I have just noted that I also said:

"Also remiss of me to not congratulate Richard Wilson on his campaign."

I meant his 0844 campaign NOT his political ambitions.

FYI (as SCV will testify) Richard has been active in the campaign recently, not least also also contributing on the radio.

I repeat I DO NOT SUPPORT Richard Wilson's political views. I would not have introduced politics to this site, but having been accused of doing so for the record I belong to a different political party (again which SCV can confirm).

I am somewhat taken back by the accusation. In the fight against 0844 I don't care two hoots what, if any, what ones political views are.

This discussion has become unnecessarily personal and aggressive in its tone. This is a public forum, which I do not see as being a suitable place for many of the opinions stated above to be aired. It is however for each member to determine what they wish to see placed in the public domain, subject to the forum rules.

The 12 most recent postings have been essentially political in nature, discussing how best to present campaigning arguments and their association with wider political ideals. They have also featured many uses of names and personal pronouns.

I am ready to defend my personal position and attest to the positions I understand to be held by others, however I am not happy at being obliged to do so in public. We are however where we are, unable to direct a wider readership to this forum for briefing on relevant campaigning issues.


Regarding reply #521. Clearly many are unaware of the fact that the Service Charge, which will be brought into the open, is simply the retail cost of the premium attached to the termination payment. Those who request further explanation on this point, and are dissatisfied by confirmation that there are indeed other premium charges which are incurred, may find that their existing understanding of the issues is tested and enhanced as the explanation develops.

Regarding reply #522. It would have been better if the link quoted there had been to the comment by Stuart from which one could look outwards to the wider context, rather than the other way around. The "fantastic post" remark was clearly referring to this comment, however it was left open for the casual reader to misunderstand.

On the disputed point which I made. I believe that some generally worded statements may be considered valid because they are true for a majority, whereas other more specifically worded statements cannot rest on that means of acquiring validity. It is normally best to apply suitable qualification, if that is possible without effectively destroying the point one is making. Often the determination comes down to a political judgement regarding the context of the publication of the statement. On this point, and in the context of this forum, I do not think it appropriate to ignore the cases of those with PAYG arrangements and those who breach the terms of their Call Plans and bundles when discussing the "unbundled tariff".


If the intention was to engage in discussion of the rules regarding "Access Charges", in advance of the imminent publication of the Ofcom proposals, this could have been done more directly - probably best in another thread. Citing comments and statements that are seen to overlook the possibility that the Access Charge will not, in practice, be equated with the charge for a call to geographic number, as it most certainly is not at present, would be an ideal way of starting such a discussion.


It is likely that when the regulations to apply the "unbundled tariff" are submitted to consultation they will face opposition from those who wish to retain the present opacity. The fair telecoms campaign will be keen to ensure the maximum possible public support for the principle of transparency, notwithstanding inevitable quibbles over the detail of the proposals. We hope that clearly expressed public support for the proposals will make it more difficult for those who may wish to oppose them. Yes - that is politics - pure and simple. We do not wish to have to fight an alliance of those who wish for far more radical steps with those who wish to retain the status quo.

Cheers for the call Loddon. Much appreciated.

Dave wrote on Apr 18^th, 2013 at 11:00pm:

That bit, with the highlighted proviso, is probably true for BT lines at least. However, this bit is not for the majority and should be challenged by the patients:

"Please remember we are making these changes because you said we needed to improve your telephone access. That is exactly what we are doing. It has increased our costs in regard to installation and maintenance but it will not increase your costs unless you choose to use your mobile phone."

Dave wrote on Apr 19^th, 2013 at 2:01pm:

Yes, that was exactly my point. It is only the highlighted part that makes the statement true, but they effectively contradict it in the other part I quoted.

kasg wrote on Apr 19^th, 2013 at 2:14pm:

See the fair telecoms campaign news release, which addresses the points discussed above.

Those who may wish to follow all news from the fair telecoms campaign can view our feed and arrange to get updates at http://www.fairtelecoms.org.uk/news-feed.html.

Source: Telegraph & Argus

Doctors still charging patients premium rates to phone surgeries

Quote:

kasg wrote on Apr 19^th, 2013 at 8:13pm:

Firstly, one cannot see what valid reason could be offered by a telephone system provider to justify refusing migration without penalty - this is the norm in the industry! The provider's own interests are fully protected, given that its customer is ready and able to meet the unsubsidised cost of its services.

For a NHS GP, responsible for selecting whatever telephone system it wishes to use in delivering NHS services, it is quite "reasonable" for it to be expected to meet the cost of its chosen system. That is what the majority of GPs do, and what all are required to do under the terms of their NHS contract.

Enquiries to every PCT in England, some of which were handled as FOI requests, failed to produce any evidence whatsoever of a refusal to permit migration by a GP from a 084 number to the equivalent 034 number.

I see the lack of such evidence from any GP, which maintains that it is unable "to ensure that, having regard to the arrangement as a whole, persons will not pay more to make relevant calls than they would to make equivalent calls to a geographical number", as clear proof that it has failed to adequately "consider … varying the terms of the arrangement".

(I refer, in particular, to the clause numbered 7.4.3(a) in the 2013/4 contract.)

It is frustrating to have to keep coming back to this point by precise reference to the wording of the terms, when the DH and the BMA GPC should have clarified the position regarding 034 migration with NEG (as it was then) and Kingston Communications, as the contract revisions were being introduced. The drafting of the reference to "no greater cost than that of a call to a geographic number" almost echoes the Ofcom regulations covering 03, and the reference to variation of the terms of the arrangement (as opposed to termination) is readily interpreted as referring to migration. Guidance on this issue could then have been published at the time.

The reasons why this was not done then are complex. The situation has however now changed with the replacement of many individual PCTs by the single body, NHS England. NHS England is in a position to make a well-informed single determination on interpretation and direct that this be followed in all cases.