Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
SAYNOTO0870.COM

<---- Back to main website

 
Home Help Search Login Register

Pages: 1 ... 7 8 9 10 11 ... 16
Send Topic Print
101 - New Non-Emergency No. for ALL Police Forces (Read 272,795 times)
sherbert
Supreme Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 2,011
Gender: male
Re: 101 - New Non-Emergency No. for ALL Police Forces
Reply #120 - Nov 18th, 2011 at 10:18am
 
You really have to wonder, don't you that something so simple as to advertising a 101 number charged at 15 pence from any telephone, (whether you agree with this or not), turns into something so flipping complicated  Roll Eyes
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
jrawle
Supreme Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 708
Didcot, Oxfordshire
Gender: male
Re: 101 - New Non-Emergency No. for ALL Police Forces
Reply #121 - Nov 18th, 2011 at 12:14pm
 
sherbert wrote on Nov 17th, 2011 at 5:22pm:
Well here is a surprise if I have read it correctly it is free to the caller

http://www.bt.com/pricing/current/Call_Charges_boo/3545_d0e5.htm

Well, I now know where I'll be making calls to the police from, should the alternate number stop working. That's assuming it's for something that Crimestoppers isn't appropriate for.

bigjohn wrote on Nov 18th, 2011 at 5:11am:
O2 Homephone are charging 18p to call 101 (FF31)

BE Unlimited is part of O2 - I was going to mention that.
Back to top
 
WWW  
IP Logged
 
jrawle
Supreme Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 708
Didcot, Oxfordshire
Gender: male
Re: 101 - New Non-Emergency No. for ALL Police Forces
Reply #122 - Nov 18th, 2011 at 12:36pm
 
SilentCallsVictim, I have to wonder, were you part of some sort of committee or focus group involved in setting up the 101 service? I have searched, but I can't find a reference to you having done so, yet I can't see why you would otherwise so vociferously defend use of this NGN.

This site was set up in response to service providers using NGNs that were charged differently from standard telephone numbers. The campaign (not necessarily this site) resulted in the end of revenue sharing on 0870, the introduction of 03 numbers, and new rules for public bodies. However, they have now introduced a new NGN for the police that undoes some of that. Whereas 03 was a big step forward - a number with all the advantages of an NGN but that was treated as a normal number - 101 is a step backwards. It should have been made compulsory for 101 to be treated as a geographical number. (Or perhaps they should have launched 03000 101 101 alongside it?)

The idea of charging to view police websites was intended as an analogy, not as a serious suggestion. There's no need to go into technical details of how calls are routed or how the internet is set up. The point was to show how absurd it is that a certain service costs extra, when it previously cost the same as accessing any other service. Imagine, as you say, there were new arrangements for accessing police information online. Perhaps a new police.uk website that automatically redirected the user to their local force (with the option to go to a different force if they wanted) but where the user had to pay 15p in order to do so (no need to discuss technical details). Then, eventually the existing police URLs were phased out. People would be up in arms, and rightly so. Just because there's a convenient mechanism in place to collect payments from a phone user doesn't mean it's right to do so.

The other thing you keep telling me is that not a penny of this money is going to go to the police, as if that's a good thing. I don't think it is. If we had to pay but the money was going to put extra bobbies on the beat, perhaps it wouldn't be so bad. But in fact the money is going straight into the pockets of the phone companies, with I expect BT profiting the most.
Back to top
 
WWW  
IP Logged
 
SilentCallsVictim
Supreme Member
*****
Offline


aka NHS.Patient, DH_fairtelecoms

Posts: 2,494
Re: 101 - New Non-Emergency No. for ALL Police Forces
Reply #123 - Nov 18th, 2011 at 8:42pm
 
As may have been found, I was not amongst those forum members who contributed to the Ofcom consultation, as discussed in this thread. My engagement with this issue is more recent and postdates much of what has been achieved by campaigning. I did contribute to public discussion of the decision by the Met to move to 03 and used this as an opportunity to draw out the Cabinet Office on this issue (see this clip). Further, productive contact with the Cabinet Office was on a wholly informal basis.


It is fair enough to comment on this issue from the perspective of someone who is used to making free calls to the Police, however there are some who have been paying 51p, 63p, £1, £2 or £1.40 for a five minute call and will now be paying 15p, or, in the latter case, nothing.

I think it would be unfortunate, and show an undue bias, if, as a campaigning forum, this site were seen to be wholly disregarding the positive side of the flat call charge for 101. It is not my preferred option, but I admit to being drawn to the principle of equity which it represents.


The website analogy is flawed in a number of respects, not least because it fails to reflect the situation of those who are now paying less than they were. The "101 is more expensive" argument is exactly the type of selective argument which is used to support the claim that "calls to geographic numbers are more expensive than calls to 0844". One cannot ignore particular cases, but a fair minded approach does not ignore any significant particular cases.

There was also an analogy of paying the Police for their fuel and dog food, and the reference to paying the Police for access to their websites is repeated again. This is why I have continued to refer to the fact that the 15p is only going to the caller's telephone company, as these comments seem to suggest that funding of the Police is somehow relevant.


As I have said, my personal view is that 101, as it is currently presented, should have been made "free to caller". (All things being equal) this would however result in fewer bobbies on the beat, tax increases or a bigger deficit. Conversely for 111, my view is that call charges should have been set at the geographic equivalent rate, probably on separate locally focussed numbers, as I do not believe that the case for a national number is sufficiently strong. There are strong arguments against the public expense involved in both projects, especially as both have been changed from their original purpose in the course of implementation.

I do however believe that the case for the re-launch of 101 is well made. The idea that the agreed call charge arrangements have something to do with callers paying the person called, which I understand to be the issue of primary focus for this site, is mistaken. 101 is however a wholly valid topic for discussion here, as the site seeks to encourage discussion of relevant issues, not just to push an agreed doctrine.


I comment as one who is concerned about these matters, keen and ready to contribute to public discourse. For the record, I must indicate my dissent from the suggested focus of a campaign for calls to be charged at the rate applied to standard telephone numbers. I deplore the decision by BT and others to require package subscribers to contribute to the revenue share paid to users of 0845 numbers. I look forward to the imminent scrapping of the "NTS condition" on BT. Similarly, I will be unhappy if, as is likely, landline calls to mobiles come to be included in standard packages before the enhanced termination fee is completely removed.

I understand the argument for the cost of standard calls, and packages of such calls, to be increased so as to cover more items, however I do not see this as being the answer to issues that are raised here. Furthermore, I fear that those who support this argument may not be ready to stand by the consequences of what they propose. Both 101 and 111 are intended to generate more call traffic than previously used numbers. I would have been content to see this put pressure on standard call pricing in the case of 111, however, in my personal opinion, 101, as it is currently presented, should be treated differently.

15p per call for everybody shows a similar (although lesser) degree of equity to the preferred "free to caller" approach. Use of 01/02/03 numbers, or the equivalent charge, is less equitable, given the declared nature of the 101 service, but far more so than 0845.

I hope my position and my personal views are clear. I declare my public involvement in these matters through my blogs and news feeds. I am also happy to engage in private discussion about the detail of my campaigning activities, however there are many good reasons for not discussing all tactics in a public forum.
Back to top
 
WWW  
IP Logged
 
daguerrotype
Newbie
*
Offline



Posts: 4
Re: 101 - New Non-Emergency No. for ALL Police Forces
Reply #124 - Nov 19th, 2011 at 12:01pm
 
Hi 101ers!!

I used it for the 1st time the other day - It was from my [T]mobile when out cycling - it automatically determined I was in Hertfordshire and put me through to the correct police force - excellent

Then I see my phone bill - 13p for a 3.46min call - NO WARNING  from T-mobile - unlike 0800 calls - outside my monthly allowance - so if I need the police I will still use 999 - FREE - if I don't know the local number - QED - HMG has shot itself in the foot again Sad
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
daguerrotype
Newbie
*
Offline



Posts: 4
Re: 101 - New Non-Emergency No. for ALL Police Forces
Reply #125 - Nov 19th, 2011 at 12:03pm
 
I recommend you all consider signing this Downing St ePetition against 101 charges:

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
bazzerfewi
Supreme Member
*****
Offline


Baz

Posts: 580
Barnsley
Gender: male
Re: 101 - New Non-Emergency No. for ALL Police Forces
Reply #126 - Nov 19th, 2011 at 1:59pm
 
I am still uncomfortable with the 101 none emergency number. Even after reading Silent Call Victims coments I still fail to see the differance between paying 0.15p for a 101 call or the charges for an 08 call. I am sure I am not alone in this matter, I will never contact the police via the 101 call. If I cannot call them via the 01/02/03 alternative number I will also use 999. I fail to see the differance between 101 and 08 calls.
Back to top
 
WWW bazzerfewi aom@blueyonder.co.uk  
IP Logged
 
SilentCallsVictim
Supreme Member
*****
Offline


aka NHS.Patient, DH_fairtelecoms

Posts: 2,494
Re: 101 - New Non-Emergency No. for ALL Police Forces
Reply #127 - Nov 19th, 2011 at 3:57pm
 
bazzerfewi wrote on Nov 19th, 2011 at 1:59pm:
I fail to see the differance between 101 and 08 calls.

Indeed, to the caller there is a similarity - neither are charged at the same rate as geographic calls; they may be cheaper, they may be more expensive.

(There are situations where the cost is effectively the same, e.g. inclusive geographic calls cost the same as 080 calls from landlines, along with 0845 calls that are treated as inclusive.)


For some, calls to 101 are cheaper than calls to geographic numbers, for others they are more expensive.

The same is true of 080, 0844/3, 0845 and even the lower rated 0871 numbers.


Calls to both 101 and 08 are either cheaper or more expensive than calls to geographic numbers. That is what they have in common. The effect varies according to the particular number and the caller's tariff.

The crucial difference between 101 and 08 is in relation to what happens to the money.


With 08 numbers, the person called is involved with the money, with 101 they are not.

On every call to a 08 number the caller's telephone company (the "OCP") pays money to that of the person called (the "TCP") - with 080 the amount is negative.

With 101 there is simply a different scheme being followed for how the telephone company charges the caller. The Police and the Home Office were instrumental in getting this to be adopted, by agreement, but they are not involved financially.



It would be interesting to hear what those who oppose the 101 charging structure propose for those who are benefiting from it.

As the telcos have agreed to 15p per call, presumably on the basis that they would get an acceptable return overall, an alternative scheme would need to achieve that effect also.

If those with inclusive packages for geographic calls were not paying their 15p's to call 101, then where should the money come from?

a) existing Police or Home Office budgets, higher taxes or a bigger deficit (make it free to caller)
b) callers without inclusive packages (set 101 at geographic rate - up to 20p per minute)
c) telephone users in general (a cap of 15p per call on geographic rate for 101 calls)

Option c) is what some would say is "the telephone companies". They would argue for the fee (cap) to be increased for the sake of their other customers, and may even withdraw from the agreement. Extensive use of geographic alternatives is another way of achieving the same effect. If these are in use, then I see it as vital that they receive an adequate degree of publicity by the Police.

I try to avoid being openly political, but my personal position has been questioned. My personal preference is for the latter parts of option a). I do however acknowledge that the consequences would not be likely to achieve a sufficient degree of approval from the public in general. I find the present arrangements preferable to options b) and c).
Back to top
 
WWW  
IP Logged
 
sergeant121
Newbie
*
Offline


Have you noticed how many
politicians are lawyers?

Posts: 36
Gender: male
Re: 101 - New Non-Emergency No. for ALL Police Forces
Reply #128 - Nov 19th, 2011 at 8:22pm
 
bazzerfewi wrote on Nov 19th, 2011 at 1:59pm:
I am still uncomfortable with the 101 none emergency number. Even after reading Silent Call Victims coments I still fail to see the differance between paying 0.15p for a 101 call or the charges for an 08 call. I am sure I am not alone in this matter, I will never contact the police via the 101 call. If I cannot call them via the 01/02/03 alternative number I will also use 999. I fail to see the differance between 101 and 08 calls.

I think you mean £0.15
Back to top
« Last Edit: Nov 19th, 2011 at 8:23pm by sergeant121 »  

How can you tell when a lawyer's lying?  His (or her) lips move.
 
IP Logged
 
sergeant121
Newbie
*
Offline


Have you noticed how many
politicians are lawyers?

Posts: 36
Gender: male
Re: 101 - New Non-Emergency No. for ALL Police Forces
Reply #129 - Nov 19th, 2011 at 8:22pm
 
Oops.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Nov 19th, 2011 at 8:23pm by sergeant121 »  

How can you tell when a lawyer's lying?  His (or her) lips move.
 
IP Logged
 
jrawle
Supreme Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 708
Didcot, Oxfordshire
Gender: male
Re: 101 - New Non-Emergency No. for ALL Police Forces
Reply #130 - Nov 20th, 2011 at 2:39pm
 
bazzerfewi wrote on Nov 19th, 2011 at 1:59pm:
I fail to see the differance between 101 and 08 calls.

Quite right, as far as this site is concerned - as a site campaigning against non-geographical numbers that are not billed as standard telephone numbers - there is no difference. People will pay a different amount than they would if they called a local number to contract the police station.

Of course, you know that the "difference" is that 101 costs 15p, whereas 08 numbers are usually charged per minute. That's not what you meant. Silentcallsvictim's shocking revelation is that 101 is run entirely by the phone companies, with the police and home office "not involved financially". So when you pay your 15p, it doesn't go towards funding the police at all. It goes into the pocket of the phone company. No doubt they are happy to see this number promoted (presumably at cost to the taxpayer) as the more people that use it, the more profit for private companies! Every business's dream: a service you can provide for a profit, but someone else advertises for you for free.

If all police forces used a standard 01, 02, 03 number, everyone would know where they were. I know some forces used 08, but they shouldn't have done, and that's what we have been campaigning against for many years, so it isn't right to compare the cost of calling 0845 to 101.
Back to top
 
WWW  
IP Logged
 
SilentCallsVictim
Supreme Member
*****
Offline


aka NHS.Patient, DH_fairtelecoms

Posts: 2,494
Re: 101 - New Non-Emergency No. for ALL Police Forces
Reply #131 - Nov 20th, 2011 at 7:11pm
 
jrawle wrote on Nov 20th, 2011 at 2:39pm:
as a site campaigning against non-geographical numbers that are not billed as standard telephone numbers

I have always believed that the primary focus of the site was the covert benefit of revenue sharing.

I am not aware of a general campaign against numbers that are cheaper than geographic rate calls (e.g. 080 for some). Some members oppose the inclusion of 0845 calls in packages, where they are treated as standard numbers. Not all members are opposed to all Directory Enquiries and recorded information services.

jrawle wrote on Nov 20th, 2011 at 2:39pm:
the more people that use it, the more profit for private companies!

Surely this is true of any telephone number. (Package prices get adjusted if they fail to yield the necessary return for shareholders.)

jrawle wrote on Nov 20th, 2011 at 2:39pm:
If all police forces used a standard 01, 02, 03 number, everyone would know where they were.

If only that were true. Sadly there are many who fail to recognise the extent of the penalty charge incurred by landline users who call geographic numbers outside the terms of their call plan; it is generally much more than 15p per call. Barring present anomalies that we wait to hear about, I do not believe that there is likely to be much confusion about the cost of calling 101 - it is the same for everyone.

(101 is one of the exceptional cases where I would not oppose use of a PCA.)

jrawle wrote on Nov 20th, 2011 at 2:39pm:
it isn't right to compare the cost of calling 0845 to 101

I cannot see why it should be wholly disregarded, if that is the difference which some will be experiencing. Should we ignore what callers have been paying previously? I recall the increase from 0p to 15p per call being given as the basis for objecting to the 101 charge.

Is it right to compare the overall cost of calling a geographic number (up to 20p per minute) to 101, or must we only look at certain selected cases?



I have stated my position of opposition - I believe that 101, as it is presented, should be "free to caller". I only seek to see the issue discussed fully and the benefits of the selected approach recognised against the proposed alternative.

I was not engaged in these matters in 2005 when Ofcom undertook its consultation. The option of a tariff based on that for geographic calls was mentioned by Ofcom, but this was not one of the 4 specific options proposed for public consideration by the Home Office.

Those concerned about this matter may be interested to read the consultation document, the responses and the Ofcom statement, all of which may be accessed from http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/consultations/snen/.

One particular point of interest is paragraph 6.21 of the Ofcom statement which says:
Quote:
In response to concerns about call-cost, the Home Office will also ensure that alternative geographic numbers for each partnership will be listed on a web site. Callers will be able to continue to call a partnership directly on that geographic number.

We now have only the Police element of the "partnership" and the 10p has become 15p, however this statement should provide a basis for those who wish to campaign on this particular point. I note that the e-petition does not refer to the Home Office honouring this commitment.

My personal view is that the single point of publication for alternative geographic numbers is insufficient, as this will not be adequate to ensure that all those who could benefit from using such a number would be able to do so. At the same time, I am concerned about the upward pressure on the 15p that would result if many callers do not pay it. If this level of fixed charge had to be protected by funding from the Home Office, then one must question whether it would not be better to have no charge at all.

It is interesting to note that the Home Office had hoped that in due course it would be possible to remove the fee. The approach to public spending has however moved in the opposite direction to that which was anticipated in 2005. As I have said, I see little chance of there being general consent to increased public spending on this service; what we have may be the best that we can realistically hope for.
Back to top
 
WWW  
IP Logged
 
bazzerfewi
Supreme Member
*****
Offline


Baz

Posts: 580
Barnsley
Gender: male
Re: 101 - New Non-Emergency No. for ALL Police Forces
Reply #132 - Nov 20th, 2011 at 7:38pm
 
SilentCallsVictim wrote on Nov 19th, 2011 at 3:57pm:
[quote author=25263D3D22352122302E470 link=1300831283/126#126 date=1321711165]I fail to see the differance between 101 and 08 calls.

Indeed, to the caller there is a similarity - neither are charged at the same rate as geographic calls; they may be cheaper, they may be more expensive.

(There are situations where the cost is effectively the same, e.g. inclusive geographic calls cost the same as 080 calls from landlines, along with 0845 calls that are treated as inclusive.)

It would be interesting to hear what those who oppose the 101 charging structure propose for those who are benefiting from it.

As the telcos have agreed to 15p per call, presumably on the basis that they would get an acceptable return overall, an alternative scheme would need to achieve that effect also. If those with inclusive packages for geographic calls were not paying their 15p's to call 101, then where should the money come from?
There is a very simple remedy to the 0.15p call cost, the teclos should pay the cost. They are in a very profitable sector and they should be duty bound to provide this service after all it is the alternative emergency service.
Back to top
 
WWW bazzerfewi aom@blueyonder.co.uk  
IP Logged
 
SilentCallsVictim
Supreme Member
*****
Offline


aka NHS.Patient, DH_fairtelecoms

Posts: 2,494
Re: 101 - New Non-Emergency No. for ALL Police Forces
Reply #133 - Nov 21st, 2011 at 12:19am
 
bazzerfewi wrote on Nov 20th, 2011 at 7:38pm:

I think you meant to say:

Quote:
SilentCallsVictim wrote on Nov 19th, 2011 at 3:57pm:
bazzerfewi wrote on Nov 19th, 2011 at 1:59pm:
I fail to see the differance between 101 and 08 calls.

Indeed, to the caller there is a similarity - neither are charged at the same rate as geographic calls; they may be cheaper, they may be more expensive.
...
As the telcos have agreed to 15p per call, presumably on the basis that they would get an acceptable return overall, an alternative scheme would need to achieve that effect also. If those with inclusive packages for geographic calls were not paying their 15p's to call 101, then where should the money come from?

There is a very simple remedy to the
0.
15p call cost, the te
lc
os should pay the cost. They are in a very profitable sector and they should be duty bound to provide this service after all it is the alternative emergency service.

101 is the non-emergency contact number for the Police. It is an alternative to the emergency service. Nonetheless, many of us believe that it should be "free to caller".

I must ask how the telcos themselves are to meet the costs incurred in providing this service, if not out of the revenue they take from users of all their services.

It is perfectly fair to argue that telephone users in general should pay, but please do not assume that telco profits derive from any other source, or that the market is sufficiently competitive to prevent costs from being reflected in prices.

If anybody knows how calls to the actual emergency service (999/112) are funded, it would be very useful to perhaps be able to bring this into the discussion. I believe that it may be funded by customers of BT, Virgin Media, Kingston and the mobile network owners.

We await the launch of a government sanctioned "alternative emergency service"; G4-Police springs immediately to mind. It would doubtless use a premium rate telephone number to avoid nuisance calls, and offer a service that was far superior to that of its public sector rivals. (I hope that I do not get supporters of consumerism and consumer choice too excited by mentioning this possibility.)
Back to top
 
WWW  
IP Logged
 
sherbert
Supreme Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 2,011
Gender: male
Re: 101 - New Non-Emergency No. for ALL Police Forces
Reply #134 - Nov 21st, 2011 at 8:38am
 
SilentCallsVictim wrote on Nov 21st, 2011 at 12:19am:


If anybody knows how calls to the actual emergency service (999/112) are funded, it would be very useful to perhaps be able to bring this into the discussion. I believe that it may be funded by customers of BT, Virgin Media, Kingston and the mobile network owners.


[/quote]


See here

http://www.ofcom.org.uk/static/archive/oftel/publications/ind_guidelines/emer100...

I know this document is 9 years old, but guess it still applies?


From this I would guess it is funded by the shareholders of the telephone companies, if not then by their customers through the charges that are paid for other services?
Back to top
« Last Edit: Nov 21st, 2011 at 8:39am by sherbert »  
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 9 10 11 ... 16
Send Topic Print
(Moderators: Dave, bbb_uk, DaveM, Forum Admin, CJT-80)

Website and Content © 1999-2024 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 © 2000-2024. All Rights Reserved.


Valid RSS Valid XHTML Valid CSS Powered by Perl Source Forge