NGMsGhost wrote on May 30^th, 2013 at 11:55am:

The fair telecoms campaign news release provides a number of ways of verifying the announcement in context.

The initial introduction of new 0300 numbers in April went ahead as announced. HMRC has not yet published any schedule for the larger task of swapping the bulk of the 0845 numbers to their 0345 equivalent. HMRC and Ofcom are neither more nor less free than anyone else I know in using vague references to timescales in situations where it is not necessary to specify a particular date in advance. Like every other project, theirs are far more likely to be completed later than intended, rather than earlier.

Happily for HMRC, the silly nonsense of having "international access" geographic alternatives at a different rate will soon be a thing of the past. If the blocking of calls from mobiles has been relaxed, then this does create a silly anomaly. Given the decision to switch to 03, I can see no good reason to retain the block on UK landline calls to "international" numbers whilst this is being completed, unless there are genuine technical reasons for this (which I doubt).

I hope that HMRC will very shortly be in a position to publish more detail, or show actual evidence, of the move to 03. It is unlikely that those who will be carrying out the work have committed to a completion date with a degree of certainty that enables senior HMRC personnel to stake their reputation on it being achieved. Noting the poor reputation of its Chief Executive however, HMRC would benefit from offering some further reassurance that all is on track.

NGMsGhost wrote on May 29^th, 2013 at 11:12am:

I do not think that the regulator should be engaged in actions against parties who do not wish to take telephone calls from particular callers on certain numbers. Telephone suscribers are free to deal with incoming calls as they see fit.

Where a particular telecommunications provider prevents its customers from calling one or more destinations, then that may be a different matter.

The point with HMRC is that it is the receiving party which has requested the block and I do not see an issue with that. Users of telephones are not, and should not be, compelled to answer them in a particular manner, perhaps within a particular time.


NGMsGhost wrote on May 29^th, 2013 at 11:12am:

HMRC has already decided to move away from 0845 numbers and so will not be forced to declare its 2 pence per minute Service Charge, as a result of the reform by Ofcom.

Where a Service Provider chooses to impose a Service Charge and provides an alternative for international callers it is reasonable that it would wish to prevent callers from within the UK from circumventing its charging mechanism.

Dave wrote on May 30^th, 2013 at 3:36pm:


I am utterly and totally astounded that anyone associated with this website, least of all its leading moderator and co-founder of fairtelecoms, would ever suggest about an 01, 02 or 03 numbet that "if they are used as intended then no one will hear any message telling them that their call is blocked."

Can you tell me exactly since when it has been intended that 01, 02 or 03 numbers should not be able to be called by callers based in the UK and especially when this premise has been accepted by one of the two founders of FairTelecoms (a campaign that is apparently there to act as a covert endorsement of the continued misuse of 084/7 numbers as long as they dish out a bit of service charge and similar information rather than a campaign dedicated to their complete elimination) that UK callers should not be able to expect to call an 01, 02 or 03 number listed by a company from a UK landline.

Even my own mother who I find difficult to persuade to visit this website (since she seems to feel the numbers are unofficial) has no problem at all using the  so called "international" number for her bank and other card issuers usually listed on the back of the cards.  But you now seem to take the line of the revenue share abusers and are being naughty and doing something we shouldn't do if we call any available alternative 01/02/03 number for a call centre to their 084/7 number????!!!!!!

Your idea that there is no cause for complaint to my fixed line provider, Otelo or Ofcom about the fact that a public body is selectively refusing to connect calls to its 01 number from calls from UK landlines totally beggars belief.  Especially when the same body is willingly connecting calls from UK mobiles.  If the number works the same for everybody calling it regardless of how they call it then there is of course no issue.

Dave wrote on May 30^th, 2013 at 3:49pm:


That is a completely different point from discriminating against calls from UK landlines whilst happily accepting them from UK mobiles and overseas numbers.

Especially as highly advanced call source detertion methods are being used to achieve that filtering.

I wonder how somebody with your kind of defeatist attitude to one of the main objectives of this campaign (that all 084/7 call centres should offer a geographic alternative as per Matt Peacock of Ofcom's original suggestion) is really fit to be the moderator of this website.

Also the way in whcih a public body subject to FOIs and the Parliamentary Ombudsman handles its calls is a very different issue from how a private residential subscriber chooses to do so.

A private residential subscriber can not answer someone's calls based on their name, gender, prettyness, what mood they are in or anything else they like (although some of them they would have to keep to themselves as criteria to avoid prosecution for racism or sexism) but the same is not true of the call centre of a government body obliged to treat all callers equally and answer all such calls during their stated public opening hours.  To discriminate against a UK landline caller on the basis that they have not paid enough to call (which is clealry the basis of the selection) is quite outrageous.

What on earth makes you and SilentCallsVictim think you are fit to misrepresent yourselves as being the public spokespersons of this website or discussion forum (which we have never chosen you to be) when your views are so out of step with most other long term members of this forum.

Dave wrote on May 30^th, 2013 at 4:01pm:


Then why on earth do you spend much of your time on this website listing alternative numbers to the ones that the companies and organisations themselves publicly quote as the ones they want to be used to call them.

By your criteria above this is an outrageous subversion of their right to force the caller to pay whatever rate they want to call them using whatever number they want to specify.

How on earth was it that you had no problem listing my Spanish landline number for Vueling as an alternative to its outrageous 76p/min UK wheelchair booking line with the attitudes you now say you have about companies being free to quote whatever numbers they want.

I think you should consider resigning as moderator with the views you have just expressed.  Increasingly you and the other FairTelecomsist seem to be apologists for the misusers of covert premium rate numbers.  Has there been an "Invasion of The Bodysnatchers" at the offices of both www.saynoto0870.com and www.fairtelecoms.org.uk?

Surely the whole premise of www.saynoto0870.com is that if a company has a geographic alternative number that any customer of the company is quite entitled to use it regardless of how they are making that call.  For you to suggest they can use advanced techniques not available to domestic subscribers to avoid answering such calls from UK landline subscribers (even subscribers who have withheld their number) is really quite unbelievable.

The most they are entitled to do is to close down their geographic number.  For a public sector body dedicated to equal treatment of all callers regardelss of who they are to discriminate against the lowest routing cost method of calling them is surely a major competition and trading standards issue

If you don't think like me on this issue for some unfathomable reason then I suggest you need to get a job working for the NTS Call Centre Industry Opposition or failing that for Ofcom (who are generally found to be secretly batting for that side).

SilentCallsVictim wrote on May 30^th, 2013 at 4:13pm:


For once I see we are in rare agreement SCV.

I can only assume that Dave has had his coffee spiked by or has otherwise been secretly replaced by a clone created by the NTS revenue share abusing call centre industry.

Dave wrote on May 30^th, 2013 at 4:57pm:


Surely the final solution is the full implementation of the draft European Directive completely banning the use of anything other than standard rated geographic numbers or non geographic numbers charged at that rate for customer service applications.

Until and unless that happens this website surely remains dedicated to listing geographic alternatives to avoid the customer being ripped off in having to deal with a company/body's own incompetence in failing to make all forms of interaction with it available online and/or failing to fully and completely answer all possible customers questions in FAQ documents on their website.  Also at least 25% of the population are still not able to conduct their interactions with organisations on the internet due to computer/web illiteracy.

Quote:


Would you like to cite for other forum members any possible just applications of the use of 084 and 087 prefixed phone numbers.  Personally I am not aware of any at all apart from numbers used to provide cheaper means of accessing international or Uk mobile calls without using Voip or an Indirect Access Service (eg 18185 etc).  And such just uses of 084/7 could easily be catered for by a new lower class cost of 09 numbers or use of the unused 06 prefix that could not be mistaken as normal priced numbers.

Also charges to 084 and 087 become ever more unjust as more and more traffic to these numbers shifts over to calls originated from mobiles rather than landlines and most mobile companies refuse to include these calls in call bundles and instead charge rates which are deliberately exploitative and completely disproportionate to their own real additional costs in carrying them.

I find it staggering that somebody who puts so much time in to gathering numbers for and maintaining this website does not have a simple consistent root and branch objection to the existence of all forms of revenue share number.  I personally cannot even support the ones used for sex chat services or to ring lawyers etc as they all rely on the premise of stealth charging and  the user not having to make a decision up front on what they are going to pay.  In my opinion if PRS services exist at all on landlines they should all have PIN number protection and work on a separate Pre Pay advance credit loading basis.

Quote:

All the advantages that you cite of different numbers for different functions can be done with geographic numbers.  It does not excuse ripoff hidden premium rate charge numbers as a way to filter calls.  Also with advanced IVR menu systems more than one number for a company's customers for voice calls is becoming less and less necessary.

Quote:


Alternative numbers from a company's main switchboard geographic number are usualy quoted where they are 084/7 to exploit revenue share out of customers and to get customers to pay for equipment and outgoing calls it should be paying for.

Quote:

What a load of old tosh.  There is anything but an open market in telecoms services.  There is actually an aggressive process of landline subscribers having to cross subsidise investment in higher speed landline broadband, even if they only use the phone. The telcos operate as aggressive cartels who copy minimum connection charges and line price hikes from each other.

Quote:


Then you seem to be in the wrong job being a moderator on a site with a user base who generally deplore and despise all forms of ripoff of the ordinary domestic telecoms consumer.

In my opinion any service that lets a company block any whole class of users from calling it is quite wrong
and in order to ensure a properly competitive market in telecoms anyone who has an 01/02 number should not be able to discriminate against particular callers calling it depending whether they have called it directly or called it via an NTS service that has rerouted the call to it.

If companies can do this they can then stop callers using the lowest cost route to call them and that is bad for an open and healthy market in telecoms. You apparently seem to only be worried about ensuring an open and competitive market for corporate users to charge their callers as much as they feel like charging. 

NGMsGhost wrote on May 30^th, 2013 at 1:19pm:

There are now new 0300 numbers. The Taxes Helpline, 0845 300 0627, is now 0300 200 3300. NI enquiries number 0845 302 1479 has been replaced with 0300 200 3500.

I will get these listed in the database and clear out the other numbers, some of which are "overseas" alternatives and some of which are numbers that go through to destinations other than the IVRs on the published numbers (e.g. they go through to a switchboard or direct to a particular team). Others may be no longer in service.