Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
SAYNOTO0870.COM

<---- Back to main website

 
Home Help Search Login Register

Pages: 1 2 3 ... 5
Send Topic Print
Ofcom consultation - Review of non-geo calls 2010 (Read 86,711 times)
idb
Supreme Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 1,499
Miami, Florida, United States
Gender: male
Ofcom consultation - Review of non-geo calls 2010
May 1st, 2010 at 9:46pm
 
<<
Ofcom today published a call for inputs which seeks initial stakeholder views on its review of non-geographic phone numbers (03, 070, 08, 09 and 118).

The document can be found here: http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/ngnservices/
>>

1.1 We are reviewing the rules governing non-geographic calls services delivered to consumers using telephone numbers beginning with 03, 070, 08, 09 and 118.

1.2 Under the Communications Act, Ofcom creates and defines these number ranges through our responsibility for the maintenance and development of the National Telephone Numbering Plan and responsibilities with respect to telecommunication systems regulations and dispute resolution.

1.3 Using these telephone numbers, a wide range of services are offered to callers (consumers) and to public and private organisations who receive calls. Delivering these services involves a diverse set of participants , joined in complex commercial relationships that have been shaped by, amongst other things, regulation.

1.4 We want to consider whether and if so how regulation might need to be adapted or reduced, in the interests of consumers. We want any reform to enhance (or at least preserve) the features consumers value, and encourage new services for the benefit of consumers.

1.5 This 'Call for Inputs' asks for views, from all interested parties including consumers, about the main issues relating to non-geographic numbers before developing our detailed options and proposals. The responses we receive will help us identify the issues and frame our thinking and approach to addressing them. We, therefore, urge all respondents to be as full and frank as possible in responding to this call for inputs.

1.6 As well as calling for inputs, we are reviewing existing approaches (our own and others) and surveying consumers (callers) to understand how and why they value (or do not value) these services. We are also gathering information on the technical and financial structure of the markets via requests for information through our formal powers and targeted questions to stakeholders at different points in the value chain.

1.7 Once we have reviewed all the information and views, we plan to publish our analysis and our proposals, in the autumn.

Questions

To help you in deciding what points you wish to make, we have suggested some questions below. We will consider all the views set out and information provided with responses, not only those focused on these questions.
Consumer experience

   * Does today's market for non-geographic call services work well for consumers (callers)?
   * Are the services satisfactory in terms of value for money, quality and range of services?
   * Are consumers able to access the services with confidence and with sufficient understanding of what is being provided and what are the terms of the sale?

If not:

   * What aspects of it do not work well?
   * What are the observed outcomes or characteristics of the services that you think demonstrate that the market is not working well?
   * What do you consider to be the cause of those negative impacts?
   * Are there particular concerns with respect to specific number ranges?
   * What changes would you suggest? How would these address the issues you have raised?
   * Is there a requirement for changes to the National Telephone Numbering Plan in terms of changes to the definition or controls over the number ranges?
   * Are the ways the services are currently provided and charged for equitable, in that do they treat different types of consumers fairly or are some types of consumers disadvantaged in terms of access to services or the costs of services?
Back to top
« Last Edit: Apr 17th, 2013 at 3:56pm by Dave »  

As from November 21, 2013, I no longer participate in the forum and am unable to receive private messages.
 
IP Logged
 
SilentCallsVictim
Supreme Member
*****
Offline


aka NHS.Patient, DH_fairtelecoms

Posts: 2,493
Re: Ofcom consultation - Review of non-geo calls
Reply #1 - May 1st, 2010 at 11:34pm
 
There have been hints in the forum that this was coming. I offer some random thoughts.

We may have doubts about how far Ofcom is truly open to suggestions, however the stated terms of this exercise deny us the opportunity to claim that those who contribute to the forum were not asked to present their ideas. The way the suggested questions are framed suggests that Ofcom is well aware of where the concerns lie.

I must remind readers and members of the forum that there is no formal group in existence which would be naturally responsible for presenting a response on behalf of saynoto0870.

There is the possibility that someone could be asked (or could choose) to collect together many of the ideas posted in the forum and present them as a collection of anonymous ideas. Presenting a specific set of opinions as being representative of the members of the forum in general is a more difficult task, as this would require some expression of consent to be valid. (Prior publication with the opportunity to register dissent over a reasonable period could be deemed adequate.)

More difficult yet is the idea of presenting specific proposals for action that Ofcom could take. Ofcom exists by statute and it cannot shut itself down, which makes a highly popular suggestion unfeasible. Whilst it is independent of government, Ofcom is open to political pressure and it could face near abolition under proposals presented by one party currently hoping to form the next government. The strong bias against increased regulation, which has been pressed by the (for the moment) current government, is echoed or exceeded by those likely to participate in a possible new government. This is reflected in the comments quoted above. Very few of the votes likely to be cast next Thursday will be counted as being in favour of increased regulation.

Those who wish for services to be withdrawn or for wholly new regulations (within the scope of Ofcom's powers) to be introduced, must state their case, or express their opinion. I would however suggest that there may be more purpose in suggesting achievable alternatives. Proposals for action outside the scope of Ofcom's powers will doubtless be received and may be passed on, but they would perhaps be better directed appropriately.

The comments suggest that the specific proposals that will emerge from Ofcom's work will themselves be presented for consultation where this is thought appropriate. It must be understood that Ofcom already has many ideas, but wishes to take this opportunity to test the strength of public opinion and to invite insiders to present their views in public.

If members feel that there should be some collective action on behalf of "saynoto0870" to either present some type of collective response, or perhaps attempt to engage the media to encourage widespread public response on any specific point, then volunteers will need to become engaged to lead and to undertake this work.

Any offers?
Back to top
 
WWW  
IP Logged
 
CJT-80
Global Moderator
*****
Offline



Posts: 1,665
London
Gender: male
Re: Ofcom consultation - Review of non-geo calls
Reply #2 - May 3rd, 2010 at 5:13pm
 
In reply to IDB, I followed all the links given by Ofcom, and repsonded to their consultation request..

below is my reponse:

"Depending which service you deal with depends on whether the use of a NGN is justified or not.

For example the continued use of these numbers in the Health Service, such as Dr's Surgeries or the NHS Direct line is un justified and nothing more then a percieved money making exercise. NGN numbers with a standard 01/02 charging rate already exist.. so these should already be used where an 01/02 number cannot. The general public should NOT pay for access to these services.

This has been allowed to go on for longer than it should, party due to the clever marketing campaigns and mis-information given over the cost of calling such numbers.. eg calling an 0844 number on BT cost around 15p for the 1st minute alone!

If these numbers are allowed to be in use in general, they need tighter regulation, including CLEARER call charges regardless of if you use a Landline or Mobile. Currently most quoted call charges relate to the use of a BT line only!

Also the sheer amount of numbers in each catergory
adds to the confusion. ie 0843/0844/0845, and equally 0870/0871/0872. The confusion this causes only serves to benefit the companies who use these numbers, and has a detrimental cost effect on the end using calling these numbers.

Overall BETTER and Clearer pricing info needs to be implimented ASAP! Simply saying "local rates" is no longer enough or even factual.

Ofcom also needs to make sure this consultation is made available to as wider audience as possible."

I feel the more people who are told of this consulation the better the potential feedback to Ofcom.

Back to top
 

Regards,

CJT-80

Any comments made are my own and are not those of SayNoTo0870.com
 
IP Logged
 
Dave
Global Moderator
*****
Offline



Posts: 9,901
Yorkshire
Gender: male
Re: Ofcom consultation - Review of non-geo calls
Reply #3 - May 5th, 2010 at 11:16pm
 
I have just looked at this consultation, and I was surprised to find that the full consultation document only runs to seven pages, the meat of which covers just four pages. So it can be read in full quickly unlike many others.

I would like members to post their thoughts here. The deadline for receipt of responses by Ofcom is Friday 28th May 2010.
Back to top
« Last Edit: May 5th, 2010 at 11:20pm by Dave »  
 
IP Logged
 
SilentCallsVictim
Supreme Member
*****
Offline


aka NHS.Patient, DH_fairtelecoms

Posts: 2,493
Re: Ofcom consultation - Review of non-geo calls
Reply #4 - May 19th, 2010 at 3:48pm
 
It is perhaps disappointing that there has been no extensive discussion in this thread on what action Ofcom should now be taking.

Do we want action to be taken on this issue for the benefit of all, or are we content to moan about it whilst offering alternative numbers wherever we can?


I offer below a brief summary of my own proposals. I remain very keen to hear what other suggestions members may have, and to engage in serious discussion on any considered points.

1. Revenue sharing on 0845 must be ended, in the same way as for 0870. BT is clearly ready to do the job for Ofcom in the same way as it did for 0870.

2. 0844/3 must be designated in some way that makes them recognisable as being similar to PRS, but without the nonsense of formally classifying them as such, for now. Phonepay Plus could not cope, and it is quite ridiculous to classify those who draw a modest subsidy from revenue sharing in the same group as those who use it as their primary source of income.

There are many problems and complications with these ranges. Some form of proper designation is however essential.

3. The "NTS condition" must be removed from BT, as it is no longer justified. This must be replaced with use of the wider powers of price regulation which Ofcom now holds.

Use of these powers must be based on some meaningful definition of the price of a "standard" call (i.e. that to a 01/02/03 number) for each tariff. This may be tricky where such calls are inclusive in packages, however it has to be done. There is normally an equivalent non-inclusive package which could provide the basis for the setting of such a standard.

4. In place of the set rates applied under the NTS condition, regulation should apply a limit to the surcharge over the "standard" rate that may be applied to each type of NTS number.

Users of NTS numbers will be able to quote the cost of calling as being the "standard" rate plus no more than the relevant limit.

Users must be strongly discouraged from quoting the rates (by name or value) as used by any specific provider. Ofcom must demand that users recognise its success in achieving a plural market (i.e. not BT plus a few others). The relevant authorities (e.g. Phonepay Plus, the ASA and Trading Standards) should be encouraged to outlaw the practice of quoting particular example rates, with the qualification that others may vary.

5. In the case of 0845 the surcharge limit should be zero, so that in effect it is generally placed in the same class as 03. I do not however see any need to demand that 0845 calls be made part of inclusive packages; market pressure may achieve that effect anyway and compulsion would provide an excuse to increase the price of inclusive packages due to the additional call volume.

Now that the new price control powers are held, the situation with 0870 should be regularised to work in the same way.

6. There will need to be a period of transition during which these changes come into effect. There will then need to be a review of what has been achieved and the way that the market has reacted. There will also need to be consideration of further steps, notably with 0844/3.


This proposal is on the basis that we are starting from where we are now, not from where we should have been if Ofcom had previously been able to deploy the wisdom of Solomon. It is intended to be practical and achievable, rather than being a declaration of principles and utopian dreams. The latter would be perfectly valid responses to this current consultation.

I believe that this will greatly aid visibility, as not only will it remove the nonsense of no rate being given for the majority of callers (i.e. those not using BT) but it will also give an indication of the financial benefit being received by the call recipient.

I will be publishing my full submission in due course.
Back to top
 
WWW  
IP Logged
 
loddon
Supreme Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 599
Reading  UK
Gender: male
Re: Ofcom consultation - Review of non-geo calls
Reply #5 - May 20th, 2010 at 7:06am
 
Your proposals, SCV, are pointing in the right direction but do not go far enough nor reach their logical conclusion.

I approach this question of "what should be done about non-geographic numbers" from the starting point that Ofcom is the regulator and as such its primary duty is to protect the consumer from scams and rip-offs.   Ofcom, I understand, is charged with ensuring and encouraging an open, competitive marketplace but it must also define the rules to ensure that companies do not mislead or take unfair advantage of the consumer.

The problem is that 084 and 087 numbers are wrong in fundamental concept and are unethical by design.    The concept of all 084 and 087 numbers contravenes normal business practice, conventions, ethics and common sense.    I say this because the wrong person pays for the 084 and 087 product -- they are rip-offs by design.   They are designed to mislead the consumer who does not get what he pays for.   The consumer is required to pay for the features and facilities from which another person or entity benefits.   The consumer does not get what he pays for, someone else does.

Why do I say this?   Because the point about 084 and 087 numbers is that they are non-geographical and they enable certain claimed functions and facilities which the "user" (i.e. the company using the number) may choose to use or select from a product choice such as :
call forwarding and diverting
network queueing
call menus of options for callers
call monitoring and statistics
prestige,status and kudos, national image
etc
The point is that these functions and facilities are primarily of benefit to the "user" and not the caller.   Some may argue that the caller gets some benefit in terms of access to the "user" organisation and I can see there may be a small element of that but I see the overwhelming benefit accruing to the "user" in that he is managing the route of access into his organisation for his benefit.    Therefore I say it is the "user" who should pay for these functions and facilities and not the caller.    It is the "user" who is buying the service, choosing who his supplier will be, deciding whether or not he is satisfied with the service and deciding when to enter and terminate contracts for the supply of the 084/7 number -- and not the callers (consumers) who have no decision options or choice about who provides the number and its associated facilities.  

I see three parties involved here -- the telephone service supplier who provides the 084/7 number and the network facilities, the "user" who is the customer of the telephone service supplier, and the consumer or member of the public who wishes to call the "user" company.    So in normal business terms the User engages in a contract with the phone company for supply of a service to them, the phone company supplies the 084/7 number and associated service and the contract and payments are between them.   This part of the business transaction is between the -phone company and the "user" company/organisation and is nothing to do with the consumer or caller.

So my contention is that the "user" company/organisation should pay for the service and the caller/consumer should pay for his call at his normal rate to his telephone service supplier, in other words at his geographic rate.   This would mean that "revenue sharing" is banned.    This would remove all the problems with 084/7 numbers which have frequently been described in Parliament as "rip-offs".    It would remove the danger of all sorts of scams, primarily the practice of making callers wait in a supposed queue so that the "user" company can accumulate revenue from the calls.    This is a major problem because the 084/7 system is designed to encourage companies to increase the delays for callers because they earn money from delays.   This is contrary to all common sense and good ethical business practice and it should not be allowed.    Ofcom have failed the general public and consumers over the years by allowing this scam to continue and increase and Ofcom should now put an end to it.    I was told just a few days ago that one of our largest banks, part publicly owned and whose name begins with L, have a standard practice of making all callers wait for a minimum of 9 minutes just in order to ensure they earn a certain amaount of revenue.   This is a disgrace, it is daylight robbery of their customers, it should be illegal and Ofom should stop it happening.   Just one example of many thousands I am sure.

You may say that what I propose would make 084/7 numbers work in exactly the same way as 03 numbers -- and I would reply YES.

My comments on 0800, 07 and 09 numbers will appear in my next post.

Back to top
« Last Edit: May 20th, 2010 at 3:14pm by loddon »  
Campaignagainstripofftelecoms  
IP Logged
 
loddon
Supreme Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 599
Reading  UK
Gender: male
Re: Ofcom consultation - Review of non-geo calls
Reply #6 - May 20th, 2010 at 8:05am
 
To continue from my previous post on the question "what should be done about non-geographic numbers?"

Regarding 0800 numbers.  My view is simple.   0800 is promoted as "freephone" so that the consumer/caller makes no payment and the entire cost of the call is accepted by the user company/organisation.    There is a big problem however and that is that 0800 calls are not free on mobiles although some are free (a very small fraction) but most callers don't know which are the free ones and which ones (most of them) are very expensive.   In fact 0800 calls are outside most (all?) inclusive packages and are charged at a high premium rate.   This is very confusing and unfair to callers/consumers.    

This must be sorted out by Ofcom.   If 0800 means "free to caller" then that is what it should mean to all callers at all times regardless of which service network or device is used to make the call, whether landline, call box or mobile.   Ofcom must make the rules about 0800 clear, consistent and simple.

I don't know much about 070 numbers or even why they exist at all.   What is the reason for them?     My impression is that they are very expensive to call and are easily confused with 07 mobile numbers.   This confusion for the caller/consumer must be removed by Ofcom.   The best way to do that I am not sure; perhaps by moving 070 numbers to a different and distinct range where they will be recognisable by callers/consumers for what they are and for their price range.

The 07 range I understand to be reserved for mobile phones.   I think this is generally well understood and see no problem apart from the confusion caused by 070 numbers mentioned above.

I understand 09 numbers to be special premium rate numbers designed specifically for revenue earning purposes through the telephone system.   While I don't really like the idea I suppose it is a legitimate business idea provided ther are suitable safeguards for the caller/consumer defined by Ofom and their co-regulator PPP.    There are others on this Forum who know this subject much better than I and have often proposed rules and safeguards via this Forum and directly to Ofcom and PPP.   These include a strict limit on queuing and waiting times, cost announcements before a call begins, pin numbers to protect the person who pays the phone bill from misuse by others, all of which I support.   I will leave it for others to make more specific proposals.

In summary, I believe that Ofcom should use this Review to consider changing the non-geographic phone number structure to remove anomalies and confusion of the public and to remove or minimise the occurrence of scams and rip-offs throughout the industry :---

Make 084/7 numbers non-revenue sharing and chargeable only at normal geographic rates and to be included in packages
Make all 0800 numbers free to all callers at all times and from all services
Remove the confusion between 070 and 07 numbers
Strengthen the rules controlling 09 numbers.
Back to top
« Last Edit: May 20th, 2010 at 8:14am by loddon »  
Campaignagainstripofftelecoms  
IP Logged
 
SilentCallsVictim
Supreme Member
*****
Offline


aka NHS.Patient, DH_fairtelecoms

Posts: 2,493
Re: Ofcom consultation - Review of non-geo calls
Reply #7 - May 20th, 2010 at 4:51pm
 
Loddon

Some brief points in response to your well-argued comments. Some of these extend my own comments.
  • Ofcom has to represent the interests of consumers of telephone services. Users of 084 numbers are part of that group. If they wish to be able to subsidise the costs they incur in providing additional facilities at the expense of callers then Ofcom has a duty to enable them to do so. With charities and public services, if the "consumer" does not pay, then it is the donor or taxpayer. In the private sector, a business has to cover its costs by income, so the "consumer" always ends up paying in one way or another. The issue of "who pays" for a benefit is ultimately a matter of shifting costs from one of these groups to another.
  • In principle we agree about 084/7. 0871/2/3 is already classified as PRS. I propose that 0845 and 0870 should be essentially treated in the same way as 03. 0844/3 is the snag; as I do not see it as being able to be treated as PRS, although I demand that it be designated in some way that makes it recognisable as essentially the same. In an ideal world 0844/3 and 0871/2/3 (and 070) would be moved to 09 to provide greater clarity, however I do not see that as achievable.
  • 070 is the remnant of what may have seemed to be a good idea at the time - a "personal number" to contact someone wherever they may be. This never took off and has been horribly abused.
  • I believe that resolution of the 080 from mobiles issue will have to await the outcome of moves to transfer the additional cost of mobile calls to users of mobile phones. Whilst this premium remains in place I do not support the idea of those who are not prepared to pay it being prevented from offering free calls from landlines by using a 080 number. If the premium were set to remain then there would be an argument for opening a separate range for those who wish to offer "free from landline only" calls. The present scheme under which the mobile telcos waive their charges for 080 calls to registered "helplines" is a valuable exceptional arrangement, which should not be compromised.

Many thanks (and also to CJT-80) for airing your thoughts, It would be great to hear some other views.
Back to top
 
WWW  
IP Logged
 
derrick
Supreme Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 1,124
Re: Ofcom consultation - Review of non-geo calls
Reply #8 - May 21st, 2010 at 12:05pm
 
SilentCallsVictim wrote on May 20th, 2010 at 4:51pm:
  • I believe that resolution of the 080 from mobiles issue will have to await the outcome of moves to transfer the additional cost of mobile calls to users of mobile phones. Whilst this premium remains in place I do not support the idea of those who are not prepared to pay it being prevented from offering free calls from landlines by using a 080 number. If the premium were set to remain then there would be an argument for opening a separate range for those who wish to offer "free from landline only" calls. The present scheme under which the mobile telcos waive their charges for 080 calls to registered "helplines" is a valuable exceptional arrangement, which should not be compromised.


  • This is an easy fix, include an 01/02 number for mobile callers alongside the 080 number, it will cost nothing as, (I assume), the 080 number works in the same way as 084/087 numbers, i.e. it is laid over an 01/02 number.
    Back to top
     
     
    IP Logged
     
    Kiwi_g
    Junior Member
    **
    Offline



    Posts: 84
    Gender: male
    Re: Ofcom consultation - Review of non-geo calls
    Reply #9 - May 21st, 2010 at 2:44pm
     
    Is it not now the time to campaign for “freephone” calls from all mobile numbers to be exactly that – FREE !!  Something for "saynoto0870" to take up?

    I’m involved with a business line and we have BT’s OneBill Plus.  Calls to land lines are capped at 5p for one hour and calls to mobile numbers are capped at 20p for the same time.  Therefore, the costs of taking a call from a mobile number should not be excessive.  We also have a number of BT mobile phones.  The service allows us to divert calls to any phone number.  If the diversion is to another number in the group, there is no charge, either for the diversion or the call.

    As an aside, calls to 0845 and 0870 numbers are still charged by the minute unlike private BT customers and the bill differentiates between "local" and "national" calls.
    Back to top
     
     
    IP Logged
     
    SilentCallsVictim
    Supreme Member
    *****
    Offline


    aka NHS.Patient, DH_fairtelecoms

    Posts: 2,493
    Re: Ofcom consultation - Review of non-geo calls
    Reply #10 - May 21st, 2010 at 3:55pm
     
    derrick wrote on May 21st, 2010 at 12:05pm:
    This is an easy fix, include an 01/02 number for mobile callers alongside the 080 number, it will cost nothing as, (I assume), the 080 number works in the same way as 084/087 numbers, i.e. it is laid over an 01/02 number.

    This is a most useful idea for callers who have free or inclusive calls to 01/02/03 numbers. (03 may provide the necessary redirection more readily, in cases where the underlying number cannot simply be released for direct dialling.) It does not however provide "free" calls, as many mobile users pay for 01/02/03 calls.

    I have long argued that it is for those who wish to be able to meet the cost of incoming calls from mobiles to pressure Ofcom to designate a number range that may be used for this purpose. I see no reason why Ofcom would fail to respond to such representations. I believe that campaigners need to establish that there are such consumers of telephone services whose interests are not being served by Ofcom. (I would be delighted to be proved wrong, but I suspect that there are not very many of them!)

    it is intended that over a period of time mobile users will have to get used to meeting the costs associated with the service they are using (rather than having their costs subsidised by others). Once the current call charge premium has reduced significantly, it may become reasonable to expect all those who wish to offer "free to caller" numbers to pay for calls from mobiles also.
    Back to top
     
    WWW  
    IP Logged
     
    SilentCallsVictim
    Supreme Member
    *****
    Offline


    aka NHS.Patient, DH_fairtelecoms

    Posts: 2,493
    Re: Ofcom consultation - Review of non-geo calls
    Reply #11 - May 21st, 2010 at 4:16pm
     
    Kiwi_g wrote on May 21st, 2010 at 2:44pm:
    I’m involved with a business line and we have BT’s OneBill Plus.  Calls to land lines are capped at 5p for one hour and calls to mobile numbers are capped at 20p for the same time.  Therefore, the costs of taking a call from a mobile number should not be excessive. ...

    As an aside, calls to 0845 and 0870 numbers are still charged by the minute unlike private BT customers and the bill differentiates between "local" and "national" calls.

    Thanks for reminding us that the world is different for business users - including the retention of distinct rates for local/national calls, which do apply on some tariffs, if not on yours. The BT "giveaway" to residential customers on 0845 and 0870 numbers, by making them inclusive, is also seen for the exceptional measure that it is. One could also point out that BT residential customers are being forced to pay for inclusive 0845 and 0870 calls, whether or not they want them. This means that all residential BT customers with inclusive packages are subsidising users of 0845 numbers.

    If the cost of paying for mobile calls is four times that of landline calls, I cannot quite see where the suggestion that the difference is "not excessive" comes from. I respond to the point about campaigning for "free to caller" in my preceding contribution.
    Back to top
     
    WWW  
    IP Logged
     
    derrick
    Supreme Member
    *****
    Offline



    Posts: 1,124
    Re: Ofcom consultation - Review of non-geo calls
    Reply #12 - May 22nd, 2010 at 10:07am
     
    SilentCallsVictim wrote on May 21st, 2010 at 3:55pm:
    derrick wrote on May 21st, 2010 at 12:05pm:
    This is an easy fix, include an 01/02 number for mobile callers alongside the 080 number, it will cost nothing as, (I assume), the 080 number works in the same way as 084/087 numbers, i.e. it is laid over an 01/02 number.

    This is a most useful idea for callers who have free or inclusive calls to 01/02/03 numbers. (03 may provide the necessary redirection more readily, in cases where the underlying number cannot simply be released for direct dialling.) It does not however provide "free" calls, as many mobile users pay for 01/02/03 calls.


    The reason I never mentioned 03 numbers was because there is a cost associated with them for the recipient, hence why I used 01/02numbers as there is no cost for incoming calls, therefore the suggestion will work.

    ALL phone customers pay for their calls, there are no free calls, you either pay by the minute or it is included in your monthly bill.

    Also, 080 numbers are usually charged at a higher rate than 01/02/(03) numbers by mobile operators, so paying or not it will still be cheaper to supply an 01/02/03 number for the mobile user, and will also be cheaper for the recipient as they will not be paying a subsidy every time the the 080 number is used.
    Back to top
     
     
    IP Logged
     
    SilentCallsVictim
    Supreme Member
    *****
    Offline


    aka NHS.Patient, DH_fairtelecoms

    Posts: 2,493
    Re: Ofcom consultation - Review of non-geo calls
    Reply #13 - May 22nd, 2010 at 12:08pm
     
    derrick wrote on May 22nd, 2010 at 10:07am:
    ALL phone customers pay for their calls, there are no free calls, you either pay by the minute or it is included in your monthly bill.

    A fair point. This is indeed perhaps the difference for the recipient between having redirection facilities on a 03, rather than a 01/02 number. It is of course wrong to say that there is "no cost for incoming calls" on 01/02 numbers - it is part of the monthly charge (indeed that is one of the options for mobile providers as they lose the ability to collect this fee from callers).

    The charge for a redirection facility on 01/02 numbers may indeed be reflected in a monthly fee, rather than on a per-call basis. That is what I was referring to when I said "03 may provide the necessary redirection more readily". I was thinking of those cases where there is not a simple one-to-one relationship between a 0800 and an underlying number, i.e. "where the underlying number cannot simply be released for direct dialling". I am sorry if I did not make that clear.


    When I said "It does not however provide 'free' calls, as many mobile users pay for 01/02/03 calls" I should have made it clear that by "free" I was referring to there being no marginal cost for the call. The marginal cost may indeed be less for 01/02/03 calls than 0800, but it is not necessarily nil.

    I fully support efforts to get 080 users to offer suitable 01/02/03 alternatives for mobile callers, under the present regime. I suggest however that we should not let this modest advance, and our concern about terminology, cause us to lose sight of the interests of those who may wish for mobile users to call them (other than on a registered helpline) whilst incurring no marginal cost for the call. These are people who want to subsidise the caller's costs!

    I am personally happy with this latter arrangement being described as "free to caller". I see this as a suitable abbreviation of "free of any marginal call cost to the caller". I do however acknowledge the repeated concerns of those who do not, but hope they recognise that the disagreement on this particular point is essentially a semantic debate on the validity of this particular interpretation.

    I see severe dangers in a, fully worthy, campaign for the use of 01/02/03 alternatives becoming confused with a campaign for "freephone" calls from mobiles to be FREE. If we expect others to be clear in what they refer to as "free", we must surely do the same ourselves.
    Back to top
     
    WWW  
    IP Logged
     
    sherbert
    Supreme Member
    *****
    Offline



    Posts: 2,011
    Gender: male
    Re: Ofcom consultation - Review of non-geo calls
    Reply #14 - May 22nd, 2010 at 2:06pm
     
    SilentCallsVictim wrote on May 19th, 2010 at 3:48pm:
    It is perhaps disappointing that there has been no extensive discussion in this thread on what action Ofcom should now be taking.




    The reason why, has been said many times over the last few weeks is because when ever anyone has anything to say, you always argue the opposite to anyone else's suggestions that they may put and not only that as mentioned before, you usually respond in such a patronising and belittling way, most members have given up contributing. As always you seem to think to treat this is as your own forum and unless anyone agrees with you, you are not happy.

    So, I guess that is why I and most others do not add to the discussion in this thread on what action Ofcom should now be taking.
    Back to top
    « Last Edit: May 22nd, 2010 at 2:08pm by sherbert »  
     
    IP Logged
     
    Pages: 1 2 3 ... 5
    Send Topic Print
    (Moderators: Forum Admin, Dave, bbb_uk, CJT-80, DaveM)

    Website and Content © 1999-2020 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 © 2000-2021. All Rights Reserved.


    Valid RSS Valid XHTML Valid CSS Powered by Perl Source Forge