Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
SAYNOTO0870.COM

<---- Back to main website

 
Home Help Search Login Register

Pages: 1 ... 12 13 14 15 16 ... 19
Send Topic Print
Doctors' phone line use reviewed - DH consultation (Read 198,067 times)
NGMsGhost
Supreme Member
*****
Offline


The Forum Ghost of NonGeographicalMan<b
r />

Posts: 2,708
Surrey, United Kingdom
Gender: male
Re: Doctors' phone line use reviewed - DH consulta
Reply #195 - Oct 19th, 2009 at 12:02am
 
SilentCallsVictim wrote on Oct 18th, 2009 at 11:54pm:
Please do not tell me that the money lost by abandoning revenue sharing can all come out of the salaries of doctors, senior civil servants and private sector executives, or that it will be distributed around out of the money saved by telephone companies in not having to pay for Ofcom, when it is abolished by a new government.


What an excellent idea SCV.

I think you may just have hit on the solution to the whole problem although for the sake of simplicity I would have no problem whatsoever with requiring just the GPs themselves to pick up the cost of cancelling their contracts with NEG out of their own personal salaries rather than using the budgets of the GP practices that they work for.

After all it seems to be only natural justice that they should suffer the financial consequences of their own original poor judgement in signing these deals largely for their own financial benefit and against the financial interests of their patients.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Oct 19th, 2009 at 12:38am by NGMsGhost »  

<div style=
 
IP Logged
 
Dave
Global Moderator
*****
Offline



Posts: 9,901
Yorkshire
Gender: male
Re: Doctors' phone line use reviewed - DH consulta
Reply #196 - Oct 19th, 2009 at 12:20am
 
SilentCallsVictim wrote on Oct 18th, 2009 at 11:54pm:
… It risks being pushed under the carpet due to inevitable confusion about BT tariffs. …

Should we be calling for an end or change to the "NTS Condition" regulation on BT that causes the premiums associated with "revenue sharing" numbers to be hidden? With all the nonsense that is going on; those benefitting claiming ignorance, it would seem like a good idea. That said, call prices will probably rise.  Undecided  Undecided
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
NGMsGhost
Supreme Member
*****
Offline


The Forum Ghost of NonGeographicalMan<b
r />

Posts: 2,708
Surrey, United Kingdom
Gender: male
Re: Doctors' phone line use reviewed - DH consulta
Reply #197 - Oct 19th, 2009 at 12:40am
 
Dave wrote on Oct 19th, 2009 at 12:20am:
SilentCallsVictim wrote on Oct 18th, 2009 at 11:54pm:
… It risks being pushed under the carpet due to inevitable confusion about BT tariffs. …

Should we be calling for an end or change to the "NTS Condition" regulation on BT that causes the premiums associated with "revenue sharing" numbers to be hidden? With all the nonsense that is going on; those benefitting claiming ignorance, it would seem like a good idea. That said, call prices will probably rise.  Undecided  Undecided


Or at least the prices of non bundled calls will rise or if not the price of the call bundles will rise instead.

A case of heads they win and tails they win I fear........................
Back to top
 

<div style=
 
IP Logged
 
Dave
Global Moderator
*****
Offline



Posts: 9,901
Yorkshire
Gender: male
Re: Doctors' phone line use reviewed - DH consulta
Reply #198 - Oct 19th, 2009 at 12:44am
 
NGMsGhost wrote on Oct 19th, 2009 at 12:40am:
Dave wrote on Oct 19th, 2009 at 12:20am:
SilentCallsVictim wrote on Oct 18th, 2009 at 11:54pm:
… It risks being pushed under the carpet due to inevitable confusion about BT tariffs. …

Should we be calling for an end or change to the "NTS Condition" regulation on BT that causes the premiums associated with "revenue sharing" numbers to be hidden? With all the nonsense that is going on; those benefitting claiming ignorance, it would seem like a good idea. That said, call prices will probably rise.  Undecided  Undecided


Or at least the prices of non bundled calls will rise or if not the price of the call bundles will rise instead.

A case of heads they win and tails they win I fear........................

Perhaps any changes should be introduced in phases.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Oct 19th, 2009 at 12:45am by Dave »  
 
IP Logged
 
SilentCallsVictim
Supreme Member
*****
Offline


aka NHS.Patient, DH_fairtelecoms

Posts: 2,488
Re: Doctors' phone line use reviewed - DH consulta
Reply #199 - Oct 19th, 2009 at 1:14am
 
Dave wrote on Oct 19th, 2009 at 12:20am:
Should we be calling for an end or change to the "NTS Condition" regulation on BT that causes the premiums associated with "revenue sharing" numbers to be hidden?


A simple answer to that question would depend on the effect that it would be known to have, i.e. how BT would propose to use the freedom that would result.

If the simple rules of economics applied, then BT would aim to take a similar margin on these calls to that which it does on others, however it would be constrained by the market. In theory, the cost of 084 calls would rise and that of others (which presently must cross-subsidise by providing BT with coverage of its general overheads and profit) would fall. I would at least need to be reassured of the latter before putting my weight behind such a campaign.

One could argue that because BT already treats 0845 numbers in the same way as geo numbers in respect of inclusive calls, then it could readily do the same when non-inclusive. That does not however help a great deal because this would still represent a distortion, as the greater cost is hidden. When a whole variety of cases are bundled together in a package there is inevitably a high degree of cross funding, e.g. light users pay for the calls of heavier users. In the same way those who have no calls to 0845 numbers in their inclusive calls pay for those who do. If we are seeking visibility of the premium then non-inclusive 0845 calls would have to be more expensive. BT would find that very hard to sell, given the fuss it made about them last January.

Current users acquired 0844 and 0845 numbers on the basis of an assurance about the cost of calls from BT. They and their callers would undoubtedly feel aggrieved if prices rose, especially in the case of 0844 where they selected a particular price level (if only from BT).

The common view seems to be that the revenue share on 0845 will end at some point in the not too distant future, i.e. within the next five years. This will be somewhat similar to what happened with its original partner, 0870.

This would leave the mess of 0844/3 as a mess. Without the price fixing, 0844 would make no sense at all. Without BT as the dominant market player, price fixing for a single provider makes no sense at all. As the market moves towards use of mobiles, which do not respect the full complexity of the 0844 call types, then the whole thing becomes meaningless. This is why Ofcom does not want to touch it.

My own view, which is based on only a limited understanding of the possible valid uses of the lower grade 0844 ranges, is that it should be scrapped as soon as possible. 0871/2/3 already includes a 6p per minute option for the 5p per minute crew, which should meet their needs. 0874 could be reserved for migration. If I knew more about the uses of the .5p/1p/2p per minute and the fixed rate per call ranges (if anyone uses them when they cost up to 40p per minute from a mobile) then I would say more.

As things stand, it is my considered view that we will have to work as hard as we can to explain the fact that BT is the anomaly, the one whose charges vary from the norm, rather than the opposite.

Campaigning for tax increases is one thing, campaigning for telephone call costs to be raised is another.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Oct 19th, 2009 at 1:18am by SilentCallsVictim »  
WWW  
IP Logged
 
SilentCallsVictim
Supreme Member
*****
Offline


aka NHS.Patient, DH_fairtelecoms

Posts: 2,488
Re: Doctors' phone line use reviewed - DH consulta
Reply #200 - Oct 19th, 2009 at 1:21am
 
NGMsGhost wrote on Oct 19th, 2009 at 12:40am:
A case of heads they win and tails they win I fear........................

Of course "they" win! Which businesses do you want to fail.
Back to top
 
WWW  
IP Logged
 
NGMsGhost
Supreme Member
*****
Offline


The Forum Ghost of NonGeographicalMan<b
r />

Posts: 2,708
Surrey, United Kingdom
Gender: male
Re: Doctors' phone line use reviewed - DH consulta
Reply #201 - Oct 19th, 2009 at 1:39am
 
SilentCallsVictim wrote on Oct 19th, 2009 at 1:21am:
Of course "they" win! Which businesses do you want to fail.


Businesses that are based on lieing to and cheating the customer and which do not deliver any actually useful services deserve to fail.

Why are you one of those people who believes that businesses can do anything in the name of profit, even if it means breaking the law or murdering people?
Back to top
 

<div style=
 
IP Logged
 
SilentCallsVictim
Supreme Member
*****
Offline


aka NHS.Patient, DH_fairtelecoms

Posts: 2,488
Re: Doctors' phone line use reviewed - DH consulta
Reply #202 - Oct 19th, 2009 at 2:54am
 
NGMsGhost wrote on Oct 19th, 2009 at 1:39am:
SilentCallsVictim wrote on Oct 19th, 2009 at 1:21am:
Of course "they" win! Which businesses do you want to fail.


Businesses that are based on lieing to and cheating the customer and which do not deliver any actually useful services deserve to fail.


The first part sounds like all businesses, and the second like none.

Quote:
Why are you one of those people who believes that businesses can do anything in the name of profit, even if it means breaking the law or murdering people?

I used to be, before I stopped beating my wife.

Most businesses justify their existence on the basis of helping the economy, providing employment and providing goods and services that some people are prepared to pay for. Businesses that cannot make a profit adequate to serve their investors do fail, whether they deserve to or not.

I certainly believe that every business is capable of breaking the law, although I cannot recall ever advocating or justifying such conduct. I cannot think of a situation where murdering people is not breaking the law, so I cannot comment on those who would take this course of action as an alternative to law breaking.


NGMsGhost wrote on Oct 19th, 2009 at 12:02am:
I would have no problem whatsoever with requiring just the GPs themselves to pick up the cost of cancelling their contracts with NEG out of their own personal salaries rather than using the budgets of the GP practices that they work for.

I wonder if retrospective "anti-incorporation" legislation will be a feature of any of the party manifestos at the forthcoming general election.

Allowing people to hide behind the terms of an incorporated partnership, or employment in a corporate body of any form, is a severe obstacle to natural justice.
Back to top
 
WWW  
IP Logged
 
NGMsGhost
Supreme Member
*****
Offline


The Forum Ghost of NonGeographicalMan<b
r />

Posts: 2,708
Surrey, United Kingdom
Gender: male
Re: Doctors' phone line use reviewed - DH consulta
Reply #203 - Oct 19th, 2009 at 9:31am
 
SilentCallsVictim wrote on Oct 19th, 2009 at 2:54am:
Allowing people to hide behind the terms of an incorporated partnership, or employment in a corporate body of any form, is a severe obstacle to natural justice.


Arter the recent banking crisis I came to the conclusion that incorporation and completely unlimited liability in general was a severe obstacle to the delivery of natural justice.

Most directors of culpable banks (not least Sir Fred Goodwin) have largely evaded natural justice due to the existence of this unrestricted limited liability.

Your contention that all businesses must apparently operate on an ethical and commercial model similar to that utilised by NEG I find to be both untrue and unpalatable.  I see plenty of businesses that make a profit but still deliver high quality services that are run in the best interests of their clients.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Oct 19th, 2009 at 9:33am by NGMsGhost »  

<div style=
 
IP Logged
 
SilentCallsVictim
Supreme Member
*****
Offline


aka NHS.Patient, DH_fairtelecoms

Posts: 2,488
Re: Doctors' phone line use reviewed - DH consulta
Reply #204 - Oct 19th, 2009 at 5:12pm
 
NGMsGhost wrote on Oct 19th, 2009 at 9:31am:
Your contention that all businesses must apparently operate on an ethical and commercial model similar to that utilised by NEG I find to be both untrue and unpalatable.

It is regrettable that businesses practice deceit whilst appearing to be ethical. Life would be much easier if all crooks wore an eye mask and carried a bag labelled "swag" at all times. It is a sad fact of life that we have to swallow the unpalatable fact that this is not the case.

I am surprised at the contention that many businesses do not even appear to be ethical. The robust defence of its position mounted by NEG certainly does not indicate a readiness to appear to be unethical, quite the reverse. Every representative of NEG that I have encountered has totally failed to convince me of their honesty and integrity, in some cases they have not even bothered to try, deliberately withdrawing from public engagement with me. They have however clearly succeeded in appearing to be honest and ethical in the eyes of some.

I do not believe that NEG would bother to go to such lengths to set out its claims in public if all of its current and potential customers were similarly unethical and willing knowing participants in a deception of others.
Back to top
 
WWW  
IP Logged
 
redant
Junior Member
**
Offline



Posts: 86
Re: Doctors' phone line use reviewed - DH consulta
Reply #205 - Oct 22nd, 2009 at 6:31pm
 
 
  I have to attend the Portishead Medical Centre, and note the number is 0844 477 3286.  The information they give regarding the use of 0844 numbers is that the 0844 number costs less than a BT local call (no mention of calls from mobiles) and would ask the question can this be true? Can anybody please advise me as I want to take this up with them.  A copy of the details from their news report is attached below:
    
 
     Consultation on 084 telephone numbers 15/9/2009   
   

Following the recent public consultation on the use of 084 telephone numbers in the NHS, the Department of Health have now issued their conclusions.

They recommend that 0844 numbers can continue to be used as long as a premium rate is not charged. 'Premium rate’ means a call that costs more than a local call.

Calls to our telephone number (0844 477 3283) actually cost very slightly less than a BT local call. As a result of this ruling we are hopeful that telephone service providers will now be forced to include 084 telephone numbers alongside 01.. and 02.. numbers in their call packages.

We will pass on further information as soon as it becomes available.









   

   
Portishead Medical Group website
Portishead Health Centre, Victoria Square, Portishead BS20 6AQ
Tel 0844 477 3283 Fax 0844 477 3286



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

© 2004 Designed by Dr Luke Koupparis
{NHS Zero Tolerance website} {Practice policy on violence} {Removal policy}
   



Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Dave
Global Moderator
*****
Offline



Posts: 9,901
Yorkshire
Gender: male
Re: Doctors' phone line use reviewed - DH consulta
Reply #206 - Oct 22nd, 2009 at 6:54pm
 
redant wrote on Oct 22nd, 2009 at 6:31pm:
I have to attend the Portishead Medical Centre, and note the number is 0844 477 3286.  The information they give regarding the use of 0844 numbers is that the 0844 number costs less than a BT local call (no mention of calls from mobiles) and would ask the question can this be true? …

It is now true because the cost of a 0844 call is 4.89 pence per minute inclusive of VAT, but the cost of a "local" call on a non-inclusive package is 5.25 pence per minute.

Think of it like this. If I were to tell you that you can buy a lottery ticket for the price of a can of Coke, would you believe me? Of course you can! In airports and other such locations vending machines charge £1 or more for a can of Coke.


What provider are you with and which tariff?
Back to top
« Last Edit: Oct 22nd, 2009 at 7:36pm by Dave »  
 
IP Logged
 
Dave
Global Moderator
*****
Offline



Posts: 9,901
Yorkshire
Gender: male
Re: Doctors' phone line use reviewed - DH consulta
Reply #207 - Oct 22nd, 2009 at 7:47pm
 
Portishead Medical Centre should take a leaf out of nearby Harbourside Family Practice, based in the Marina Health Centre which opened earlier this year as its number is not a local 01275 number but a 0300 one.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
redant
Junior Member
**
Offline



Posts: 86
Re: Doctors' phone line use reviewed - DH consulta
Reply #208 - Oct 22nd, 2009 at 8:10pm
 
Hi Dave
I am sad to admit to "talktalk" inclusive package i.e all calls at any time (except non-geo of course) and broadband.  Transferred from onetel to the 18 month contract.  The 0844 is cheaper if compared to BT "local" rate, but does not, of course, take into account mobile phones.  If I have to call it will be on my mobile and this is what angers me.  The government seem to have really lost the plot on this issue-but did not really expect anything else?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Heinz
Supreme Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 1,362
Essex
Re: Doctors' phone line use reviewed - DH consulta
Reply #209 - Oct 22nd, 2009 at 8:18pm
 
Dave wrote on Oct 22nd, 2009 at 6:54pm:
It is now true because the cost of a 0844 call is 4.89 pence per minute inclusive of VAT, but the cost of a "local" call on a non-inclusive package is 5.25 pence per minute.

http://www.saynoto0870.com/cgi-bin/forum/YaBB.cgi?num=1229408403/190#190
Quote:
I predict it will result in no action and NHS use of 5p/minute 0844 numbers will be allowed to continue now that BT, still the largest calls provider (and, despite so-called competition, the one the others follow), has raised its standard weekday daytime rate for 01, 02 and 03 calls (for those not on their Unlimited Anytime Plan) to 5.25p/minute.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Oct 22nd, 2009 at 8:18pm by Heinz »  

After years of ignoring govt. guidelines & RIPPING OFF Council Tax payers using 0845 numbers, Essex County Council changed to 0345 numbers on 2 November 2015
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 ... 12 13 14 15 16 ... 19
Send Topic Print
(Moderators: Forum Admin, Dave, bbb_uk, CJT-80, DaveM)

Website and Content © 1999-2019 SAYNOTO0870.COM. All Rights Reserved.
Written permission is required to duplicate any of the content within this site.

WARNING: This is an open forum, posts are NOT endorsed by SAYNOTO0870.COM,
please exercise due caution when acting on any info from here.


SAYNOTO0870.COM » Powered by YaBB 2.5.2!
YaBB Forum Software © 2000-2019. All Rights Reserved.


Valid RSS Valid XHTML Valid CSS Powered by Perl Source Forge