I've never really understood this site's premise?

OK, I'm being contentious here, but can you not see the hypocrisy of it all.

As i understand this, the main complaint is the use of premium rate numbers with confusing charges often going hidden or undeclared, or not unifrom, and how it si the various businesses sucker-punching call-revenue for hapless 'Joe Public'. Post after psot blames this company or the other for creaming you all.
Oh... pleeeeze, come on.

Sorry, but can you not see the hypocrisy of the argument? Almost every man-jack of you reading this operates your very own premium number. It will likely cost more to dial than many an NGN too. And likely you all sucked it up.

I of course refer to yoru 07XXX number.

We were offered by the Telco industry a mobile in the millions.
What it cost to call was low on the list of priorites, compared (in the early days) to the convenince, and dare I say prestige. Even today,   the situation could be reagarded as ever more ridiculous (but that is another post).

You all did what most of the end-users of NGNs  are doing right now, you bought what was offered. So you must ask yourself,  why did you do this? The ansewer is simple, becaause to get the service you desired, you had no choice.

I have previously decalred, we are NGN users, and we can honestly sayy, when we first took our 0870, we had much the same thought processes as 'Joe-Public' now does when said Joe signs up for his first mobile phone. If we wanted teh service, we signed-up or went without.

So I'm sorry, don't complain when XYZ company has you dial their premium 0870/0845/08blah NGN. You would do the same.

In fact, oh look... you already did.

I'll get the popcorn. This will be good.

I'm looking forward to this one too. Compared to 07XXX NGN numbers, and go on, tell me you've not got one, little 'ole 087X/084X etc is a minor, minor backwater.

Representing the fair telecoms campaign, which contributes to this forum, but opposes (and is opposed by) many comments made here - I wholly endorse the essential point.

The extent to which landline callers have long subsidised mobile users is wholly unacceptable, but it is coming to an end - in slow stages. We have yet to see the full effect, especially in respect of the tricky issue of those who have free SIMs and thereby currently pay nothing for the network connection that enables them to receive calls.

As the truth about the Service Charge associated with 084 and 087 numbers is eventually being acknowledged, business users are themselves recognising the need to move away. I hope that consumers will be equally happy to meet the full cost of their mobile phone network connections!

(Get another bag of popcorn!)

I agree. The reason is because consumers have simply reacted to an adverse net-effect of an issue they don't have appreciation for and understanding of. As a result, there is a total lack of discussion on what is at the heart of the issue: termination charges (which are the interconnection rates of differing operators). Because of this there can be no discussion about what policy should be, by way of a resolution.

As you say, private consumers do the same to others (by way of mobile numbers), but don't put any energy into the issue like they do when companies do it to them. This is the same as many users of 084 numbers who frequently don't acknowledge what they're doing either.

That's the end of the trailers. Now for a message advising to switch mobile phones off (sponsored by a mobile phone company). The curtains open to allow projection of 21:9 images.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jG3m0YfVmk

You could answer the bare-faced gall of just  about every post on this site with the following words (I singled one out at random) :

[color=#ff0000]Thank you for providing the above information on XYZ. At this site we hail the XYZ company/organisation for providing us with their  cheap-to-call NGN. They are indeed wonderful - we feel they deserve submission for sainthood.

To complete the process, and be in the spirit of this site, can we firstly ask you to enter your own 07xxx NGN into the "Hall of Shame", and secondly get it ported thru' to a Local-rate or Free-call. I'm sure up to this point with few exceptions, whatever NGN number XYZ choose to use, it is still be cheaper to call them than you. I'm sure you see the need to rectify this.

Please now provide us all with your 03xx alternative.

We will deal with the submission of XYZ for canonizaion this minute[/color]

[Yes, Sarcasm is a low form of wit.]

Unlike the vast majority of the posts on this site choosing to attack this or that XYZ, surely our fight is with the telco industry and more imporatntly the hypocrisy of the public. The public's own hypocrisy once put into perspective is the more powerful weapon in dealing with the telcos.

So, which bit do we not get here?

Calls to 084, 087 and 09 numbers incur a Service Charge to the benefit of the called party. This generally makes these calls more expensive than calls to 01, 02 and 03 numbers and precludes their inclusion within inclusive call bundles - which is the majority way that people pay for their calls these days (Note that BT pricing for non-geographic calls is not typical as it is affected by legacy regulation that ends in 2015).

This site exists to find and then alert people to alternative 01, 02 and 03 numbers for published 084 and 087 numbers. A much wider campaign exists elsewhere to end the inappropriate use of 084 and 087 numbers by organisations that are not providing a chargeable service. The law agrees with this point, and the new CCR legislation makes it illegal to use 084, 087 and 09 numbers for customer service lines from 13 June 2014.

The Cabinet Office also agrees with this point and has instructed public services to use 03 numbers as their primary number. The new policy allows retention (for now) of 0845 and other numbers for use by the small number of callers (mostly with BT) that benefit from discounted rates when calling 084 and 087 numbers outside the allowances of their inclusive call plan. They may be no need for such retention after June 2015.

Calls to 084 and 087 numbers are generally overpriced when called from mobile phones. Ofcom is addressing that point with the introduction of the "unbundled tariffs" pricing regime on 26 June 2015. The fact that the mobile industry is opposed to these changes, and has already caused them to be significantly delayed, could be taken as a sign that the measures are exactly what is required to bring transparency to the pricing of these calls and force a much-needed reduction in their prices.

Once the new system is in place, there may well be some serious questions to ask of some providers, both landline and mobile. These enquiries will revolve around the levels and the difference in the levels of their call prices for calling geographic-rate numbers, for calling mobile numbers and their Access Charge for calling chargeable non-geographic numbers. I include calls to mobile numbers in this simply because the mobile termination rate has been steadily reduced over the last few years and by April 2015 will be under 0.5p/min and yet the price of calling a mobile number from a landline continues to go up. However, this is a different issue to that caused by the usage of 084, 087 and 09 numbers. With a mobile phone, the user is not making money from incoming calls.

In Section A1 of the latest published version of National Telephone Numbering Plan that comes into effect in June 2015 there is an extra column headed "tariff principles". So far, this column is filled in only for 03 (parity with 01/02 rates), 080 (free), 084, 087, 090, 091 and 098 (Service Charge plus Access Charge) numbers (as well as 116 (free) and 118 (Service Charge plus Access Charge) numbers). The possibility therefore exists for a "tariff principle" to be applied to 07 mobile numbers at some point in the future. Perhaps the long term aim is parity with geographic rate?

Yes, OK. Great. We know all that. I'm not sure it answers the central point of this thread. Before you have a point you need to satisfy us of your own integrity.

No troll. A direct question to you. All of you.

You know mine. Just  as you would expect of any calls you make, can you confirm, right now, any calls to you are at local or free-call rates.

Good. Glad to hear it.

Or whatever you say, any word, you massively lost the argument.

Now follow it with an entry in the database.

03700000000 wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2014 at 9:43am:

Yes, OK. Great. We know all that. I'm not sure it answers the central point of this thread. Before you have a point you need to satisfy us of your own integrity. No troll. A direct question to you. All of you. You know mine. Just  as you would expect of any calls you make, can you confirm, right now, any calls to you are at local or free-call rates. Good. Glad to hear it. Or whatever you say, any word, you massively lost the argument. Now follow it with an entry in the database.

Local rate does not exist and hasn't since 2004, ASA, TS, Ofcom etc all agree!

.

Quote:

Local rate does not exist and hasn't since 2004, ASA, TS, Ofcom etc all agree!

4/10 See me

Dave do you mean like this? Couldn't find the famous mobile operator..

http://youtu.be/WwpskML6TbY

03700000000 you have yet to present your case for what you consider others should do. As I say, if they provide their landline number then it might go unanswered. In such a situation how does this help a company trying to contact them? Or are you saying that a company would prefer to ring someone and get no answer on account of the fact that the cost of calling a mobile is more expensive?

It would also be interesting to know what you do. Do you not have a mobile phone or at least not give out the incoming 07 number? Or have you set-up a 01/02/03 number to forward to the 07 number, meaning you pick up some of the cost (including when calls come from mobiles and so cost the same as a 07 number) ? Or have you set-up a 01/02/03 number which is delivered to your mobile handset using VoIP?

As Ian G says, the termination charges by the mobile networks have dropped to below 1ppm and will fall still further. It's now not the mobile user's network which is charging more than to a geographic rate number, but the call retailers themselves. I fail to see how mobile users can be accountable for 03700000000's provider charging much higher rates for calls to mobiles as geographic rate numbers.

CJT-80 wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2014 at 8:57pm:

Dave do you mean like this? Couldn't find the famous mobile operator..

Thanks. I specifically said that the message was "sponsored by a mobile phone company" so as not to offer any brand name.

The point about a mobile number is that it is intrinsically part of a mobile telephone service, this making it impossible to get away from — that is users have no "choice".

Prior to the introduction of 03 numbers, corporate organisations had no choice but to impose a Service Charge if they wanted a non-geographic number, 0845 being the most basic type. Since 2007 these bodies have had the choice to use a non-geographic number calls to which are charged at geographic rate.

None of the above justifies imposition of a higher cost for termination than geographic numbers, but rather it lays out the situation as it is and as it was.

03700000000, as you rightly say, the battle with high charges to mobiles from landlines is with the telcos. However, the battle with the telcos over expensive numbers used by corporate organisations was won in 2007, with the introduction of 03 numbers. So do you consider that there is justification for continued widespread use of "expensive" numbers by these bodies purely because their customers frequently provide "expensive" numbers?


Do you think that businesses would prefer to ring customers on geographic rate numbers and get no answer (because they are not at home) rather than get through to them by calling their 07-mobile number?

If a business has fields for home telephone and mobile telephone numbers within customer records then it has a "choice" as to which to call where a customer has offered both. What proportion of your customers supply only a mobile number?


What is the state of play regarding business telephone tariffs and calls to mobiles, as against to calls to 01/02/03 numbers? There is more competitive pressure in this area than with residential services due to higher call volumes, so has this driven down the price of calls to mobiles?


I agree with the essence of the point being made here. I have never viewed my mobile number as being "equal" to, or an alternative to, my landline number, due to the higher cost of termination (which results in higher retail call charges). In correspondence I always quote my landline as the first and main number followed by my mobile.

On occasions I may give an organisation only my mobile number simply because I expect not to be in when they are likely to call. I am mindful that the call is likely to cost more but unless the call not getting answered is genuinely preferred then there is nothing I can do about it.

Yes, mobiles are generally more expensive than other landlines but the problem I have with some NGNs are the fact that some  companies/organisations are using these numbers not for any routing ability but the fact it allows them to actually receive revenue from the calls.  It is a stealth premium rate.

This is different from official premium rate numbers (09x) where regulation may prohibit charging people whilst in a long queue and more to the point consumers are aware of the approximate cost and the fact that the called company/organisation makes money from it.

It's actually the OCP (Originating Communications Company) like BT, TalkTalk, SkyTalk, Virgin, etc that set how much they want to charge per min on top of the actual cost of that call.

For example, Ofcom have set price controls on how much mobile companies can charge per minute for calls to their numbers.  At this time, this rate is actually 1.08ppm so when you see likes of Virgin charging around 15-20ppm then who is benefiting from it?

Also, although I don't have the actual cost of calls to 0844/0871 but at a guess it's probably around same amount (or maybe a little cheaper) than the actual cost of calling a mobile simply because it has to be higher to pay the company/organisation called their cut of the call.

So remember it's actually the originating communications provider that sets how much it wants to charge for each call; and with 0844/0871 numbers the called company/organisation may actually financially benefit in some way whereas with mobile numbers only the OCP that benefits more.

My turn to rant...

I must be very dim then.

For as I have it, in calling a given organisation on a premium number that costs me much the same as calling a mobile, excepting some of that revenue goes to the people I call, I see as good. That is, if I have to pay that much in the first place?

And get htsi clear, a mobile user does expect me to pay that to call them. Few apologise when I call. In fact none do.

So, calling a mobile, here all of my billing goes to the telco... nope, given the choice, I'll take the revenue share alterantive anyday. I pay the same, but my call recipient gets paid as well.

I'm paying much the same anyway, so I'm damn sure in most instances I have more affinity with the called party getting a slice of my call revenue than the telco getting the lot. What's not to like?

All you have now done is added fuel to my origanal point.

Not only does anyone operating a mobile have no right to complain about NGN [my original point]  instead they should be telling us all to get revenue-share numbers. [my added point]
You see...

1. They (in most instances) cost less to call than a mobile.
2. Not all of the revenue goes to the telco.

The shark in colusion withe the telco  is indeed the mobile-user.

Revenue share numbers if they are costing about the same to call as a mobile, and with a few exceptiosn they do, or on my tariff are free, are thus BRILLIANT!

I humbly apologise, however I see a domain name change:

SayYesTo0870.com

On my business tariff and on many residentials if you ported your mobile to a 084X or 087X, we're quids in and you get revenue share (or you used to on some NGN). I belive 0870 has been stopped.

With the aid of the telcos, the shark is indeed the mobile-user. If they mention revenue-share into the pitch as well, they're really in for a hiding.

On that basis, and this is the important point, [no matter how the call cost comes about] how on earth can you operate a number costing more to dial than most NGNs and then complain about NGNs?

Er, you can't.

You'd need the morals of one of the larger organised religions in this world to pull  that one off. [Take you pick as to which one].

Bamboozle if you want, but....

Yes, I've never really understood this site's premise, or certainly 98% of those that choose to complain on it anyway?

Complain? How? Why? What with? That you're bigger hypocrite than the next guy?

Complain that you have double-standards to keep?

I say

Game.

Set...

Match.

Some further thoughts, for whatever they made add to the discussion.


This site - as such - has only one premise: find a cheaper number to call if you can.

Anyone, from any position, is free to contribute to this discussion forum. Some contributors have suggested that there should be a specific line followed by all those who contribute, however that has not been achieved.

Once Ofcom had "said NO to …" Service Charges on "… 0870" (in August 2009) the name of the site had rather lost its meaning. The only organ to emerge from extensive discussions about how to move forward was "the fair telecoms campaign", although that has been widely opposed by contributors to the forum and now has an uncertain future.



Callers to mobiles continue to indirectly subsidise the user of the mobile - how else could there be free SIMs!

Callers to 084/087/09 numbers (except 0870 for the moment) continue to indirectly subsidise those they call - whether or not "revenue sharing" takes place.

The amounts and mechanisms differ, but the principle is the same.

When something odd is happening, this also gives the call provider an opportunity to take a slice (often the larger slice) for themselves.

The latter point creates confusion about whether it is the user of the number or the call provider who is the "bad guy". This confusion is obviously exploited heavily by both parties and also by the telephone service provider to the user of the number, who may often warrant the most blame of all.

Anyone who goes looking for "bad guys" to attack in general is on a very sticky wicket, especially if they only consider the position from a single user perspective. The easy answer is always to blame Ofcom.



We are getting close to the position where, for the vast majority, calls to "ordinary" landline and mobile numbers will be free of call charges - this is already largely true for mobiles - because they will be covered by the caller's "calling plan" for a monthly fee. Calls to "special" numbers will, I hope, be charged per call, at a fixed fee or duration based rate, rather than being built into calling plans so as to muddy the issue (as in some cases at present). Calls to ordinary numbers, outside the terms of the chosen calling plan, will continue to be subject to penalty charges.

Once we get to this "happy" position, one hopes that the market will deliver a suitable range of calling plans to meet most needs, at competitive prices. Long term commitment to a calling plan that may become unsuitable as needs change is a threat to this market, as is the tying of handset leases to calling plans. The unbundled tariff will deliver greater transparency to charges for calls to "special" numbers, although it is hard to see a fully functioning market in Service Charges, except where the call is the totality of the service. There is doubt about whether Access Charges for calls to special numbers and the levels of penalty charges will be thought sufficiently significant, alongside selection of a calling plan, to be subject to serious competitive pressure, although I am relatively optimistic.

Let us introduce some real figures to aid our discussion. The cost of termination with 0844 and 0871 numbers is in fact quite a bit higher than to that of mobiles.

The BT Wholesale Carrier Price List indicates how much BT pays out to other terminating operators, and it therefore allows us to get a handle on the levels concerned.

So as to avoid you having to traul it I will quote the rates here. All figures are in pence per minute and are exclusive of VAT. All information is from Section B1: Telephony:

• Geographic numbers
  Source: Part 1.02.1
  Daytime rates only. Rates vary slightly by operator, but these figures give an idea:
  
  • TalkTalk:
    11/05/2012 to 31/03/2013: 0.2889
    01/04/2013 to 31/01/2014: 0.3073
    01/02/2014 onwards: 0.0137
     
    
  • Virgin Media:
    01/04/2012 to 30/09/2012: 0.3544
    01/10/2012 to 31/03/2013: 0.2889
    01/04/2013 to 31/01/2014: 0.3073
    01/02/2014 onwards: 0.0137
     
    
  • Vodafone C&W:
    01/02/2010 to 30/09/2012: 0.2921
    01/10/2012 to 31/03/2013: 0.2953
    01/04/2013 to 31/01/2014: 0.3137
    01/02/2014 onwards: 0.0209
  
  BT's own termination charges are quoted depending on how far BT has to carry the call (the longer it does, the more it charges):
  Source: Part 1.01
  
  • Local Exchange:
    01/04/2013 to 31/01/2014: 0.3073
    01/02/2014 onwards: 0.0137
     
    
  • Single Tandem:
    01/04/2013 to 31/01/2014: 0.4228
    01/02/2014 onwards: 0.1454
     
    
  • Double Tandem (0-<100km):
    01/04/2013 to 31/01/2014: 0.6728
    01/02/2014 onwards: 0.3954
     
    
  • Double Tandem (100km - 200km):
    01/04/2013 to 31/01/2014: 0.8465
    01/02/2014 onwards: 0.5691
     
    
  • Double Tandem (>200km):
    01/04/2013 to 31/01/2014: 1.0862
    01/02/2014 onwards: 0.8088
  
   
  
• 03 numbers
  Source: Part 1.02.3
  Rates are daytime only.
  Local Exchange: 0.67
  Single Tandem: 0.56
  Double Tandem Short/Medium/Long: 0.41
   
  
• Mobile numbers
  Source: Part 1.02.1
  Rates applied/apply at all times
  
  • "3":
    01/04/2011 to 26/12/2011: 2.984
    27/12/2011 to 31/03/2012: 3.015
    01/04/2012 to 10/05/2012: 2.053
    11/05/2012 to 31/03/2013: 1.5
    01/04/2013 onwards: 0.848
     
    
  • O2:
    01/08/2009 to 31/03/2010: 4.2359
    01/04/2010 to 31/03/2011: 4.4276
    01/04/2011 to 31/12/2011: 2.984
    01/01/2012 to 31/03/2012: 3.015
    01/04/2012 to 10/05/2012: 2.053
    11/05/2012 to 31/03/2013: 1.5
    01/04/2013 onwards: 0.848
     
    
  • Orange:
    01/12/2010 to 28/02/2011: 4.43
    01/03/2011 to 31/03/2011: 4.431
    01/04/2011 to 23/12/2011: 2.984
    24/12/2011 to 31/03/2012: 3.015
    01/04/2012 to 10/05/2012: 2.053
    11/05/2012 to 31/03/2013: 1.5
    01/04/2013 onwards: 0.848
     
    
  • T-Mobile/EE:
    01/04/2011 to 23/12/2011: 2.984
    24/12/2011 to 31/03/2012: 3.015
    01/04/2012 to 10/05/2012: 2.053
    11/05/2012 to 31/03/2013: 1.5
    01/04/2013 onwards: 0.848
     
    
  • Vodafone:
    01/12/2010 to 30/04/2011: 4.4276
    01/05/2011 to 22/12/2011: 2.984
    23/12/2011 to 31/03/2012: 3.015
    01/04/2012 to 10/05/2012: 2.053
    11/05/2012 to 31/03/2013: 1.5
    01/04/2013 to 31/03/2014: 0.848
    01/04/2014 onwards: 0.845
  
   
  
• Some 084 and 087 numbers
  Source: Part 1.02.3
  Rates from February 2014 and apply during the daytime only.
  
  • 0844 g11 numbers (BT retail charge is 4.084ppm inc VAT + Call Set-up fee): 4.5512
    
  • 0844 g6 numbers (BT retail charge is 5.105ppm inc VAT + Call Set-up fee): 4.9765
    
  • 0845 numbers: 0.9238
    
  • 0871 g7 numbers (BT retail charge: 10.211ppm inc VAT + Call Set-up fee): 9.8776

From the above it can be seen that mobile termination rates have been dropping and are now less than 1ppm (exc VAT).

The point is, therefore, that it is the call retailers (Originating Communications Providers/OCPs) who are ripping us off. We have a multi-provider system and, as such, callers are responsible for selection of their services (from their call provider) and receivers are responsible for their services (from their receiving provider).

In the past, it was the case that selection of a mobile telephone number meant that all callers' telephone providers were charged a rate much greater than to geographic/03 network destinations. Now it is the case that any charging above the rate of a geographic rate call is by and large down to the OCP retailer.



03700000000 wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2014 at 11:19pm:

On that basis, and this is the important point, [no matter how the call cost comes about] how on earth can you operate a number costing more to dial than most NGNs and then complain about NGNs?

"If" we had a system where there was one sole provider of telecommunications then it would be the case that there would be a definitive call rate for any one number.

As we don't, each party has its own responsibility. The point is that the plural market means that there are essentially two markets: one in origination and another in termination. Think of everything upto or back to the termination payment or charge — these are the two "markets" I refer to.

Call retailers (OCPs) set prices based on a number of factors, including the amount they have to pay out in the form of termination payment. Call terminators set prices based on a number of factors including the termination charge.

You can't blame the customer of another telco if your OCP telco levies a premium to call them. This is exactly the same as blaming the fizzy drinks manufacturers for vending machines in airports and railway station which charge an arm and a leg for their products.

Good answers, both of you. I can see how my position is weakened somewhat, in pointing a finger directly at any one party anyway.

It seems that by wrestling with a 'Pig in Sh*t' everyone comes out dirty.

It is also difficult to nail down a cohesive argument. My argument would be have been infinitely stronger a few years back, but the telco market and Ofcom have introduced a moving target that is frankly a slippery fish.

In short I support the real function, intended or otehrwise to give alternative numbers to premium rate calls of this site.
Our 0870 is still used by our comapny, and before its alternative 0370 was made a ruling, we regarded, for reasons I've expained in the past,  ourselves as victims too. The winers for called and caller in our case was only the telcos.

Self-interest prevails.

I like the vending-machine analogy, but to draw a proper analogy andbe  truly accurate to what is after all a mess, is a struggle.

I freely admit to my own hypocrisy, I sit here with at least 3 SIMS being used on PAYG that i've had for 3-4 years now for occasional use. I've certainly not paid for these in adding more credit. With tiny amounts of non-expiring balance sitting onn them, someone must be paying for them, and it is clearly not me.

Again, self-interest prevails.

And your database is somethign I'll take a peek at.

Moi?

If you run a phone, and however you care to justify, call-costs are higher than the NGN you're complaining about, there is only one correct reply to this thread:

"Yes, you got me, I'm an ocean-going hypocrite."

Very few did, most just squirmed.

In reviving a five year old thread, be aware that call charges changed significantly some four years ago, giving much needed clarity. Calls to 080 numbers are now free in all circumstances. Calls to 084, 087 and 09 numbers are now split into two component parts. Calls to 084 and 087 numbers are never cheaper than calling 01, 02 or 03 numbers and are usually very much more expensive. Calls to 01, 02 and 03 numbers are normally made as part of an inclusive calls allowance at no further charge.

Comparison of 03, 080 and 084/087 numbers is now much easier. See the plain English piece at https://www.nidirect.gov.uk/articles/contacting-08-and-03-numbers

This now clearly shows 084, 087 and 09 numbers as "premium rate". The premium is the additional Service Charge. This website therefore helps users find inclusive 01, 02 or 03 numbers or free-to-caller 080 numbers in place of expensive 084 and 087 numbers.


Additionally, termination rates for calls to UK mobile numbers starting 071 to 075 and 077 to 079 have continued to fall such that these calls are now routinely inclusive in allowances on the same basis as calls to UK geographic numbers starting 01 and 02, and to non-geographic numbers starting 03. From 1 October 2019, the reduction in termination rates for calls to personal numbers starting 070 will allow these calls to be included in allowances on the same basis as calls to UK mobile numbers.

Ofcom is now much closer to their aim of simplifying the numbering system and call charges.
Inclusive in allowances - 01, 02, 03, 070, 071-075, 077-079 (except landlines and mobiles in CI and IoM)
Free at all times - 080, 116 (plus 101 {from 1 April 2020}, 105, 111, 112/999)
Premium rate - 084, 087, 09, 118.
This leaves minor anomalies with 055, 056 and 076.

Ian01 wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2019 at 2:14pm:

In reviving a five year old thread, be aware that call charges changed significantly some four years ago, giving much needed clarity. Calls to 080 numbers are now free in all circumstances. Calls to 084, 087 and 09 numbers are now split into two component parts. Calls to 084 and 087 numbers are never cheaper than calling 01, 02 or 03 numbers and are usually very much more expensive. Calls to 01, 02 and 03 numbers are normally made as part of an inclusive calls allowance at no further charge. Comparison of 03, 080 and 084/087 numbers is now much easier. See the plain English piece at https://www.nidirect.gov.uk/articles/contacting-08-and-03-numbers This now clearly shows 084, 087 and 09 numbers as "premium rate". The premium is the additional Service Charge. This website therefore helps users find inclusive 01, 02 or 03 numbers or free-to-caller 080 numbers in place of expensive 084 and 087 numbers. Additionally, termination rates for calls to UK mobile numbers starting 071 to 075 and 077 to 079 have continued to fall such that these calls are now routinely inclusive in allowances on the same basis as calls to UK geographic numbers starting 01 and 02, and to non-geographic numbers starting 03. From 1 October 2019, the reduction in termination rates for calls to personal numbers starting 070 will allow these calls to be included in allowances on the same basis as calls to UK mobile numbers.

In short, the wordage is your way of saying "Hypocrisy denied".

Mobile calls these days are only more expensive when called from a BT landline or when called from BT sub brands such as Plusnet who quite disgustingly fail to include mobile numbers in their Anytime call plans.  By contrast competitors such as TalkTalk, Sky and Now Tv include mobile numbers in call bundles and of course all EE mobile plans (a company owned by BT) with inclusive calls include mobile numbers in the bundle.

BT's overcharging of its own landline customers to call mobiles simply reflects the continuing distortive market power of the BT group who know that they can get away with charging ripoff prices to call mobiles from landlines because of their incumbent legacy market position (especially strong with older customers reluctant to change away from a company they mistakenly trust).  BT Group also rips off all prisoners in UK prisons by charging them 13p per minute to mobiles and only 6p to landlines and then also quite disgracefully having got HM Prison Services to impose a prison rule saying prisoners should not call any 01/02/03 number known to divert to a mobile to save the prisoner money.  Yet there is no reason for such a rule as all prisoner phone calls are recorded and since mobile phones came in to being an 07 mobile number on a prisoner's approved caller list can currently be sitting anywhere in the world at any time (unlike former landline only days when the prison service rule had some practical effect as an extra security measure).  So just the same old scam in place as with Patientline where patients were banned from using their own mobiles on hospital wards to protect the disgusting and also clearly illegal misuse of 070 follow me numbers by Patientline in cahoots with BT Group.

But I can't see the point being made here claiming we are contributing to the whole scam with our mobile phones as these days almost everyone has a mobile phone call bundle with as many minutes of calls per month as they normally make and these bundles now always include calls to mobile numbers.  So while it is true a tiny number of older people who only use landlines for phone calls (these get less and less every year) are being vastly overcharged to call mobiles that is because BT Openreach acts uncompetitively in terminating calls from the fixed line network to the mobile network at excessive premium prices and/or because the mobile companies are also making these excess termination charges to connect landlines to their users.

In any case my £10 per month package with Giff Gaff gives me unlimited calls to 01/02/03 and 075-079 numbers plus 6Gb of data and as almost no one pays extra to call mobiles any more the point being made is simply not valid any longer in my humble opinion.  It would have been valid to some extent prior to 3 or more years ago.

I suspect the OP who started this thread is in fact highly embedded in the revenue share gravy train industry (may be he even works for one of the UK share registrars like Link Asset Servces still illegally using 0871 numbers for customers contact, despite my detailed complaint explaining why it was illegal to do so) and is feeling sour about his nice little earner being crushed by the actions of our group so has made his post here in order to have a pop at us...............

Plusnet has an Anytime call plan with inclusive calls to UK mobile numbers and has done for a number of years:
https://www.plus.net/home-broadband/call-plans/
https://www.plus.net/help/legal/residential-phone-tariffs/

The cap on the Mobile Termination Rate is currently 0.49p per minute and has been lower than 0.6p per minute for at least the last four years. This covers calls to all mobile numbers starting 071 to 075 and 077 to 079 allocated to all providers in the UK. It does not cover mobile numbers allocated in CI or IoM.

Mobile numbers are no longer limited to the 077 to 079 number ranges, they are also to be found in the 071 to 075 number ranges. Indeed, the 074 and 075 ranges are already fully allocated and 073 is well on the way.

BT seems to be more interested in including calls to premium rate 0845 and 0870 numbers in call plans than including mobile numbers. BT Business still sells 0845 and 0870 numbers to businesses on the basis they are "free [sic] to call from BT landlines". However, BT does now have an Add-on for calling mobile numbers, and if BT follows the same path that they have for other Add-ons, this will become a standard feature at some point.

Ian01 wrote on Sep 26^th, 2019 at 11:36pm:

Plusnet has an Anytime call plan with inclusive calls to UK mobile numbers and has done for a number of years: https://www.plus.net/home-broadband/call-plans/ https://www.plus.net/help/legal/residential-phone-tariffs/

But the problem is that the Anytime UK & Mobile calls now costs £8 per month extra whereas anytime calls to other landline only used to cost as little as £4 or £5 per month extra to the best of my memory. Whereas £10 per month with GiffGaff gives me unlimited landline and mobile calls and unlimited texts and 6Gb of mobile data.  So £8 per month just for slightly better call quality on a landline than a mobile and no dropped calls is an awful lot to pay for one person.  Of course for a whole family of four or five this bolt on would constitute better value for money.

As far as I am concerned any broadband provider that also offers mobile like Plusnet ought to be including unlimited calls on the landline too for far less.  Also Plusnet are currently ripping me off for £32 for 16Mbps copper broadband just because they don't offer fibre to the premises (we don't have a fibre to the cabinet option) and I didn't want to get in to another 18 month contract when I was thinking of moving some time soon.

Its also rubbish that all these broadband providers only offer their lowest prices to people they blackmail in to repeat renewing 18 month contracts as this means anyone who downsizes and combines with another household or moves abroad loses out in a big way in penalty charges (as you only don't pay termination charges if you can move your broadband service to another address you are moving to). :o >:( :'(

I've been with Plusnet for a quite a while and ISTR the anytime package without mobiles used to be £6 or £7. CErtainly not been £4 or £5 for a long time if ever.

The whole business of penalising loyal customers is true across not just phone and internet but all sorts of other sectors. Energy, insurance etc.

With Plusnet I've usually been able to negotiate something close to "new customer" prices each year or so.

I'm not saying that Plusnet are good, just that they're better than most of the mass market ISPs. If I wanted top notch service I'd go to Zen or AAISP and pay rather more for the privilege.

allegro wrote on Sep 29^th, 2019 at 7:42am:

I've been with Plusnet for a quite a while and ISTR the anytime package without mobiles used to be £6 or £7. CErtainly not been £4 or £5 for a long time if ever.

The cheapest Anytime call packages without mobile calls certainly were only £4 or £5 per month and currently NowTv is doing a year of copper ADSL broadband and  phone line with Anytime Calls that include mobiles and significant cashback on top for only £18 per month for a 12 month contract.

So I would say £8 per month for Anytime Calls on top of £32 per month for copper phone line and broadband with Plusnet as an old customer is pretty expensive.

The regulators should be stopping all of these ridiculous inducements to change company (all of which wastes money on marketing and promotion) on utilities while people are punished and ripped off for staying where they are.

The reason this happens is because marketing people and CEOs only get measured on new customers and not on the net customer position.  If treating old customers well to avoid losing them had as much value as acquiring new ones then all of these ridiculous inducements to change company would end.

Same thing with low cost flights and if the regulators had forced flight search engines to include an option for a hold bag or things like priority boarding or having an allocated seat then Ryanair and Easyjet would not have grown and prospered in the way that they have done.

On calls to UK mobile numbers the termination rate is just under 0.5p per minute as opposed to the termination rate for calls to landline numbers being far far less than 0.1p per minute. It is completely expected that a package that has inclusive calls to landline numbers, 03 numbers and mobile numbers would be a couple of pounds per month more expensive than one that includes only calls to landline numbers and 03 numbers.

From 1 October 2019, packages that include calls to mobile numbers will begin to also include calls to personal numbers starting 070. These will also have a termination rate of under 0.5p per minute from that date.

Ian01 wrote on Sep 29^th, 2019 at 10:11am:

It is completely expected that a package that has inclusive calls to landline numbers, 03 numbers and mobile numbers would be a couple of pounds per month more expensive than one that includes only calls to landline numbers and 03 numbers.

Then how come almost every mobile package that has inclusive calls also includes mobile numbers as well as landlines at no extra cost over a package of calls only to landlines.  Or rather a long time ago some mobile operators gave unlimited minutes to landlines and a defined number of minutes to mobiles but those plans have long since vanished because the cost of calling another mobile compared to a landline from a mobile is practically nothing extra and/or because being able to only make unlimited calls to landlines is no longer useful as a marketing proposition.


Quote:

From 1 October 2019, packages that include calls to mobile numbers will begin to also include calls to personal numbers starting 070. These will also have a termination rate of under 0.5p per minute from that date.

Well fat difference that will make then given that the only people who have ever used 070 numbers are scammers like Patientline and Retainacar and they have never been used for their stated purpose of personal Follow Me Numbers (such numbers are in any case free per minute to run in 01/02 Voip form from sipgate.co.uk).

If Ofcom wasn't such a totally gutless in the pocket creation of the telecoms industry they would have simply banned 070 numbers along with all 084 and 087 numbers on a few months advance notice.

A few 070 numbers were used (abused?) by legitiimate companies.One that comes to mind is Davlav, where I used to see their trucks with 070 numbers on them. They seem to have dropped the 070 phone number but may still retain it for fax: http://business-east.britishfirms.co.uk/grays/davlav-portable-toilets-grays/

There may have been others but on the whole 070 numbers were a scam from start to finish. Should have been killed off by Ofcom long ago. Looking back, we were discussing the 070 problem on sayno back in 2005.

allegro wrote on Sep 30^th, 2019 at 10:05pm:

A few 070 numbers were used (abused?) by legitiimate companies.One that comes to mind is Davlav, where I used to see their trucks with 070 numbers on them.

Not to mention Saints, whose lorries still had 07000 SAINTS and 07000 FAXSTS on them last time I noticed, as in this picture, although the numbers don't seem to be on their website,
http://saints.co.uk/contact-us/

The 07000 numbers are visible on the truck shown in that link.

That's what he said.