lucaltmann,

This is the common misconception! The issue is not about whether any operator makes a profit from the covert Premiums after taking account of the cost of paying their staff to answer the telephone!

The whole principal of the switched public network has always been that the calling subscriber pays for the cost of a proper telephone call at the applicable rate, except with so called Freephone numbers (and then of course there are exceptions where the call is paid for twice over). The caller does not pay wages to the called subscriber to answer their telephone, nor should ever do so. This is what this scam is all about - deliberate deceit. A company employing staff pays them wages, out of their gross profit. If an operator offers a true value-added service on an overt Premium number and a caller objectively decides to call that number then they are agreeing to pay the Premium, except that as currently configured normal UK contract law is being manipulated and in reality contravened. There is no proper invitation to treat and acceptance, particularly with situations like Trojan diallers and Premium text messages. In the case of an overt Premium number, if the operator decides to use part of the Premiums received to pay their staff then that is justifiable, since an added-value service is being provided.

What organisations and entities are doing with covert use of Premium NGNs with queuing allowed is to rip-off their callers. It is all about greed, and by reducing their wage bill using the illicit covert Premiums they are just exhibiting gross greed, since they have already been paid by the caller in one way or another to provide the service, particularly since in most instances the call is actually about errors which the operating entity has made in actually delivering that service which they have already been paid by the customer to provide.

lucaltmann wrote on Feb 5^th, 2007 at 10:43am:


Voting lines for celebrity ball room dancers are a different issue as its not essential to call them.  Also they are on 09 numbers which are not covert premium rate and have their call costs clearly revealed.

People should be able to feed back their views on BBC programs for the price of a normal phone call and not a premium rate one.  And the most objectionable aspect of this scam, which you and your colleagues writing reports for these scammers so clearly seem to endorse, is that a premium rate number is presented to the caller as being Lo-Call and National Rate when it is no such thing.  Therefore they do not make a rational economic choice about whether to call it.  Had these scammers been forced to present these customer services numbers as premium rate then people like the BBC would never have dared to use them.

You seem to fail to acknowledge that many issues with companies can only be resolved via a two way phone call.  If you try and email the company often deliberately ducks the issue.  And as I said before you are clearly such an overpaid yuppie constantly selling the next ripoff consultancy report service, with probably a wife or girlfriend to do the household drudgery, that you seem totally unable to understand a normal consumer perspective on this issue.

Why waste our time Mr Altmann when you are clearly a paid  up card carrying member of the NTS call centre industry fraternity in spirit and are writing a report aimed at further aiding the continuation of their scurrilous and deceitful industry.

Just noticed that Going Places has changed the numbers for each of its branches from 0870 to 0871. These 0871s are listed on its website and on BT Phone Book.

This is an example of a company that likes to profit covertly and proves that 0870 was put there in the first place to get revenue. Should we be suprised that calls to these 0871s are charged at 10p/min at all times from a BT landline? 

If any organisation really has to make money out of calls to pay wages etc, why can’t they be honest and use an “09" number.