Long time no visit - sorry, many things going on.

Are people aware of this website?

http://www.0800buster.co.uk/




Instructions

  1. Dial 01208 34 0800
  2. Enter the 0800, 0808, or 0500 number you want to phone
  3. Press # to start the call

Call 0800, 0808 & 0500 Numbers Free* From Your Mobile

There are many such services. Not all of them place such heavy emphasis on the assumption that calls to geographic numbers are "free".

This thread belongs in the "Call providers" section of the forum, where it could be useful to start a thread listing all of the services that operate in this way. Because of the nature of the service there is little to distinguish them. Choosing which to use is simply a matter of selecting who you want to make money out of calls that may cost you nothing.

It should be remembered that all calls to all 0808 80 and some other 080 numbers are offered without charge by some or all mobile companies. Calls to these numbers should never be routed through the third parties if a charge is paid for calling geographic numbers.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Dec 29^th, 2009 at 11:32am:

It should be remembered that all calls to all 0808 80 and some other 080 numbers are offered without charge by some or all mobile companies.

One wonders why the breakdown services like the RAC don't switch to using 0808 80 numbers then instead of 0800 numbers given that 90%+ of their breakdown calls are presumably made on mobile phones.  When I called them the other day on 0800 82 82 82 on my Asda Mobile phone (an MVNO brand of the Vodafone network) I was told most pointedly by an automated message that my call would be charged at my normal network rates and would not be free.  The RAC then kept me waiting for over 10 minutes to get through to them and then denied that I was entitled to cover even though I knew I had renewed it automatically via direct debit with Club Toyota in April and had used the service for a flat battery since that date when no problems with the callout occurred.  The lady then told me I would have to wait whilst she looked in to the matter and 10 minutes later I was still holding and running down the call credit. Meanwhile some Good Samaritans (who might of course have been axe murderers) stopped on the lonely dual carriageway in question and offered me a lift to the local petrol station (over two miles a way) and back.  Despite being two men in their 30s they didn't seem too threatening and had obviously approached me on the local road from the village and not the dual carriageway so I decided to risk it rather than risk a refusal by the RAC to turn out at all or them not attending for two to three hours as seemed likely given the call waiting times.

It is a complete scandal that the breakdown services do not use 0800 numbers that are free to the caller from all UK mobile phone networks when people may be left in very dangerous situations due to having no call cerdit left and being in a situation where they cannot add any more credit.

NGMsGhost wrote on Dec 30^th, 2009 at 6:52pm:

One wonders why the breakdown services like the RAC don't switch to using 0808 80 numbers

The 0808 80 range is reserved for charity helplines under a scheme administered by the Telephone Helplines Association. The mobile companies waive their charges as a goodwill gesture. As a commercial service, the RAC breakdown service would not qualify to use a number from this range.

It is open for breakdown services to negotiate with the mobile companies to waive charges for calls to their numbers in return for an appropriate consideration. (DWP is currently involved in such negotiations.)

One must be astonished that there was no offer to call back - 1) Automatically once joining the queue to speak to an agent, 2) Immediately on speaking to the agent, 3) Once the agent knew that there would be a further wait whilst information was being retrieved.

By tying up deals with car companies and banks etc., competition on level of service may be disappearing from the breakdown service market. The days of proud membership of the fiercely rivalless "Club" or "Association" are sadly gone.

I am sure that many readers are gripped by the thrilling adventure story and have been left hanging on what I understand to be called a "bong bong bong bong" moment. Were any axes murdered? Was the petrol station run by a creepy old man who offered a cup of tea in his back parlour and introduced his beautiful daughter? Did a RAC breakdown truck tow the car away before it could be repaired? Have Toyota switched to one of the others, or will we be updated on the campaign to get them to do so?

NGM's Ghost, try Britannia Rescue, they have an 0800 number but have ALWAYS provided a geo number specifically for mobile users, I wondered why until I joined this forum, also have never had to hold for more than a few seconds, indeed their follow up customer feedback form actually asks how many rings before the call was answered.  (We dumped the RAC years ago when we broke down while visiting Chartwell House, with 4 children & a mother in law, rang them from the callbox there & they were absolutely insistent that we were in a town some miles away according to their computer system!   Felt anyone who didn't recognise Chartwell as a location and refused to believe we knew where we were couldn't be up to much!)   Britannia have always been excellent and their top service includes European cover which also worked extremely well, they even hold my mobile number with our membership details should they have to call back if the call is interrupted.  Know some of this is off topic but thought it might be helpful.

The AA emergency breakdown number is 0800 887 766. They also provide 0121 275 3746. I think this has been mentioned elswhere.

sherbert wrote on Dec 30^th, 2009 at 8:03pm:

The AA emergency breakdown number is 0800 887 766. They also provide 0121 275 3746. I think this has been mentioned elswhere.

There is an alternative to the 0800 828282 number for the RAC listed by this website of 01922 436000 but this was no help to me on Sunday evening firstly because I do not have a full web page capability available in my car so could not look up the number on this website and secondly because Asda Mobile actually charges the same price to 0800 numbers as to numbers starting 01/02 or 03.

My concern is that numbers for the car breakdown services are true Emergency Numbers that customers must be able to reach in all circumstances 24/7 when their car is unexpectedly stranded in a dangerous position as mine was on Sunday (steep uphill unlit old dual carriageway with no hard shoulder where my car ended up stopping mainly in the insdide land and large amounts of traffic were hurtling by at 7.20pm) and it is not acceptable that customers cannot complete calls with them when credit unexpectedly runs out mid call (for instance because the breakdown service is overloaded and takes 10 minutes to answer the call and then has a new member of staff who does not know how look up Club Toyota members who have RAC cover and claims I am uncovered and then puts me on hold again for 10 minutes until I am cut off by expiring credit).  Similarly it is not acceptable that customers cannot get through because they cannot add credit to their mobile because their payment card has been unexpectedly blocked that day by their card issuer for security reasons.  In short this is an Emergency Number (even though the emergency service is provided by a private sector operator, hard to believe though SCV will no doubt find that to imgaine) and therefore 0800 numbers must be free in just the same way as the various namby pamby so called helpline numbers that SCV describes that by and large are usually far less situation and time critical than being stuck in a broke down car on a dark dual carriageway with traffic hurtling by at up to 90mph.

So I return to my original point that there must be a class of 0800 numbers that are free from whatever telephone platform they are called from and this should include all of the motoring breakdown service numbers.

Barbara wrote on Dec 30^th, 2009 at 7:50pm:

NGM's Ghost, try Britannia Rescue, they have an 0800 number but have ALWAYS provided a geo number specifically for mobile users, I wondered why until I joined this forum, also have never had to hold for more than a few seconds, indeed their follow up customer feedback form actually asks how many rings before the call was answered.  (We dumped the RAC years ago

Barbara,

I have been a member over the years of the AA, RAC and Green Flag and always found Green Flag immeasurably better than the other two for speed of assistance arrival and always sending a Recovery capable vehicle and not just a patrol van.  However as a Toyota owner I am entitled to top level RAC membership with Home Start, Relay, overnight hotel acommodation in the event of a breakdown and full European cover for only £55 a year.  This is why for the last seven years I have belonged to the RAC via Toyota's discount plan.  In general I have found the RAC excellent up to yesterday (much better than the AA who alway offer shabby slow service on even the simplest call at the most favourable time of day) but they seem to have completely melted down over the xmas period and seem unwilling to recall call centre and breakdown staff from xmas holidays to cope with the cold weather no matter how adverse the impact on their customers.  Also one must now remember that they have been taken over by that bunch of Sir Fred Goodwinesque Money Grubbers known as the Aviva Group (who I have see just ditched advertising car insurance under the Norwich Union brand in favour of their own corporate colours after several years of its nauseating "quote me happy" or "quote me in India as I always found it to be" campaign).

I already had a nightmare experience with the AA 10 years ago when my car was left stranded on a muddy bank on the edge of a country road in freezing conditions and from it happening at 11pm the AA could not provided a patrol vehicle to recover me off the muddy bank (wheels spinning hopelessly) until 6am the following morning.  I might have died from hypothermia if a passing motorist had not agreed to run me home (about four miles away) at around 1.30am when it became obvious the AA could not attend for many more hours.  I have resolved never to become a member of the AA again.

NGMsGhost wrote on Dec 30^th, 2009 at 9:10pm:

… a new member of staff who does not know how look up Club Toyota members who have RAC cover and claims I am uncovered and then puts me on hold again for 10 minutes until I am cut off by expiring credit). …

The 0800 828282 number is the breakdown number for regular RAC members. I believe that the one for Club Toyota members is different; it should be on your card. Had you called it, you may have had your call handled in a more prompt manner.

That said, I assume you quoted your Toyota registration number, and I'm quite amazed that they could not obtain your membership details from that.



NGMsGhost wrote on Dec 30^th, 2009 at 9:10pm:

So I return to my original point that there must be a class of 0800 numbers that are free from whatever telephone platform they are called from and this should include all of the motoring breakdown service numbers.

SCV has already pointed out that the THA 0808 80x numbers are free from mobile phones. This is not because the recipients pay more to cover the cost of making the calls free, but because the mobile operators have an agreement to waive charges. If any organisation could have such a number, then they would all have them!

It would seem more sensible for the breakdown services to negotiate with the mobile operators for their various 0800 numbers to be free-to-caller. Or perhaps Ofcom should consider creating a "freephone from all phones" number range.

NGMsGhost wrote on Dec 30^th, 2009 at 9:10pm:

In short this is an Emergency Number (even though the emergency service is provided by a private sector operator, hard to believe though SCV will no doubt find that to imgaine) and therefore 0800 numbers must be free in just the same way as the various namby pamby so called helpline numbers that SCV describes. So I return to my original point that there must be a class of 0800 numbers that are free from whatever telephone platform they are called from and this should include all of the motoring breakdown service numbers.

If the operators of these "emergency services" agree with this description of their service then they would doubtless be in a strong position to negotiate with the mobile providers to arrange waiver of charges. Alternatively they would recognise that the importance of the service that they offer to their members would warrant a suitable financial arrangement to secure this waiver. Emergency plumbers, roofers, glaziers and all others who attend emergency situations would doubtless wish to do the same.

I see no difference between us on this point. I hold no brief for the THA. Despite my levity in asking for the second installment of the exciting drama, I offer my genuine sympathy for the catalogue of misfortune suffered.

There is the option of automatically capturing the number for a return call (directly from the CLI, or by asking for the number to be keyed in or spoken) if there is a lengthy time to answer. I do find it hard to believe that an emergency service agent would not take a number and offer to call back immediately to someone in an emergency situation with credit running out. This suggests that the RAC does not see itself as an emergency service.

The idea of a separate class of 080 numbers that are free to caller from mobiles as well as landlines has been discussed in this forum before. It is perhaps shameful that it has not been in existence for some time. The only good reason I can think of for this is a lack of demand. Perhaps there are very few organisations that are keen to pick up the cost of all incoming calls from mobiles. If there are such organisations, then I would be delighted to assist them in lobbying Ofcom to provide them with what they want. It seems a little pointless to lobby for a facility that nobody actually wants to use.

I am expecting DWP to make an announcement shortly. This may help to kick off the public debate.

Dave wrote on Dec 30^th, 2009 at 10:02pm:

The 0800 828282 number is the breakdown number for regular RAC members. I believe that the one for Club Toyota members is different; it should be on your card. Had you called it, you may have had your call handled in a more prompt manner.

I didn't have the Club Toyota card with me for various reasons but I have always previously found the main RAC number happily takes breakdown calls for those covered via policies with Club Toyota, even though sometimes they pass you to a second call centre and sometimes they don't (this seems to depend on the time day).  The RAC only run two different call centres (one for direct customers and one for motor manufacturer related schemes plus fleet vehicle schemes) so surely they could just have another choice on their initial IVR menu at the outset of the call to make sure you always get through to the correct call centre no matter what number you dial.  Also I wonder why it is the current call queue length of 10 minutes plus currently seems to be identical for the two supposedly different RAC call centres. ::)


Quote:

That said, I assume you quoted your Toyota registration number, and I'm quite amazed that they could not obtain your membership details from that.

She did find details but claimed my membership had expired in April.  I denied this and said it was renewed by Standing Order and had renewed in April as normal.  I was proved correct when I checked my online bank statement when I got home.  I also had letters from Toyota telling me they were auto renewing the membership.


Quote:

Or perhaps Ofcom should consider creating a "freephone from all phones" number range.

OFTEL and Ofcom has been working hard to develop a National Telephone Number Plan that no ordinary consumer understands for the last 15 years.  So why would they want to mess things up now by bringing in a plan that stopped the telcos from hoodwinking their customers in to ringing covert premium rate numbers that they thought were charged at ordinary call rates. ;) ::) >:(

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Dec 30^th, 2009 at 7:27pm:

One must be astonished that there was no offer to call back 1) Automatically once joining the queue to speak to an agent,

There was no such offer.


Quote:

2) Immediately on speaking to the agent,

There was no such offer.


Quote:

3) Once the agent knew that there would be a further wait whilst information was being retrieved.

There was no such offer and after I was placed unilaterally on hold by the call centre worker there was no way to exit from hold except by hanging up.


Quote:

By tying up deals with car companies and banks etc., competition on level of service may be disappearing from the breakdown service market. The days of proud membership of the fiercely rivalless "Club" or "Association" are sadly gone.

RAC is now part of the dead hand of the Aviva Group.  The people who brought you the Norwich Union "Quote Me Happy" or "Quote Me From India" as have always thought of it campaigns.  I see they have finally even canned the once proud Norwich Union insurance brand name in favour of their bland Euro Aviva brand in their latest car insurance tv advertising.  Perhaps just as well as unlike Norwich Union they apparently take almost every single opportunity to refuse to pay a claim whenever they possibly can.


Quote:

Were any axes murdered?

No and nor was anyone murdered with any axes either.  But I did experience some nervous moments after I rashly pulled out my wallet full of credit cards (to pay for the petrol and petrol can) in front of the two well meaning but potentially scary yokels in their old banger who had gone down to the petrol station to buy beer and cigarettes.  I mean would I stop to investigate a car just because it was parked by the side of the road.  And it did occur to me that if they were going to knock me over the head and steal my car they couldn't do it until I had bought some more petrol for it.


Quote:

Was the petrol station run by a creepy old man who offered a cup of tea in his back parlour and introduced his beautiful daughter?

No it was rebuilt in to some large shiny standard Esso box shortly after the various other remaining local village petrol stations round here closed down.  The only scary part is the focus on alcohol on a forecourt dedicated to serving cars and the inability of some of the staff to speak more than a handful of words of Bangalor British.


Quote:

Did a RAC breakdown truck tow the car away before it could be repaired?

No the RAC never came out at all and they never called me back, even though when I logged a complaint the next day they did have a CLI based record of the call from my mobile.  No doubt if this had happened at 1am I might have been found frozen in to a block of ice inside my vehicle the following day.


Quote:

Have Toyota switched to one of the others, or will we be updated on the campaign to get them to do so?

Not so far.  My email to the Chairman and Chief Executive of the RAC and/or Aviva with cc to the CEO of Toyota UK and any journalists who cover breakdown recovery service stories is still awaiting preparation.

Not quite as exciting as one might have hoped but a great story nonetheless. Well done for surviving with your humour intact.

This was truly appalling service from the RAC.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Dec 31^st, 2009 at 12:56am:

This was truly appalling service from the RAC.

No doubt if the friendly local Surrey hillbillies (no pun intended even though this did all take place in the Surrey Hills area) had not been passing then after another hour or so on the phone I might have found some call centre supervisor who eventually accepted my membership of the organisation but I strongly suspected that given the self inflicted wound of running out of petrol and the general meltdown state of their breakdown service that I might have been left waiting for another couple of hours for a patrol to arrive.  To be honest I was thinking of walking at this stage as there was a pavement, the snow and ice had all melted and it would only have been about 40 minutes walk each way (1 hour 20 minutes in total).  But it was still a very cold night.

SCV I much prefer your creative literary writing mind to your overly detailed written approach to regulatory matters.  Do you perhaps have an untapped ability here that is currently being frustrated by spending its time on such mundane matters as the cost of telephone calls to the NHS and other governmental bodies.

I don't entirely share your pessimism that the current telephone anomalies will still not be corrected under a new government as the actual costs of switching to 03 numbers are very small indeed in governmental budget terms and it is only the percentage of telephone company income that these call charges account for that are large and very significant.  I do think there will be a drastic shakeup of Ofcom and the type of people working there under any other political party in charge of government than this one and that might just do the trick in terms of some of the grosser anomalies.  Also surely once Madame Viviane Reding and her collegues in the EU have finished writing the various wrongs of cross border mobile roaming call and data costs they may perhaps turn their attention to anti competitive behaviour by the telecoms companies in creating covert premium rate call costs for domestic fixed line calls where teh cost of calls is not properly disclosed to the end user.  That is why I feel the OFT has a major role it is in dereliction of on telephone call costs since its duties in terms of preventing widespread misleading price indications by telecoms companies are consistently not being carried out.

Moral of the story, don't run out of petrol, or keep a can of it in the boot :: ;D

derrick wrote on Dec 31^st, 2009 at 11:01am:

Moral of the story, don't run out of petrol, or keep a can of it in the boot :: ;D

I do not have enough boot space in my car (MR2 Roadster) to be able to accommodate a permanent spare petrol can.

So far as running out of petrol is concerned surely its about time that most car manufacturers came up with something better than  a miserable needle that can be out by as much as 7 or 8 litres in terms of your actual amount of fuel remaining.

Anyhow its the first time I have run out of fuel in this car in the seven years I have owned it and one of TomTom's latest Satnavs that tried to direct me to a petrol station with an allegedly low price that turned out not to even exist on the ground was the main culprit in the whole sequence of events.  As a result I over-ran the latest point (in terms of the petrol gauge display) at which I would normally fill up by at least 7 miles but I didn't realise that I was routinely running so near to the bottom of the petrol tank.  My previous MGF sports car used to read well below empty when it still had about 7 litres left in the tank but it appears this is not true of the MR2 Roadster. :-[

Also the MGF would let you continue for five miles or so after appearing to run out if you switched off and waited a couple of minutes but there seems to be no such second chance given in the MR2 Roadster.................

Oh dear, oh dear, here we are overcome with the Christmas spirit offering goodwill to all men, showing sympathy for the fact that we all make silly mistakes and suffer misfortune as a result of placing undue reliance on items of technology.

Someone in a Scroogeish mood, or simply aiming to be mischievous, rehearses a stirring motion left over from preparing the pudding many weeks ago and the brandy bursts into flames scorching Toyota, Tom Tom and their respective industries.

The point about the mobile "freephone" issue has been well made and the adventure story was most entertaining. I am not sure that we need to pour more fuel on the fire that we know can be generated from Surrey. (Oops - perhaps I should not have mentioned fuel as this is likely to remain a sore point for some time to come. I hope that any further references to the reported unhappy experience are in the spirit of good humour that I offer, as we wish one another a very Happy New Year.)

NGMsGhost, thanks for the story, for keeping us all entertained! I pictured you initially with your Yaris on a lonely dual carriageway. ;D

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Dec 31^st, 2009 at 12:22pm:

Oh dear, oh dear, here we are overcome with the Christmas spirit offering goodwill to all men, showing sympathy for the fact that we all make silly mistakes and suffer misfortune as a result of placing undue reliance on items of technology. I hope that any further references to the reported unhappy experience are in the spirit of good humour that I offer, as we wish one another a very Happy New Year

Can we perhaps buy you some more of this Christmas spirit to keep you going during the months ahead if it puts you in such an atypically light-hearted mood when posting in the forum. ;)

Dave wrote on Dec 31^st, 2009 at 1:39pm:

I pictured you initially with your Yaris on a lonely dual carriageway. ;D

I would probably wrongly imagine you or Derrick as being the ones owning the Toyota Yarises.

I know that loddon always likes to drive something a little more sporty or powerful being also something of an unreconstructed petrolhead like my good self.

NGMsGhost wrote on Dec 31^st, 2009 at 1:57pm:

I know that loddon always likes to drive something a little more sporty or powerful being also something of an unreconstructed petrolhead like my good self.

I cannot let this reference pass without a comment, especially after reading the entertaining tales and comments on this thread.    First, a Happy, Successful and Effective Camapaigning New Year to you NGM, and to all the other contributors to this Forum.

I can think of one possible solution to your petrol can problem -- how about trading in that MX5 and getting a Bristol Fighter?    British designed and built: a world beater?   It is well able to carry a pair of full size golf bags or enough luggage for a weeks stay on the Riviera and plenty of room for a spare can, though you shouldn't need it with an enormous long-range fuel tank behind you.   Despite the immensely powerful power plant it achieves a level of economy which other super cars cannot imagine thanks to a pure aerodynamic shape uncompromised by the extraneous wings spoilers and fins of other makes.   This pure shape enables the Fighter to leave others gasping at its acceleration above 120mph and to cruise effortlessly at 180mph using a mere 4000rpm.    No other supercar compares, and the simplicity and integrity of the design puts the Veyron and the others in shade.

Don't just take my word for it, see other independent opinions :---


http://www.evo.co.uk/features/features/229293/bristol_fighter.html

http://www.evo.co.uk/carreviews/evocarreviews/205679/bristol_fighter.html

http://www.tencylinders.com/?page_id=509

And

http://www.bristolcars.co.uk/BristolFighter.htm

http://www.bristolcars.co.uk/FighterT.htm

http://www.boc.net/page.php?currPage=cars&sc=5

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristol_Fighter_(car)

Footnote:  I should stress that I am seriously concerned about Climate Change and the effect of human activities on Global Warming and so am inclined to the view that use of all vehicles not capable of at least 70mpg, say, should be prohibited forthwith along with many other extravagant consumers of energy resources and producers of damaging gases, such as non-renewable energy power stations.   Until that happens I will continue to admire the achievements of British designers and engineers who can still lead the rest of the world.

I maintain that anybody using an 0800 or 0500 number should be required to publish the geographic alternative. Some of my reasons are below:

Calls to these numbers are not free from
Over 40 million people in the UK have mobiles. Many of these are on contract.
Nearly all contracts have inclusive geo minutes, making landlines a waste of money (note the latest BT ads begging people to come back, citing poor signal etc) Many people therefore no longer have a landline.
Many 08 or 05 numbers are dialled outdoors eg Recovery services and therefore are not free unless you find a functional call box.

Companies have to pay extra for 08 or 05 numbers. These costs are then passed on to customers.
It would be preferable to choose to spend this money on services I require rather than give it to telecomms companies fo providing no extra service whatsoever.

The 0800 dial through numbers are great, but not everybody knows about them. Therefore we still have the extra associated costs passed on to us by the companies that use them.

Your thoughts please?

floella2 wrote on Jan 9^th, 2010 at 4:39pm:

Nearly all contracts have inclusive geo minutes, making landlines a waste of money (note the latest BT ads begging people to come back, citing poor signal etc) Many people therefore no longer have a landline. Your thoughts please?

BT land lines do indeed have inclusive minutes depending on which calling plan you are on

Absolutely, but why have both unless completely necessary? That is why many people are choosing only to have a mobile.

Addiotnally, it is difficult for students, private tenants, house sharers etc to have their own landline.

Furthermore, back to the point at hand, why do companies not publish a geo number as well as a freephone? This choice allows customers to save money and companies to save money too!

Click this link for an organisation that does this and shows their reasons too...

http://www.wandle.com/main.cfm?Type=CU

QUOTE: "Residents can contact Wandle's Customer Services Team on 0800 731 2030 (freephone) or 020 8682 7442 (if you are ringing from a mobile) between 9am and 5pm weekdays."

A fantastic example of caring about the customer.

It is all about freedom of choice. Simples!

I would only ring someone on their mobile as a last resort as it costs more to ring a mobile number than a land line. If they did not have a land line, I doubt very much I bother to keep in touch.

floella2 wrote on Jan 9^th, 2010 at 4:39pm:

Over 40 million people in the UK have mobiles. Many of these are on contract. Nearly all contracts have inclusive geo minutes, making landlines a waste of money (note the latest BT ads begging people to come back, citing poor signal etc) Many people therefore no longer have a landline.

There are crucial differences between landline and mobile inclusive tariffs.

Inclusive minutes on a mobile are just that; the more you buy the more it costs. Inclusive landline tariffs are unlimited.

I presume you are one of these people who only have a mobile. So you are quite happy to give a number whose cost is high relative to a landline call for others to call you at home, but companies give you a number that costs you far more from your telephone, you moan about it.

floella2 wrote on Jan 9^th, 2010 at 4:39pm:

I maintain that anybody using an 0800 or 0500 number should be required to publish the geographic alternative.

I cannot see why they would need to be "required to" do so, they should simply be encouraged to do so, as it is in their interest. They pay to receive calls from mobiles, even though the caller pays. Their only cost could be in setting up an actual landline number, which would generally be in place anyway.


Dave wrote on Jan 9^th, 2010 at 6:36pm:

There are crucial differences between landline and mobile inclusive tariffs. Inclusive minutes on a mobile are just that; the more you buy the more it costs. Inclusive landline tariffs are unlimited.

My mobile contract features effectively unlimited landline calls (subject only to "fair usage", which is way beyond what I might ever use). A sensible deal on inclusive "any network" calls more than exceeds my normal usage. In practice, we are approaching the position where for most people "normal" calls will not attract call charges. This will further serve to highlight the costs associated with "premium" services.

Dave wrote on Jan 9^th, 2010 at 6:36pm:

floella2 wrote on Jan 9th, 2010 at 4:39pm: Over 40 million people in the UK have mobiles. Many of these are on contract. Nearly all contracts have inclusive geo minutes, making landlines a waste of money (note the latest BT ads begging people to come back, citing poor signal etc) Many people therefore no longer have a landline. There are crucial differences between landline and mobile inclusive tariffs. Inclusive minutes on a mobile are just that; the more you buy the more it costs. Inclusive landline tariffs are unlimited. I presume you are one of these people who only have a mobile. So you are quite happy to give a number whose cost is high relative to a landline call for others to call you at home, but companies give you a number that costs you far more from your telephone, you moan about it.

Everybody seems to have missed my point, which is:

Use freephone numbers but publish the geographic number too so that people have the CHOICE of which number is most cost effective to call.

As for 'moaning' about it, I do not actually know anybody that needs their landline to call mobiles (I only know two people who have one!). In addition, I do not give out my number to businesses unless ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL.

But for those who need a landline, which of course there are also many, my suggestion offers a practical solution that is beneficial to those as well.

floella2 wrote on Jan 10^th, 2010 at 2:40am:

Everybody seems to have missed my point, which is: Use freephone numbers but publish the geographic number too so that people have the CHOICE of which number is most cost effective to call.

There would, of course, be no need to publish dual numbering if Ofcom had any regulatory balls. There is no reason whatsoever for toll-free calls to be handled any differently by cellular operators, in terms of pricing, other than greed and regulatory inaction. Remember that many, perhaps most, UK cellular tariffs did indeed include 0800 (and 0845/0870) within any bundled allowances before they realized they could get away with charging for such calls. I recall receiving a letter from Cellular Operations, around 2002, stating that 'for my convenience', 0800 (and other 08 calls) calls would now be excluded from my bundled airtime. Yes, very convenient.

It is disgraceful the the so-called UK regulator allows toll-free calls to be charged differently than geographic calls. I do not advocate that toll-free calls are billed at no cost from cellular lines; simply that they should be treated as any other 'normal' call, as indeed they are here.

floella2 wrote on Jan 10^th, 2010 at 2:40am:

Everybody seems to have missed my point, which is: Use freephone numbers but publish the geographic number too so that people have the CHOICE of which number is most cost effective to call.

I hope that my posting took the point fully. My only quibble is over the alleged need for compulsion as this is (almost always) in the interests of the call recipient.


When addressing the reason for the problem we come back to the question of how mobile telephony is funded. A sizable element is obtained through the termination charges levied on other providers., These enable the market to grow and provide kids and the less well off with low cost access to telephony. It is argued that this money is simply channelled away as excess profit rather than being used to fund the provision of network services for incoming calls to PAYG users. I do not know claim to know exactly what would happen if these rates were removed, however I am not convinced by the arguments of the "Terminate the Rate" campaign, which maintains that this would have no effect whatsoever on any other aspect of the mobile business.

My personal inclination is for mobile users to be required to meet the full cost of the service they are using, without subsidy from those who call them (or those who they call on "freephone"). Given the pattern of mobile usage that has developed however (especially PAYG for the less well off) I cannot but feel concerned for the effect that a change may have. I would have rather not started from where we are, but in the real world this is what we must do. If forced to offer a suggestion, I would propose that the termination rate be phased out gradually over many years so as to give the market time to adjust, and to watch for any undesirable effects. This is far from ideal as any necessary regulatory intervention would almost certainly come too late. This is however an inevitable feature of an attempt to use competition to meet the needs of consumers, whilst making it subject to regulation that is intended primarily to enable a free market to work.


Some suggest that those wishing to offer a "free to caller" service should be compelled to pay these termination rates by accepting calls from mobiles and that Ofcom should have had the courage to preside over the withdrawal of freephone offers to landline callers which may have ensued. My only comment is that I have seen no evidence of a queue of 0800 users at Riverside House, demanding the right to pay in full for calls from mobiles.

Whilst some mobile tariffs charge more than the cost of an ordinary call for a call to a 0800 number, many do however charge only that. This does not address the complaint that the cost of the call should be met in full by the recipient. Would those who argue that this is an acceptable charge for a call to a "freephone" number accept that the same charge should be levied for every incoming call from a landline?

floella2 wrote on Jan 10^th, 2010 at 2:40am:

As for 'moaning' about it, I do not actually know anybody that needs their landline to call mobiles (I only know two people who have one!).

So, do you give an alternative number for  the two people who have a land line that you know so they can telephone you more cheaply than a mobile rate?

sherbert wrote on Jan 10^th, 2010 at 11:52am:

floella2 wrote on Jan 10th, 2010 at 2:40am: As for 'moaning' about it, I do not actually know anybody that needs their landline to call mobiles (I only know two people who have one!). So, do you give an alternative number for  the two people who have a land line that you know so they can telephone you more cheaply than a mobile rate?

For you, my friend, I would. I now have a landline since it is now physically possible for me to do so. I understand that many people who were adults during the Thatcher era were in a position to purchase their own house for 3 times their income and obtain a quality PUBLIC SERVICE from BT but things are now much different for those of us who were at school during Thatcherism and the big sell off of everything.

Those who live in private rented accommodation, shared houses, student halls etc are not always in the position to be allowed a landline, and many people today have little alternative but to live in such accommodation (raising 40 or 50 grand for a house deposit takes years upon years of hard graft)

I lived in such accommodation and was fleeced for years to pay somebody elses mortgage but am now fortunate enough to have broken free from this modern form of slavery. So, this gripe is not about myself, it is about those who do not benefit from a landline to call 'freephone' numbers.

Now, note that many 'freephone' numbers are provided by companies offering their services (sales departments). They WANT business, so offering a geo number would attract more calls from people with inclusive minutes and no landline.

Many government departments should have freephone numbers, offering a geo number would attract more calls from people with inclusive minutes and no landline.


So, it is a complete and utterly simple point I am making:

To any organisation that uses 'freephone', just publish the corresponding geographic number as well so people who cannot have a landline and cannot afford to spend extra on 'freephone' numbers have the choice of which number to use.

This is an absolute no-brainer, everybody (organisation included) saves money and the only cost is a few lines of text on a website or an advert (ie nothing)

Wandle Housing Association (link given earlier) is the perfect example of this absolutely simple strategy.

Is this so complicated or am I missing something???

Just at work and came across a housing association that offers freephone numbers and also publishes the geographical alternative. It even goes as far as to recommend 0800buster.com as an alternative to 'freephone' numbers.

http://www.placesforpeople.co.uk/Contact_us.aspx

Now that is what I call responsible customer service and I recommend all organisations to do the same.

0200 222 0700 & 0200 222 0900 do the same and are often mentioned on this site.

To be clear, those are National Dialling Only numbers, allocated to the London area.

As the Local Number part begins with the zero, the area code must always be dialled.

  020  0222 0700

  020  0222 0900

Some telecoms providers may not connect calls to some NDO number ranges.

floella2 wrote on Jan 19^th, 2010 at 2:03pm:

Now that is what I call responsible customer service and I recommend all organisations to do the same.

Indeed, or better still, do what the DWP has done and pay the Mobile companies to make 0800 calls free.

If enough organisations indicate that they are ready to meet the cost of calls from mobiles, then Ofcom could be persuaded to make this an option as a standard feature on a dedicated range of numbers. So far as I know, the DWP is the only organisation in this position and it has negotiated its own particular terms. This is however significant as it proves that it can be done. There is no good reason why any other sizable organisation, e.g. the motoring recovery services, could not follow this lead.

(Those offering "Helplines" can benefit from a voluntary agreement under which the mobile telcos simply waive their charges. This option was not available to the DWP, as its services are "transactional".)

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Jan 19^th, 2010 at 3:48pm:

floella2 wrote on Jan 19th, 2010 at 2:03pm: Now that is what I call responsible customer service and I recommend all organisations to do the same. Indeed, or better still, do what the DWP has done and pay the Mobile companies to make 0800 calls free.

Excellent idea, in part. Now I do not fully understand the ins and outs but am I correct in saying:

For 'freephone' calls from landlines, the recipient pays the telco.
For 'freephone' calls from mobiles, the recipient pays the telco and the caller pays their mobile provider.

So for DWP to pay for the calls from mobiles, they are effectively paying the telco twice? If so we are effectively paying, through taxation, a telco for a service that has absolutely no benefit to a mobile caller or the recipient.

If this is the case, the simple answer, again, is to simply publish both the 'freephone' number AND the geographical alternative, allowing the caller to make the choice. (And saving the recipient money too).

floella2 wrote on Jan 21^st, 2010 at 4:08pm:

So for DWP to pay for the calls from mobiles, they are effectively paying the telco twice? If so we are effectively paying, through taxation, a telco for a service that has absolutely no benefit to a mobile caller or the recipient. If this is the case, the simple answer, again, is to simply publish both the 'freephone' number AND the geographical alternative, allowing the caller to make the choice. (And saving the recipient money too).

Your understanding of the general principles matches my own - there are however two points.

1. The money that goes to the mobile telco for originating a 0800 call is only the same as that which a landline telco would receive. Mobile calls are more expensive - whether or not that really is, or really should be, true is another issue - for now, that is how things work. I trust that the extra payment made by the DWP is just what is necessary to meet the gap, or at least the smallest amount that it could get away with. Paying twice can mean paying in two bits, it does not have to mean paying double the amount.

2. Publishing geo numbers is a perfect solution for those who do not pay extra to call them (as well as those they are calling) - I have an almost unlimited amount of time for this on my contract. It is not the same for those who do pay. Typically this is those on PAYG, which one suspects would be a large proportion of those who call the DWP. I have not done a detailed study, but as a by-product of another exercise I gained the impression that 0800 and geo calls are often charged at the same rate.

A very good point, particualarly about DWP and PAYG, (although bear in mind many people are losing their jobs at the moment and quite possibly have a contract phone at the time).

I still maintain though that it is in everybody's interests, caller and recipient, to publish both numbers. A good example - I see an ad on the bus with a freephone number and I am not going to call it from my mobile. By the time I walk through my front door, I have forgotten about it and just want to put the kettle on :) Net result - I lose interest, company loses opportunity.

Can anybody give me a single reason as to why on ads, websites etc it would be so bad to us or the recipient for the geographic number to be published along with the freephone?

floella2 wrote on Jan 28^th, 2010 at 4:26pm:

Can anybody give me a single reason as to why on ads, websites etc it would be so bad to us or the recipient for the geographic number to be published along with the freephone?

It is for each to give their own reasons, however I can suggest two. Please let nobody be misled into thinking that I see these reasons as either a) applying in every case, or b) overriding the arguments in favour.

1. There is a strong resistance in all situations to providing two telephone numbers. It begs the question of just who should use which. Those unable to work this out for themselves could claim to be either or both confused and misled. It is commonly believed that BT is the only landline provider required to offer calls to 080 numbers without charge. It is sometimes implied that some mobile providers do not charge for calls to any 080 number. There are some mobile tariffs which charge no more for a 080, than a geo, call.

How many pages of small print should there be to accompany the simple listing of two telephone numbers. Most advertisers would treat the idea of publishing two numbers with horror (even without any explanation at all).

2. In many cases there will not be an obvious simple alternative geo number. If all the 080 calls are always routed to the same point, then it is simple. This point is discussed in this posting.

I personally share the dislike of alternative numbers being published for access to the same service, as a point of general principle. This is primarily for the reasons given above, but for others as well. That is not to say that there are not some EXCEPTIONAL circumstances in which this could be acceptable. If a 080 user can be persuaded to do this, then I would certainly not oppose the idea and would be happy to promote the idea, as worthy of consideration.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Jan 28^th, 2010 at 9:03pm:

[ I personally share the dislike of alternative numbers being published for access to the same service, as a point of general principle.

If that is the case SilentCallsVictim, why are you a member of this site which promotes the use of them and there are members (myself included) that spends a lot of time looking for  alternative numbers for others to use?

i would have thought if you disliked them so much you would not bother being here, or am I missing something?

Well said, sherbert, I agree absolutely.   Also why would two numbers be any more misleading that one 08XX number when polls (eg Rip Off Britain) show the vast majority of the public has no idea of relative costs?

sherbert wrote on Jan 29^th, 2010 at 10:30am:

i would have thought if you disliked them so much you would not bother being here, or am I missing something?

This point has been made before. It should be noted that I did refer to exceptional situations, so I am not sure what is meant by "so much".

What may have been missed is that the dislike referred to was of alternatives being published by the users of numbers. Sadly the general level of knowledge about the complex matter of telephone tariffs is so poor that this cannot fairly be presented as being a matter of "choice". In the case of public services, important issues about different levels of service being provided at different levels of cost come into play.

I am however prepared to acknowledge that there are exceptional situations; I will give two examples. In the current situation (with 111 on the horizon) it makes sense not to cause the considerable level of expenditure and confusion that would result from the NHS Direct Health Advice and Information service being moved from 0845 4647. (This should have been done some years ago, at the very latest as soon as the 03 range was made available, but the situation has now changed.) I have therefore proposed that 0345 4647 be switched on in parallel, properly notified as being available, but not invariably advised alongside 0845 4647 in all cases and on all materials.

The second example relates to a situation where a 080 user is able to offer a geo or 03 number for use by mobile callers that provides the hosting same access, but at lesser cost (to both parties). As stated above, I would urge consideration of such a number being published alongside the 080 number in all cases where this was appropriate. I would however urge all genuine helplines to register under the THA scheme and for others to also consider following the lead of the DWP. If enough 080 users are found to be ready to meet the cost of calls from mobiles fort this to be worthwhile, then I would urge Ofcom to allocate a special range of numbers with such an arrangement as a standard feature.

The saynoto0870 database of alternative numbers provides a very useful and worthwhile service to many telephone callers. It also provides the web traffic to fund the hosting of this forum, where related issues may be discussed. If this enterprise only wishes to publish comments of praise and support, then dissenting views, that may scare of sponsors or offend subscribers, could be debarred. I am indeed myself sometimes surprised to find some forum members supporting my efforts to reinstate the principles of the NHS and of public service more generally, as many seem to hold political views that are wholly incompatible with these principles.

On the specific point at issue, there are many reasons why neither indirect nor even direct publication of "alternative numbers" is not the complete answer to all of the issues relating to revenue sharing, or indeed "freephone" numbers. Although some may think otherwise, I recognise that the principles of "consumerism" and "choice" have their limits.

Brevity and clarity are admirable qualities in written English.  Endless esoteric posts are of no assistance to anyone.

Yes Barbara, agreed wholeheartedly!

As a matter of simplicity on how to list an 0800 and its geographical equivalent, I again mention the housing association that does this in a completely easy and understandable way:

http://www.placesforpeople.co.uk/Contact_us.aspx

Simples :)

Those who are at all interested in getting to grips with the subject may be interested to read the following document.
It provides some useful insight into how the issue is seen, as is being dealt with, by the various parties.

Determination to resolve a dispute between BT and each of the T-Mobile, Vodafone, O2 and Orange about BT's termination charges for 080 calls

Just one tip - I suspect that this is not suitable reading for those who find my contributions to the forum impenetrable. It is for those who are ready to become seriously engaged with the complexities of what is going on.

I will not attempt a literary criticism, I will simply comment that I have considerable sympathy with Ofcom's position on this one. This is essentially a commercial dispute between competing private sector interests. Ofcom cannot be seen to favour any one party, and it has to try to show concern for the interests of customers of both sides, both callers and providers of 080 numbers. To be objective it has to get into the silly game of economic theory, entertaining the wholly theoretical concept of "efficient cost". Any definitive ruling would have been open to appeal through the courts.

This is going to be one the many issues dealt with in the forthcoming NTS review. That is going to be most significant, as it will cover almost all of the topics dealt with in this forum.

I will be very interested to read what others may have to say on this important and highly relevant matter.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Feb 8^th, 2010 at 1:02pm:

Just one tip - I suspect that this is not suitable reading for those who find my contributions to the forum impenetrable. It is for those who are ready to become seriously engaged with the complexities of what is going on.

I assume that was directed to me, I have to tell you that I found that document a jolly sight easier to understand than some of your posts.

sherbert wrote on Feb 8^th, 2010 at 1:58pm:

I assume that was directed to me, I have to tell you that I found that document a jolly sight easier to understand than some of your posts.

Many have criticised my style of writing.
I look forward to reading some informed and aposite comments on the topic, rather than this ceaseless bitching.

It is a great shame that you are unable to take constructive criticism SCV. I am glad to see  that I am not the only one that has criticised your style of writing.

Post 47 - apposite (dictionary)

Re post 47 & 48, I agree with sherbert. SCV, any post on this forum which is not accessible to all likely readers (& I suspect there may be many for whom English is not a first language) is a complete waste.  The "bitching" of which you are unkindly accusing sherbert would not be at all necessary if you did not seem to have some unknown reason for making things unecessarily complicated, why you feel this is necessary defeats me (and, i suspect, many others).  It is obviously pointless asking you nicely to make your posts clearer so I will cease, that does not make my point any less valid.

For what it is worth, and purely an opinion, I see no issue with any aspect of SCV's contributions wrt to clarity or understandability. There are complex matters being discussed, and for these matters, it would not be unusual for any given reader to have to read the contribution more than once. I for one value his contributions, both here and elsewhere, to the general campaign, as I do with most of the efforts from others. So, let us stop the bickering!

As an example of something that lacks clarity, take the petition, details of which have been posted elsewhere:


Quote:

Enable OFCOM to enforce change of 0870, 0845 and similar expensive call cost numbers to all govenment offices to be changed to 01 or 02 geographic STD numbers or local call numbers.

Having read through this more than once, I still do not know the true aim of the petitioner. It uses simple words and simple construction yet it is difficult to understand (at least for me).

Barbara wrote on Feb 8^th, 2010 at 5:14pm:

Post 47 - apposite (dictionary)

I use my dictionary to look up the meaning of words as well as the spelling. Both are important, and I apologise for the typo. I am sad that the response noted only the latter, not the former.


Barbara wrote on Feb 8^th, 2010 at 5:18pm:

... any post on this forum which is not accessible to all likely readers ... is a complete waste.

I could not disagree more.


Barbara wrote on Feb 8^th, 2010 at 5:18pm:

... making things unecessarily complicated

The necessity of any complication is a matter for a debate that I am always happy to join.


Barbara wrote on Feb 8^th, 2010 at 5:18pm:

It is obviously pointless asking you nicely to make your posts clearer

The suggestion that I have not noted the comments that have been made is unkind and foolish. If some readers assume that all of my postings will be incomprehensible by design, then they are engaging in a pointless activity by trying to read them.


Barbara wrote on Feb 8^th, 2010 at 5:18pm:

I will cease - that does not make my point any less valid.

The point is valid as a personal opinion, it has been made and it stands.


idb wrote on Feb 9^th, 2010 at 12:32am:

As an example of something that lacks clarity ...

Let us not push this matter too hard. None of us are perfect. Throwing bricks is relatively easy. Let us try to move forward.


Perhaps this particular discussion is better continued here - Re: How to post to the forum

---

Please let us get back to the topic:

• Ofcom / BT / MNOs - good, bad; fair, unfair; wise, foolish?  
  
• Review of NTS - worthwhile, waste of time; suggestions; likely outcomes?
  
• Other 080 TCPs vs. MNOs - pay, charge?
  
• THA scheme - distortion, model for all?
  
• DWP arrangement - rip-off of taxpayers, to be copied?
  
• Dial-through geo providers - heroes, parasites?
  
• Mobile charges - given that the mobile operators have a primary duty to maximum their return to their shareholders, how should they adjust their charging structures?

There are so many relevant and topical points to discuss in this thread, why are we distracted?