SilentCallsVictim wrote on May 21^st, 2013 at 1:04am:


I think we are of like mind, SCV.    Perhaps this might be a good objective for the Fair Telecoms Campaign to consider --- to bring this issue specifically to the attention of the Select Committee, now, as that would give them time to think deeply about the problems and to prepare for their next annual meeting with Ofcom which I think is in September?   I am now thinking about writing to my MP on this specific topic asking him to raise the issue with the Chairman of the Committee, and maybe others should consider doing the same?

By the way, I suspect that several readers may be wondering what is the DCMS, should we enlighten them?

I attended my local Neighbourhood Action Group (NAG) last night and the Chairman asked me to give an update on the telephone numbers scene.   I took the opportunity to refer to the recent BBC report on the Ofcom proposals, which some said they had seen   The BBC headline states "Phone cost confusion putting off callers, Ofcom says" which I think fairly Summarises the Ofcom conclusion that confusion is putting off callers from dialling 084 and 087 numbers.   I offered my opinion that Ofcom had mistakenly analysed the problem and that the real problem was the cost of calling these numbers being imposed on callers whereas the cost should be for the organisations who want them and benefit from them.  Confusion and lack of transparency added to the problem but are not the root cause.   There is no demand for these numbers from the public and many would be happy to see them disappear.  There was unanimous agreement for that view.

Referring to readers comments on the BBC report we see:---

"225.  Brian McNaughton
18th May 2013 - 17:58
About time. All these technical advances seem to involve a degree of ripping off the public. Amazing that ofcom did not spot this at the begining or are they a branch of the organisations being called?"

"224.  revolutionnow999
18th May 2013 - 17:53
Phone companies, energy companies and banks. They are private organisations who confuse their customers about their charges, so they can get more money out of them. It is the accepted practice for their salesmen. And it is not surprising that private companies push at the boundaries of legality to make more profit when regulators have a proven tracker record of being powerless."

"213.  David Holder
18th May 2013 - 16:37
My phone package includes calls of up to 1 hour to 01, 02 & 03 Numbers. If you want to get rid of anything then get rid of 0845 which so many businesses use and customers then have to pay extra to call."

"209.   mog499
18th May 2013 - 16:24
I recently looked up a number on the internet for a company. when I dialled the number it was a mega premium rate it took all the credit from my phone. It warned me I was being charged a high rate but emptied my phone before I cut off the call. Rip off Britain they are all at it."

"196.  Andy
18th May 2013 - 15:32
I have had a gripe with Silverstone Circuit who use a 0844 number. After numerous unanswered calls listening to a prerecorded message for over a total of 2 hours I found I'd been charged nearly £8 for not getting through.
I have been compensated but these prerecords should tell the caller that they are being charged while waiting"

"193.  Ian
18th May 2013 - 15:14
No one should have to pay to speak to a business particularly one that they are having problems with. I strongly object to paying credit card companies if I have a problem. 0844 and 0871 numbers should be banned they are used just to make more money out of their customers. I don't place orders with companies the only use 0844 and 0871 numbers, they don't get my business."

"181.  widgeon
18th May 2013 - 14:50
I have never understood why a company would use a non-geographic number unless they have something to hide. I used to work for a charity that ran loads of 0870 numbers. When I questioned it the managers over-ruled me. They were trying to give the impression that "helplines" were call centres when in fact they were staff by one person"

These comments reflect a general dissatisfaction that will not be satisfied by greater transparency alone.   The fundamental problem is that people recognise they are being charged unfairly, the organisations they are calling should pay for the facilities and benefits attributed to these numbers.

loddon wrote on May 21^st, 2013 at 8:26am:

As stated above, I believe that much of what we are addressing is beyond the proper scope of this thread. Some points could be worthy of discussion in their own right, in particular the reconfiguration of Ofcom and its powers, which some believe would be required for these measures to be turned into something effective.

I will address points of direct relevance.

In the absence of clarity offered by the "unbundled" tariff, I do not believe that the public in general know when they are being ripped off - and in particular, by whom. The true significance of the content and balance of comments posted to the web in response to a news article may be readily exaggerated. This is a common failing by the media itself, although one that campaigners are ready to exploit.

As stated previously, I believe that the genuine demand to be able to apply Service Charges of less than 13p per minute is very much less than Ofcom is assuming. At this stage however, I cannot offer the evidence necessary to show that a greater minimum Service Charge level must be set. ALL improper imposition of Service Charges has to be an issue between those who impose them and those they serve.

I do not believe that the question of whether a Service Charge is used to offset the costs of network facilities, locally deployed systems or the staff attending calls, to provide other financial benefits to the Service Provider or simply to make money is a fundamental issue. It makes no difference to the caller, although such points can be used in an attempt to justify a Service Charge. I can see no point whatsoever in focussing only on the first of these.

Markham Sivak's brief appearance on "Your Money" was not a "last minute marketing exercise"; in that sense it was preliminary. I understand that the major Ofcom marketing exercise will begin once the statutory hurdle of the consultation has been passed, so that what are currently technically only "proposals" can truly be presented as fact.

It is accepted in the Ofcom consultations that there is little, if any, direct competition over Service Charges of less than 13p per minute and that the level of Access Charge will not be a major factor in selecting a call service provider. Providers in competitive markets can however be sensitive to all manner of relatively insignificant issues that may affect public perception of them and their products and services. That same sensitivity also exists when there is no competition at all. It is for consumer groups and campaigners to exploit that sensitivity - may I offer the recent announcement by Daisy Group as a case in point. In terms of competition, I cannot see what could be clearer than the parties levying charges each being compelled to declare it (rather than two separate charges being bundled together). In this respect, I do not understand what is the "real competition" that "the public - consumers" want.

I know that many people get hung up on the issue of "choice". I cannot however see the merit of those who provide access on an expensive number with a Service Charge also providing access on a number without a Service Charge. Obviously the former would have to offer some priority, or a higher quality of service once connected. If there is a demand, presumably from the wealthy, to have better access than others, then a Service Charge could be used for this purpose. I cannot however think of many cases where this would be appropriate, indeed it will be prohibited in cases subject to the provisions of the CRD. (If "FoneDave" is a member of this forum, perhaps he would like to respond to this criticism of his proposal.)

loddon wrote on May 22^nd, 2013 at 9:01am:

03talk proudly claims that its service is unique, but fails to explain how it can be provided without any visible means of income. If something looks too good to be true, perhaps one should question how this may be, before suggesting that something identified as being unique offers a model that could readily be followed by others.

(In this case, the truth actually lies in a rather quirky feature of the way in which the fractional elements of termination charges are paid and the readiness of some businesses to operate on tiny margins with low overheads in the hope of capturing a sufficient share of the market for the business to be sustainable.)


I do not hold with idea that some Service Charges are "legitimate" and all others are not, although introduction of the provisions of the Consumer Rights Directive will render some illegitimate. I argue that every Service Charge has to be justified to those who may pay it, in terms of its very existence and the level at which it is imposed.

This can only be done if it is seen in isolation from the consequential, but highly variable, Access Charge. The level of Access Charge in turn must also be justified by those who impose it, and the inevitability of the Access Charge is a further consideration that must be covered in the justification of the Service Charge.

Most of the particular cases that generate public concern are clearly unjustified and unjustifiable. The sooner that attention can be drawn to them (in the light of the forthcoming requirement for the Service Charge to be declared), the sooner the issues can be resolved.

Did anyone see the BBC TV ONE Show yesterday in which a reporter roamed the streets asking people what would be their idea of HELL?   One lady said without hesitation  "08 numbers!!!" 

08 numbers are HELL.   The public speak the truth.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on May 22^nd, 2013 at 1:04pm:


Oh dear, when a debater resorts to desperation the argument is thereby conceded.   Even in a largely liberal society, and I wouldn't want any less, there is a need for some rules by which the game must be played in the interests of all, otherwise things can get distorted and even dangerous.  The natural forces of the market usually do their job well enough but sometimes it goes all wrong, just to mention some recent examples,

Libor Rate setting     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libor_scandal

Oil Price Rigging   http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2325217/Oil-price-fixers-face-prison-say...

PPI Mis-selling   http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2013/mar/04/ppi-facts-figures-biggest-mis-sellin...

08 numbers HELL  http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/bills/article-2162169/Rip-phone-scam-big-comp...

I could go on quoting for pages.   Therefore we must strive towards a balance between liberal markets for business and sensible rules and regulation, and I think many people, a vast majority, think that Ofcom has been negligent, incapable and wholly ineffective in regulating this market.   While the current Ofcom proposals are a small step in the right direction most people say they are still inadequate.   I find I have support from other members of this Forum as well as being able to point to Windsor Telecom, Antelope Consulting, Agrathea Telecom, The Federation of Small Business in arguing for better regulation.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on May 22^nd, 2013 at 4:49pm:


This seems to entirely agree with my argument; that Ofcom are not trying to deal with the problems of 084/7 numbers by proper regulation but Ofcom is intending to offer consumers a little more information about the cost of such calls and then leave it to campaigners to battle and consumers to complain in order to apply pressure over future years; because I suspect it will take years to get any significant change from the industry.   As I said before, transparency is welcome but it is a poor substitute for proper regulation.

It is a matter of coincidence that an example of an alternative approach to regulation has today been brought to my attention. Some may see other nations as being more inclined towards "proper regulation" than the British.

See http://www.bundesnetzagentur.de/cln_1932/SharedDocs/Pressemitteilungen/EN/2013/1....

As I understand it, our telephone network cannot apply different rates for distinct portions of the duration of the call. Some may be excited about the idea of a state regulator getting involved in deciding when "a caller's business is being attended to". I make many calls where the person who answers is not in any way competent in dealing with my business, however I would not fancy having to argue my case for a refund of the call cost with a regulator.

Given that the Consumer Rights Directive will prohibit use of numbers including a Service Charge for customer contact an equivalent provision in the UK would only cover calls with a declared Service Charge, but not covered by the CRD. One suspects that another EU member was already addressing the queuing issue separately and has decided to press on, despite being required to also apply the more comprehensive regulations by the middle of 2014.

It may also be noted that the fair telecoms campaign has called for other sectoral regulators to get directly involved in placing specific regulations covering telephone usage on those whom they regulate. If there were a single state regulator covering telecoms, power utilities and public transport, then obviously this would be more easily achieved.