 118118, which I appreciate will help your service to be easier to keep in peoples' minds as it is memorable number.

You have posted on here before about RingLocal, and, IIRC, it used a 0800 number. Is it not sustainable to continue with the 0800 number?

bazzerfewi wrote on Jul 31^st, 2009 at 12:56pm:

There needs to be 3 access numbers this will give the caller the choice to use the most appropriate number 1) 0345 this will enable callers to ring mobile numbers and std numbers at low rate tariff 2) 0800 this number will enable callers to ring numbers free excluding mobiles If both these numbers are published as well as the std number I think this will enable all callers to access the service at either a reasonable call cost or for a FREE call.

If I was giving my customers a choice like this, I would guide them as much as possible by advising them what type of phone it is best to use each one with. This helps them to avoid making a selection based on their perception of which is best.

My analysis of freephone numbers is as follows:

• 0800 numbers only provide an advantage (i.e. they remove the call charge) for people calling from landlines at times when they are charged for calling 01/02/03 numbers. They are also an advantage to all callers from BT Payphones as they cost nothing to call from them.
  
• 0800 numbers provide no advantage or disadvantage (i.e. they are neutral) for people calling from landlines at times when they have inclusive elements for calling 01/02/03 numbers.
  
• 0800 numbers provide a disadvantage for people calling from mobile phones as they usually cost more than 01/02/03 numbers.

Remember, as your company will incur costs for incoming calls on a 0800 number, even where there is no advantage or a disadvantage to callers, it might be a good idea to encourage users to only use it when it is of benefit to them.

This service will be unique in that none of the others on freephone numbers offer to put callers through. Granted, this will only be for those business that wish to pay to become clients of the service.

It will mean that there will be no nasty surprises of forwarded calls costing a fortune, as they do now with DQ services on 118 numbers. Even mobile callers will only pay their normal 01/02/03 rate (and from inclusive minutes where applicable). Just so long as mobile providers don't decide to list RingLocal's 0345 number as a "special case" and charge extra for it.

Well according to Ofcom the 0345 range will be special numbers and providers will not be able to charge more than the LOCAL RATE. I will give them another call later and ask them the question again. Have you haerd about the 0345 rate because if you are not aware of it maybe the Ofcom operator got it wrong.

bazzerfewi wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2009 at 2:08am:

Well according to Ofcom the 0345 range will be special numbers and providers will not be able to charge more than the LOCAL RATE. I will give them another call later and ask them the question again. Have you haerd about the 0345 rate because if you are not aware of it maybe the Ofcom operator got it wrong.

Ahem... I quote Derrick who eloquently put this in reply #9

"local" call  there is no such term, and in fact breaks the Consumer Protection Act 1987 Part III,Misleading price indications! All numbers beginning 01/02/03 regardless of distance are charged at the same rate as your originating telco, this has been the case since July 2004

bazzerfewi wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2009 at 2:08am:

Well according to Ofcom the 0345 range will be special numbers and providers will not be able to charge more than the LOCAL RATE. I will give them another call later and ask them the question again. Have you haerd about the 0345 rate because if you are not aware of it maybe the Ofcom operator got it wrong.

The term local rate does not apply!

If you live in London and call your next door neighbour on a landline the cost will be X pence if the number dialed begins 01/02/03, if you call an 01/03 number in Glasgow, (or anywhere else in the country), the cost will be the same!! Where is the "local" from???
It is similar to calling from a mobile, you put in the number, including the national dialing code and you are charged X pence regardless of distance! STOP using the term it misleads, lies and breaks a CRIMINAL ACT!

bazzerfewi wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2009 at 2:08am:

Well according to Ofcom the 0345 range will be special numbers and providers will not be able to charge more than the LOCAL RATE. I will give them another call later and ask them the question again. Have you haerd about the 0345 rate because if you are not aware of it maybe the Ofcom operator got it wrong.

I quote the designation for numbers beginning 034 from Ofcom's National Telephone Numbering Plan as published on 22 July 2009:

UK-wide Numbers at a geographic rate: migrating numbers from matching 084 numbers, calls charged at up to the same rate the customer would pay to call a UK Geographic Number, with calls to 034 numbers counting towards inclusive call minutes if the customer has remaining inclusive minutes to UK Geographic Numbers, and included in any discount structures that apply to UK Geographic Numbers

The definition says these calls are to be charged "up to the same rate the customer would pay to call a UK Geographic Number." In actual fact, the new 03xx range has never been decreed as being "local rate" by Ofcom. The "upto" just means that they should not be charged above the cost of geographic calls.

However, as the vast majority of people pay the same for local and national calls (and hence 03 calls), so in those cases, it could be said that they pay "local rate" for a 03xx call. Also, a national call is also charged at "local rate".

An example from the ASA NOT to describe 0845 as "local rate"; -
http://www.asa.org.uk/asa/adjudications/Public/TF_ADJ_43684.htm

"We therefore considered that describing calls to 0845 numbers as local rate was not only inaccurate and meaningless to the majority of viewers, it could also mislead those who still considered 'local' as synonymous with calling a geographic number.

On this point, the ad breached CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code rule 5.1 (Misleading advertising).

Action
We told Max TV not to describe calls to 0845 numbers as 'local rate' calls."


Another one from the ASA; -
http://www.asa.org.uk/asa/adjudications/non_broadcast/Adjudication+Details.htm?adjudication_id=40724

"we told Windsor Telecom to stop describing 0845 numbers as "local rate" and to include a clarifying statement about the likely cost of the call. We advised Windsor Telecom to seek help with the pricing statement from the CAP Copy Advice team.

The ad was found to be in breach of CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation) and 7.1 (Truthfulness)."

derrick wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2009 at 10:52am:

If you live in London and call your next door neighbour on a landline the cost will be X pence if the number dialed begins 01/02/03, if you call an 01/03 number in Glasgow, (or anywhere else in the country), the cost will be the same!! Where is the "local" from???

The "local" comes from the fact that your neighbour is next door and is therefore "local" to you. Thus, it's a local call, and, by definition, the charge applied is the local call rate.  ::) ::)

Hi There

I want to get this right and I am concerned that people understand the RingLocal programme but at the same time I do not want to contravene legislation so I invite your suggestions

RingLocal - That cannot change because of the expense and inconvenience it would cause

It is my intention to use the 0845 number in the first instance and then port to an 0345 number as soon as ofcom can carry out the change. I want to do this to enable mobile users to use the service without being ripped off by the network provider.

It is a local service for local people and I wish to use this term as this is true but I need to get the terminology right and I am open to suggestion in this regard

"RingLocal providing a local service for local people"        


Please post your suggestions

Would the term LO-CALL be acceptable because the intention is to keep the point of contact for the caller as low as possible.

This implies that it is a lo cost call and not a local call.

Please help me with this

Dave wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2009 at 11:01am:

derrick wrote on Aug 3rd, 2009 at 10:52am: If you live in London and call your next door neighbour on a landline the cost will be X pence if the number dialed begins 01/02/03, if you call an 01/03 number in Glasgow, (or anywhere else in the country), the cost will be the same!! Where is the "local" from??? The "local" comes from the fact that your neighbour is next door and is therefore "local" to you. Thus, it's a local call, and, by definition, the charge applied is the local call rate.  ::) ::)

But the same charge for the call will be made regardless of distance, so as Ofcom, ASA, CASP etc, say the term should not be used, as it is meaningless!  

bazzerfewi wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2009 at 11:37am:

Would the term LO-CALL be acceptable because the intention is to keep the point of contact for the caller as low as possible. This implies that it is a lo cost call and not a local call. Please help me with this

NO, it is just a play on words, meant to mislead, i.e to call an 01/02/03 number from a payphone will cost 1ppm, an 0845 number will cost 20ppm, a 2000% premium, still think it is a "low-call, LO-call etc"? And from a mobile can cost up to 40ppm, and will not be included in inclusive call bundles therefore emphasising the point it is not a "local rate"!

What is wrong with calling it what it actually is, a "revenue sharing number", or as I remember it being called, a "special services number".

Why the need to mislead ?

bazzerfewi wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2009 at 11:37am:

Would the term LO-CALL be acceptable because the intention is to keep the point of contact for the caller as low as possible. This implies that it is a lo cost call and not a local call. Please help me with this

Why are you flaffing around with this termonology? Why not call it 'geographical rate' and be done with it.

Basically the different tariffs are 'geographical rate' and 'premium rate' surely. Anything over the geographical rate is more, so therefore you are paying a premium?

Me thinks you may be out of your depth here.

Perhaps what you need is a brief pricing notice such as "Calls to the 0345 number cost no more than a normal 01/02 landline number and will be part of inclusive minutes/packages where otherwise applicable. These rules apply to all landline and mobile telephone companies."

This is what all users of 03 numbers should be doing. You might also like to link to the Ofcom explanation of 03 numbers.

Can I make a simple suggestion that may help end this confusion?

If a 0800 number is to be offered for landline callers, this would be the obvious choice for them to use over a 0845 / 0345 number.

Presumably caller location detection facilities will be deployed on non-geographic numbers, so that when the service is rolled out as intended callers will be directed to the appropriate local service within the call centre. I am guessing that the equivalent feature for mobile callers might be too expensive to deploy (but please correct me if I am wrong), which is why separate local numbers are being considered for each area.

If so, then the 0345/0845 number becomes redundant.

If not, then callers may be concerned that the already heavy cost burden that is being carried by sponsors and subscribers could limit the service to only those companies that are perhaps desperate for business. I am sure that there will have been difficulty recruiting national chains with local operations until such time as the return on their addition of this item to their promotions budget can be demonstrated.

---

If numbers for non-clients are to be given out, then one must hope that sufficient care will be taken to make it clear that these have been obtained properly and not pirated from some published source.

I note the apparently noble intentions, however nothing is "free" in the world of commerce. The wary consumer should be very suspicious of any service that appears to work more cheaply than an established norm, especially when it refers to competitors as rip-off merchants. That is not to say that it cannot be done, however there are probably far more tricksters than genuinely smart operators out there. (Considerable attention in this forum has been directed towards an operator that came up with a way of giving GPs a free telephone system).

I hope that there has been sufficient research to show that Barnsley people prefer services funded by advertising to ones that they pay for. The fortunes of local newspapers would provide a good basis for this, as well as showing the extent of the competition that the service faces.

Further research suggests that the best way for both customer and client will be to use the 0345 number at the point of entry, I am not sure of the tariff yet but it will be kept to a minimum 2/3p per minute.

As far as National chains are concerned this is not going to be our core business we intend providing a local service for local businesses and such as national companies they will be additional income if they wish to participate.

UK database is designed for professional DQ service providers offering DQ on a 118### number and includes number records. The database includes both UK residential and business listings.
I am not prepare to divulge my number source for the none clients but what I can say is that they provide national 118 providers in the UK Europe and the States, this being the case all records will be up to date and accurate.

The RingLocal service is not a free service it is lo-cost to the customer or in the case of Sayno customers it will be free because I will publish the STD number and the STD number will also be published as an alternative for customers that prefer to use it. I have chosen to use the 0345 number to benefit mobile users because mobile providers will not be able to hype up the price of the call. An incoming call on the 0345 number must be charged at the introductory tariff and mobile phone operators cannot hype the cost of the call. I refer to your phase “established norm” just because it is established it does not say it is in the best interest of the customers. Prior to 118 the BT 192 service offered 2 searches for 0.50p it now costs the same in most cases just to be connected never mind the hidden add ons

I think you are missing the point slightly our rival will be the 118 services not the local press, the press have welcomed RingLocal as a parallel service rather than a competitor. What I would like to point out is that it is not my intention to con anybody, RingLocal is a service that I intend providing to my friends and neighbours, Barnsley is a small town and I wouldn’t last long if it was my intention to provide a dodgy service. I have spent around 3 years researching this market and I will not launch until I have satisfied myself that it is the best service that I can offer. I do appreciate that there has been variants but it is only because of industry changes and in some cases my lack of knowledge in regard to the products and services available in the market place.
I thank you for your input and I look forward to any additional information.


Baz

bazzerfewi wrote on Aug 4^th, 2009 at 3:38pm:

The RingLocal service is not a free service it is lo-cost to the customer or in the case of Sayno customers it will be free because I will publish the STD number and the STD number will also be published as an alternative for customers that prefer to use it. …

The 0345 number will be inclusive from a landline, where a particular subscriber has an inclusive calls element at the time of calling. So use of the STD number does not mean that the call might be inclusive and the 0345 will not.

The only slight difference (spanner in the works, if you like) is with the Talk Talk tariffs which include local calls. So if the STD number is available and the caller is local to it, then in that instance the STD number will be the favourable option.

bazzerfewi wrote on Jul 31^st, 2009 at 12:56pm:

There needs to be 3 access numbers this will give the caller the choice to use the most appropriate number 1) 0345 this will enable callers to ring mobile numbers and std numbers at low rate tariff 2) 0800 this number will enable callers to ring numbers free excluding mobiles If both these numbers are published as well as the std number I think this will enable all callers to access the service at either a reasonable call cost or for a FREE call.

I take it that this posting is now out of date, as number 2 has been abandoned and number 3 is restricted to the SayNo website.



bazzerfewi wrote on Aug 4^th, 2009 at 3:38pm:

Further research suggests that the best way for both customer and client will be to use the 0345 number at the point of entry

We must all be delighted that the plan to perhaps launch the service with a 0845 number has been abandoned.



bazzerfewi wrote on Aug 4^th, 2009 at 3:38pm:

I am not sure of the tariff yet but it will be kept to a minimum 2/3p per minute.

The tariffs for calls to 03 numbers are all published by the respective providers. They are (by regulation) no greater than, and (by practice) no less than, those for calls to any 01/02 number. As Dave says, Talk Talk is presently the only exception in that it offers free (inclusive) local calls at all times to some residential subscribers on standard tariffs. BT offers cheaper local calls to some residential customers on special tariffs.

I do not believe that RingLocal will be able to prevent companies from offering calls to a 03 number at less than 2p per minute, nor indeed will it be able to cause them to set a maximum charge.

A typical cost statement would be “Calls are free for BT customers within the terms of their call plan. Other charges may vary”.



bazzerfewi wrote on Aug 4^th, 2009 at 3:38pm:

As far as National chains are concerned this is not going to be our core business we intend providing a local service for local businesses

I claim no special knowledge of Barnsley. I was thinking of examples such as pizza delivery services and dry cleaners, where callers might get a limited selection of local options.

So long as callers understand this, then nobody is being deceived.



bazzerfewi wrote on Aug 4^th, 2009 at 3:38pm:

The RingLocal service is not a free service it is lo-cost to the customer

Given that there is no use of revenue sharing numbers, there is no problem in advertising the service as being “free”. The fact that it is funded by sponsorship and advertising does not deny this claim, as in the case of “free” local papers. The access cost (if any) is paid purely to a third party - one could draw a parallel with ITV.

It could perhaps be even fairer to describe RingLocal as a “free service” to make clear the fact that it has no control over the call charges incurred and that it is using a totally different business model to the 118 services, rather than doing the same thing more economically.



bazzerfewi wrote on Aug 4^th, 2009 at 3:38pm:

I wouldn’t last long if it was my intention to provide a dodgy service.

I do not believe that anyone here has challenged the intentions behind the service. It is my belief that there are relatively few people who go into business with the intention of conning customers. There are however an awful lot of customers who believe, or at least claim, that they are being ripped-off. This accusation has been levelled against all 118 providers in this thread.

The odd thing is that that everyone claims that they would not be in business if they were not meeting the needs of their customers. Commerce is a funny thing, is it not?

Some brief further comments.

My point about the "established norm" is that it is not seen to serve the best interests of customers and so someone comes along with something new that appears to break the rules, especially when it is "free" or considerably cheaper. The canny consumer will ask how it is that someone has managed to do things in a way that others have failed to do, and wonder where is the catch.

I note that the established norm includes directory enquiries services that are free to landline users. I called 0800 118 FREE (a service from the "Rip off" operators "The Number" owners of the much promoted 118118), listened to an advert from Interflora (a national service that supports local florists) and on asking the voice recognition system for a dry cleaners in Barnsley was given the number of the local branch of Johnsons, a national chain. I was then reminded of the wonderful service available from Interflora and offered the opportunity to be put through to them for free.

With my BT call plan in effect, a call to RingLocal would have cost me no more and no less. I would however have heard a different advert, been given a different number and possibly have been connected to an independent local dry cleaner that would have been paying for the call.

I understand the essential differences to be that RingLocal would not have ripped me off in the way that 0800 118 FREE did and it is strongly focused on independent local businesses, in particular on those who are prepared to pay for calls to be put through directly. Whilst it would have cost me less if I had called from my mobile (in my case, nothing), it would cost some callers more if calling from a landline.


The point about business that use 0800 numbers, or other means, to pay for sales enquiries has been discussed in the forum previously, but I will raise it again as it is relevant. There are some who believe that businesses who pay to receive sales calls are not to be preferred, for two reasons. Firstly, it makes them appear "too keen"; suggesting that they cannot rely on a good reputation for quality and value to cause people to be enthusiastic to secure their services requiring them to be enticed by meeting some of their expenses in making an enquiry. Secondly, there is no such thing as a "free lunch"; the cost  of receiving both failed and successful sales enquiries has to be met somehow, and this is likely to be reflected in higher prices, or less expenditure on the quality of the service delivered.

One punter on Dragon's Den was sent away with a flea in his ear for suggesting that use of 0800 numbers was the way to secure business. The suggestion was met with unanimous contempt from the panel. It may be that the people of Barnsley see things differently.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Aug 5^th, 2009 at 9:36am:

bazzerfewi wrote on Aug 4th, 2009 at 3:38pm: I am not sure of the tariff yet but it will be kept to a minimum 2/3p per minute. The tariffs for calls to 03 numbers are all published by the respective providers. They are (by regulation) no greater than, and (by practice) no less than, those for calls to any 01/02 number. …

SCV, I think that Baz was referring to the tariff that clients will be on; the cost for receiving calls.

Baz, as you will be charging clients for receiving calls, perhaps you could just have the 0345 number and not bother with the 0800 number. The cost to your company will be greater for the calls made to the 0800 number and hence it is likely that these costs will be passed on to clients. Choose whether you have different incoming client rates for calls made to the 0800 and 0345 numbers or whether you just charge the same rate, the cost is still being passed on.

Is an 0800 number really necessary or will "normal landline rate" 0345 number be better? With only the 0345 number there will be no need to promote both 0800 and 0345 and explain which each is for.

Dave wrote on Aug 5^th, 2009 at 10:39pm:

SCV, I think that Baz was referring to the tariff that clients will be on; the cost for receiving calls.

As the quote came from the end of a sentence referring to a decision to initially use 0345 (with a geo number in the Sayno database mentioned later), thereby ditching the earlier suggestions of 0800 and 0845, I assumed that it was the tariff for the 0345 calls that was being discussed.

If you are correct then I hope that Baz is not jeopardising his business by publishing his best possible price in a public forum.

I would have thought that, even though the greater costs of a 0800 number have been abandoned, a client would have to negotiate hard to get a rate as low as 2/3p per minute, assuming no other charges and the best outgoing rate as a cost base. Unless the income from sponsorship could be relied upon to more than cover all of the running costs and overheads, these fees would be the primary source of revenue for the business. By my rough calculations, an agent would have to be very productive (over 100 calls per hour) and onward calls fairly lengthy (over 5 minutes on average) to even cover incremental staffing costs at 3ppm.

Bazzerfewi,

I hate to be the bringer of bad tidings but your idea has already been done on a national basis by www.freedirectoryenquiries.com on 0800 100100 and it received extensive national press coverage at the time it was launched.  Like your service it is reliant on people listening to an advert before they get the phone number they want in order to support the cost of the service.  My big initial objection to that service though was that it only had an 0800 number and did not provide an 03 alternative when a mobile phone was the most likely place for you to want to call it from.

The only problem is that the company running it seem to be ripoff merchants as the free service only lasted a few weeks and although the website is still there if you call 0800 100100 you are told the service is down for "system upgrades"(it has not been working for at least months) and to call their chargeable 118911 service instead.

Unless the company involved always intended to hoodwink customers I would imagine they found the level of demand and its erosion for their chargeable service to be totally unsustainable.  So why won't the same thing happen to your company?  Also where are you getting your number operators from who are prepared to work for only £1 an hour or whatever from?  Or are they all in India?

NGMsGhost wrote on Aug 11^th, 2009 at 4:11pm:

... your idea has already been done on a national basis ...

See also:


SilentCallsVictim wrote on Aug 5^th, 2009 at 8:00pm:

... I note that the established norm includes directory enquiries services that are free to landline users ...

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Aug 11^th, 2009 at 4:54pm:

NGMsGhost wrote on Aug 11th, 2009 at 4:11pm: ... your idea has already been done on a national basis ... See also: SilentCallsVictim wrote on Aug 5th, 2009 at 8:00pm: ... I note that the established norm includes directory enquiries services that are free to landline users ...

I fail to see the point of your out of context juxtapposition of these two different quotes.

NGMsGhost wrote on Aug 11^th, 2009 at 6:02pm:

I fail to see the point of your out of context juxtapposition of these two different quotes.

Just to point out that there are other "free" DQ services. My attempt to avoid repeating myself was perhaps too oblique. Sorry!

Alternative LO-Call 118 service
If my information is correct I think I have found a truly alternative Lo-Call 118 service, I just need clarification as I don’t think Ofcom information is always correct because I have had different answers to the same question, it depends who you talk to.
Does the following call pattern contravene any telecom legislation, at present the RingLocal plan will go something like this
Call comes in on 0345 X118 118 (Lo-Call at this stage) FROM A MOBILE 07 NUMBER
Live operator sources number from local Trade database (0345 1234567)
Call Divert comes into play the RingLocal operator diverts caller to (0345 12344567) Trades mans number

If my information is correct because there hasn’t been a break in the call and “Call divert” has been used the call charge should be the same Lo-Call tariff for the duration of the call.

Example – Caller dials from Mobile phone 07 Number or any 01/02 number
Number dialled 0345 X 118 118
Live operator picks up the call – Caller requires trades person
Operator sources the trades persons number 0345 56445463 (Example)
Operator uses call divert and diverts the call to 0345 56445463 (Example Number)
Trades person picks up the phone and answers the call – Customer and trades person are connected

If this is doable it could provide a lo-call 118 alternative

Baz

bazzerfewi wrote on Aug 15^th, 2009 at 8:30am:

Alternative LO-Call 118 service If my information is correct I think I have found a truly alternative Lo-Call 118 service, I just need clarification as I don’t think Ofcom information is always correct because I have had different answers to the same question, it depends who you talk to. Does the following call pattern contravene any telecom legislation, at present the RingLocal plan will go something like this Call comes in on 0345 X118 118 (Lo-Call at this stage) FROM A MOBILE 07 NUMBER Live operator sources number from local Trade database (0345 1234567) Call Divert comes into play the RingLocal operator diverts caller to (0345 12344567) Trades mans number If my information is correct because there hasn’t been a break in the call and “Call divert” has been used the call charge should be the same Lo-Call tariff for the duration of the call. Example – Caller dials from Mobile phone 07 Number or any 01/02 number Number dialled 0345 X 118 118 Live operator picks up the call – Caller requires trades person Operator sources the trades persons number 0345 56445463 (Example) Operator uses call divert and diverts the call to 0345 56445463 (Example Number) Trades person picks up the phone and answers the call – Customer and trades person are connected If this is doable it could provide a lo-call 118 alternative Baz

For gods sake, STOP calling them LO-CALL, or anything similar! It is meaningless, irrelevant and misleading under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 (partIII), Misleading Price Indications.

From East Sussex County Council, (as an example); -
http://www.eastsussex.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/735C4641-4E0A-48DA-BA19-8A5007CE0AB6/0/BSN0800numbers.pdf
I use Special Services contact numbers for my business. How should I describe them in adverts?
You should not use terms ‘local rate’ or ‘national rate’, or any reference to local or national rates. You also should not use words which could imply a local or national rate (eg. ‘lo-call’, ‘low rate’).

Law and penalties http://www.eastsussex.gov.uk/business/tradingstandards/detail.aspx?ref=180805&date=01/03/2007%2000:00:00

Under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008, it is an offence to give misleading price indications to consumers and to omit details about prices if they also mislead. A £5,000 fine imposed at the magistrate's court or an unlimited fine and/or a sentence of up to two years in prison can be imposed at the crown court.


Whilst the above relate to 084/087 numbers the relevance to the term "lo-call' still applies, 0345 numbers are NOT 'LO-CALL' they cost the same as an 01/02 number dependent upon the callers telco!

If I see any advertisements for your company describing them as 'LO-Call' or similar I will report you to the relevant authorities! For penalties re breaking the Act, see above

Why are you continuing to mislead people?

bazzerfewi wrote on Aug 15^th, 2009 at 8:30am:

If my information is correct because there hasn’t been a break in the call and “Call divert” has been used the call charge should be the same Lo-Call tariff for the duration of the call. Example – Caller dials from Mobile phone 07 Number or any 01/02 number Number dialled 0345 X 118 118 Live operator picks up the call – Caller requires trades person Operator sources the trades persons number 0345 56445463 (Example) Operator uses call divert and diverts the call to 0345 56445463 (Example Number) Trades person picks up the phone and answers the call – Customer and trades person are connected If this is doable it could provide a lo-call 118 alternative

The charge rate cannot be changed by a third party mid-call. Thus, the call will be billed to the caller as per a 0345 number, regardless of where the RingLocal operator forwards it to.

Cheers for that clarificaton Dave looks like we could be on to a winner

I will let you know when everything is sorted and we are ready to go.

Baz

bazzerfewi wrote on Aug 15^th, 2009 at 8:30am:

Does the following call pattern contravene any telecom legislation

Baz

The quoted phrase reads like a question asking for replies.

As you claim to have already incurred expenses and secured sponsorship for the "RingLocal" service, I must express surprise that you appeal to this forum for legal advice. This suggests you may be ill prepared for battle with the major 118 providers and their teams of lawyers.

I am astonished that Ofcom has apparently refused to provide you with written confirmation of the regulatory requirements relating to the provision of Directory Enquiry services in response to your formal Notification. Whilst we commonly complain about its failure to deal properly with the interests of consumers and citizens, it also has an implied duty to treat providers of telecommunications services, such as yourself, fairly.

---

You should have been made aware that under the terms of the General Conditions you are required to adhere to the National Telephone Numbering Plan. This states that 034 numbers are used for "migrating numbers from matching 084 numbers". At one time long ago 0845 numbers offered national calls at the "local rate". Apart from on a few legacy tariffs, this connection no longer applies. Furthermore, for the vast majority of residential telephone subscribers there is no longer a distinct "local rate".

As many migrating numbers will have been in place for some time, one can perhaps understand how the mistaken and misleading idea that 0345 has some connection with a local rate charge for a national call has arisen.

0345 is available for migrating any revenue sharing 0845 number that you are currently operating. If you have however not yet launched the service and promoted the 0845 number, you may want to consider use of a new 033 number.

You must understand that no existing 03 number range is intended to convey the idea of being "local". All those presently in use are described as being "UK-wide Numbers at a geographic rate".

(Should distinct rates for local calls re-emerge as a general feature of telephone charges at some future time, there are unused 03 ranges which could be added to support a facility for UK-wide calls to be charged at the “local rate”. Just for the anoraks - Given the present direction of travel with the NTS condition, it is inconceivable that an alternative range to offer the same facility, but with revenue sharing built in, i.e. a resurrection of 0845 as it was, could occur.)

---

If, so close to the launch of your service (you previously suggested that a possible three month delay was material), you are still wondering about what type of number to use, I would offer the following advice.

For a service focussed on one particular geographic area the obvious option is a local number. You should have found that the redirection features you need can be provided on a geographic number, although it is understood this may incur greater cost than when on a non-geographic number. You may have to consider whether this is worthwhile to provide the necessary “local” identity. There will be a few local callers for whom a local geographic number is cheaper to call than a “UK-wide” 03 number.

For a nationally promoted service that serves many localities separately, a UK-wide number would be ideal. Such numbers are commonly associated with caller location detection facilities (these do not include recognition of the caller’s full number and can extend to cover calls from mobile cells) to enable the call to be routed to the appropriate point.

If you can make the service work purely through sponsorship and advertising, rather than imposing costs on service users, then a service extending beyond a single locality would be best on a 03 or 080 number. The latter would be more expensive to run and more expensive to call for most mobile callers, although cheaper to call for all landline callers. You would however probably want to avoid 080, so as to sustain your claim that those who use it (e.g. “The Number”) are engaged in a rip-off.

(Noting Derrick’s reply to you, I offer some further thoughts, covering some wider issues, in a separate posting.)

Baz

(continuing from my previous posting)


derrick wrote on Aug 15^th, 2009 at 11:32am:

... Consumer Protection Act 1987 (partIII), Misleading Price Indications ... Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 ... I will report you to the relevant authorities! ... Why are you continuing to mislead people?

Derrick has offered very good advice, referring to some of the regulations that any trader has to keep in mind when promoting his services. I suggest some relevant compliance issues that you may face.

• Offering only business numbers and not those from the general number database, any reference to the service being an alternative to the 118 services could be perceived as misleading.
  
  
• Given the existence of equivalent “free” services, claims about relative cost must be made with care.
  
  
• When claiming that competitors engage in “rip-offs”, one must ensure that any claim of not being engaged in similar activities is true and sustainable.
  
  
• Callers would expect to be aware of the priority given to clients when there are a number of providers of the same service. (One wonders how this very difficult area will be addressed.) A claim that every local provider is bound to offer better prices and a better service than every national chain may not be easy to prove.
  
  
• There will be great difficulties experienced in getting the service off the ground, when one needs clients in order to sell the service to callers and callers in order to sell the service to clients and sponsors. There is a severe danger of exaggerated or plainly false claims having to be made.
  
  
• Because you anticipate the service becoming a source of annoyance and perhaps serious threat to established providers of similar services then you must look at this from their point of view. Consider the compliance costs that they suffer, as their first point of attack is likely to be on any that you may be evading.
  
  
• I would suggest looking into the history of how other attempts to break into this market may have faltered through failure to adhere to regulations, so as to avoid repeating the mistakes of others.

derrick wrote on Aug 15^th, 2009 at 11:32am:

For gods sake, STOP calling them LO-CALL

I would advise against use of the term “lo-call” for another reason – it means PREMIUM RATE.

Revenue sharing calls operate on a number of levels in respect of the amount of revenue obtained and the consequent cost to the caller. The 084 ranges offer the LOwest amounts of revenue when compared with 087, 09, 118 etc. and therefore are generally charged at the LOwest premium rates.

The, now broken, historic link between 0845 and “LOcal rate” is used to create a term that is accurate to some degree, but essentially wholly misleading. The “LOw” is only with reference to other premium rates, not to rates in general, and the number ranges to which is applies have never had any valid connection whatsoever with locality, indeed quite the opposite.



Dave wrote on Aug 15^th, 2009 at 3:03pm:

The charge rate cannot be changed by a third party mid-call. Thus, the call will be billed to the caller as per a 0345 number, regardless of where the RingLocal operator forwards it to.

It has been suggested that once BT ceases to block implementation of the necessary technology, this long-awaited capability will be made available. This could be very exciting for RingLocal, as it would be able to offer varying degrees of discount, or even perhaps cashback, according to the degree of willingness of clients to receive calls. (One assumes that it would never wish to use the potential for imposing variable surcharges).

---

Please forgive my cynicism and any rudeness when I state that I hope you know what you are doing and are not simply wasting our time with a pipe-dream, as opposed to discussing a business that is all set to launch in the near future. I post my comments in the hope that they will be of general interest as well as of potential value to a commercial operation. In truth, I focus more on the former, as they would not be offered free of charge if I seriously believed the latter.

There are plenty of good sources of business advice and forums for the discussion of business ideas. I suspect that the issues have only been raised here in the hope of endorsement from this website and “the campaign”.

Commercial arrangements regarding advertising on the website must be discussed with the site admin. I hope that other campaigners share my view that (sometimes with regret) we should refuse to offer any form of endorsement to any commercial offering, as to do so would risk undermining the integrity of our wide-ranging campaigning activities.

Alignment with one or more worthy commercial sponsors who underwrote certain campaign expenses, with their names attached openly to the campaign and being known to have subscribed to all of its declared objectives, would be another matter. That is however not where we are at present.

May I suggest to the moderators that this thread should be re-located within the “Call Providers” section of the Forum. It is dedicated to discussing a particular service provider, even though wider issues are being covered.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Aug 15^th, 2009 at 4:51pm:

Please forgive my cynicism and any rudeness when I state that I hope you know what you are doing and are not simply wasting our time with a pipe-dream, as opposed to discussing a business that is all set to launch in the near future.

SilentCallsVictim...of course he does not know what he is doing if he did he would not be here asking all these questions.

I have said before on the other thread, he is well out of his depth, and has not got a clue on what he is doing. I have said on the other thread he is making false statements on his web site and for that reason I hope 3i and their partners will sue. He says 'bring them on'. There lies the arrogance of the man.

This is learning curve for me and that is why I seek both your advice and that of ofcom. In reply to me being arrogant well that is your opinion. I have been called a lot in my life but never arrogant, and I know people from all walks of life.

All I know is that it is now our belief that we have come up with a workable plan, we have not made any false statements as we believe that the 118 services are expensive and not in the callers best interest.

The RingLocal programme will be for everybody that wants to use it but initially we will be operating a business service in business hours while testing the market.

As for all the criticism well "THE BEST THING TO DO IS DON'T USE THE SERVICE" carry on using the alternative.

Baz

sherbert wrote on Aug 15^th, 2009 at 6:14pm:

I have said before on the other thread, he is well out of his depth, and has not got a clue on what he is doing. I have said on the other thread he is making false statements on his web site and for that reason I hope 3i and their partners will sue. He says 'bring them on'. There lies the arrogance of the man.

sherbert, the thread to which I gather you refer is the one on the SayNoTo118800.co.uk site. bazzerfewi has never posted on that thread, so all I can assume is that you are getting confused with this Baz and the other one claiming to be called Barry.  :-/

My apologies to all :-[

I assumed he was one of the same. :-/

So if I am wrong I take back all I said on this thread. :-[

Can't do more than to say sorry :-[

I have sent a PM to bazzerfewi apologising

:-[

[quote author=sherbert link=1248847207/45#57 date=1250415029]My apologies to all :-[

I assumed he was one of the same. :-/

So if I am wrong I take back all I said on this thread. :-[

Can't do more than to say sorry :-[/quote]


Hmm, he never denied it though!

Hi Sherbert

I am not out to offend anybody quite the oppertise also I am no telecoms expert that is why I look for guidance from users of this site.

I just came up with the RingLocal concept a few years ago but I will not launch it until I am sure that it will be of benefit to users. I think that we are now nearing that point thanks in part to Sayno users and the advice that has been passed to me. It is ok using the likes of Ofcom but there ain't anything like feedback from people in the industry.

I hope this clarifies everything for those that I may have offended.

Baz

---

This thread is now closed as there is a later one that has been started by the same member:

Click here to go to "118 FREECALL" thread