Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
SAYNOTO0870.COM

<---- Back to main website

 
Home Help Search Login Register

Pages: 1 2 
Send Topic Print
Expensive charges caused by misdialling numbers (Read 28,458 times)
loddon
Supreme Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 599
Reading  UK
Gender: male
Re: Expensive charges caused by misdialling numbers
Reply #15 - Jan 4th, 2014 at 11:00am
 
Ian G wrote on Jan 2nd, 2014 at 9:55am:
Coventry doesn't need 79 million numbers.

I agree.   How profligate, wasteful, inefficient and incompetent to allocate 79 million to one area.

Would 7.9 million be enough for a single area code?   If so, 0247 could have been, and could be, allocated to Coventry and 024x, 024y and 024z etc could be allocated to Portsmouth, Leeds, Sheffield, Bristol .....

There never was any need to use 011 numbers at all.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Jan 4th, 2014 at 12:27pm by loddon »  
Campaignagainstripofftelecoms  
IP Logged
 
SilentCallsVictim
Supreme Member
*****
Offline


aka NHS.Patient, DH_fairtelecoms

Posts: 2,494
Re: Expensive charges caused by misdialling numbers
Reply #16 - Jan 4th, 2014 at 11:14am
 
loddon wrote on Jan 4th, 2014 at 9:45am:
… potential confusion between 118 and 0118 stands out as, in my view, the one with most potential of occurring (mainly due to very extensive and heavy advertising of 118 numbers continually omitting the zero

I am shocked to hear of users of 0118 numbers even quoting their numbers without the zero, let alone engaging in extensive and heavy advertising of incomplete numbers. It must surely be a matter for both the ASA and PhonePay Plus to look into what must be deliberate promotion of a DQ service disguised as a local Reading service.

If local businesses in Reading are advertising genuine 0118 numbers "continually omitting the zero", then they must be claiming that people would add the zero in order to connect to them. This practice is clearly deprecated by Ofcom and I have never seen this done in other areas - it must surely be a scam intended to exploit the confusion between 0118 and 118.

Apologies for having missed the point. I had understood that the problem was caused by callers removing the "0" from a published 0118 number.


For further discussion, there are perhaps two different issues raised.

The anomalous 070, 076 and 055 ranges are on the Ofcom agenda for "Simplifying Non-Geographic Numbers", however the scope of the exercise underway was considered to be sufficiently broad for these to be dealt with separately (anyone who has attempted to read any of the documentation would surely agree).

The arrangement for non-UK territories to have numbers within the UK system creates difficulties. These would be brought sharply into focus if Scotland votes for independence. My (only lightly considered) personal view is that Ofcom should consider using its recently acquired powers to intervene in retail pricing so as to simplify charging for calls to geographic (and standard mobile) numbers.

I believe that we are not far from the point where a "basic rate" telephone call could cover all 01, 02, 03 and 07 numbers (excluding the present 070 and 078 ranges). There are many anomalies which would prevent regulation to enforce this principle at present, e.g. the non-UK numbers, the distinct "local rate" which applies in some cases, ISPs with geographic number and most notably the fact that the levelling of the mobile termination rates process is not yet complete. This worthy objective is not wholly utopian, albeit that there are many issues to address and it will take time.

With such an objective in mind, it may be possible to persuade the non-UK telcos to accept calls within the UK network on the same terms as those available to those in the UK. This would transfer a burden of cost to those in the non-UK territories from those who call them.

(Whilst the fair telecoms campaign sees the benefits of a simple "basic rate" being enforced, as outlined above, full consideration of the issues may reveal grounds for objection to any specific proposal - simplicity always has a price! We see this as nothing more than an idea worthy of serious discussion at this stage.)
Back to top
 
WWW  
IP Logged
 
loddon
Supreme Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 599
Reading  UK
Gender: male
Re: Expensive charges caused by misdialling numbers
Reply #17 - Jan 4th, 2014 at 12:16pm
 
SilentCallsVictim wrote on Jan 4th, 2014 at 11:14am:
[quote author=loddon link=1388600971/14#14 date=1388828704]
I am shocked to hear of users of 0118 numbers even quoting their numbers without the zero,


Now even you are getting confused, thereby illustrating my point poetically.   I was referring to 118 numbers and trying, perhaps vainly, to emphasise that 118 is constantly thrust in front of us, usually in inane, demented cringeworthy adverts, possibly creating a subliminal impression which may induce those with only limited awareness or understanding to be duped into omitting the zero when attempting to call a Reading, Wokingham or Bracknell number.   Those of us blessed with a complete lack of ignorance, or even a lack of complete ignorance, together with minimal analytic and deductive skills can probably circumvent this trap for the unsuspecting, except for the occasional finger trouble.

Now you suggest bringing in the ASA and PPP; ...... wow, this problem is even greater than I thought it was!   Shocked
Back to top
 
Campaignagainstripofftelecoms  
IP Logged
 
Ian G
Senior Member
****
Offline



Posts: 276
Gender: male
Re: Expensive charges caused by misdialling numbers
Reply #18 - Jan 4th, 2014 at 1:28pm
 
loddon wrote on Jan 4th, 2014 at 11:00am:
There never was any need to use 011 numbers at all.

At that time, 1995, there were no other free codes to use for new seven digit local numbers.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Jan 4th, 2014 at 1:29pm by Ian G »  
 
IP Logged
 
loddon
Supreme Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 599
Reading  UK
Gender: male
Re: Expensive charges caused by misdialling numbers
Reply #19 - Jan 4th, 2014 at 1:57pm
 
Ian G wrote on Jan 4th, 2014 at 1:28pm:
loddon wrote on Jan 4th, 2014 at 11:00am:
There never was any need to use 011 numbers at all.

At that time, 1995, there were no other free codes to use for new seven digit local numbers.


Because they had allocated 79 million numbers to Coventry (024), 79 million to Cardiff (029) and 79 million to Portsmouth/Southampton (023)?   What about 021, 025, 026 and 027?   Weren't they available?
Back to top
 
Campaignagainstripofftelecoms  
IP Logged
 
Ian G
Senior Member
****
Offline



Posts: 276
Gender: male
Re: Expensive charges caused by misdialling numbers
Reply #20 - Jan 4th, 2014 at 2:35pm
 
No. They were not available in 1995.

They were just about to stop using codes like 0234, 0252 for geographic areas and move them to 01234, 01252 etc.

You can't move Aldershot from 0252 (plus six digits) to 01252 (plus six digits) and on the very same day move Reading from 0734 (plus six digits) to (025) 2X (plus 6 digits).

The 02 codes started being used 5 years later. Outside London and NI, the new codes should have been 3+7, not 2+8 to avoid that waste.

Note that, after 2000, the code (023) 9X has been used by Portsmouth. Before 1995, 0239 was used by Cardigan - now 01239.

Are you suggesting that Leeds, Sheffield, Nottingham, Leicester and Bristol should have had two code changes, just five years apart? Oftel got enough stick for moving London codes several times in quick succession.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Jan 4th, 2014 at 2:48pm by Ian G »  
 
IP Logged
 
Dave
Global Moderator
*****
Offline



Posts: 9,902
Yorkshire
Gender: male
Re: Expensive charges caused by misdialling numbers
Reply #21 - Jan 4th, 2014 at 3:34pm
 
loddon wrote on Jan 4th, 2014 at 1:57pm:
Ian G wrote on Jan 4th, 2014 at 1:28pm:
loddon wrote on Jan 4th, 2014 at 11:00am:
There never was any need to use 011 numbers at all.

At that time, 1995, there were no other free codes to use for new seven digit local numbers.


Because they had allocated 79 million numbers to Coventry (024), 79 million to Cardiff (029) and 79 million to Portsmouth/Southampton (023)?   What about 021, 025, 026 and 027?   Weren't they available?

Of course they weren't available because, as Ian G says, the original 011x codes were introduced at the same time as the "1" was inserted after the national trunk dialling prefix 0. This happened on 16th April 1995 — aka "PhONEday".

Thus, unless it is being suggested that 02xx codes should have been introduced immediately after PhONEday, without any period of cleansing to prevent mis-connections due to misdialling, then they simply weren't available. As we're discussing misdialling here, I can't think that this is what was being suggested.

The introduction of 023 for Southampton/Portsmouth, 024 for Coventry etc was in preparation for "wide" area codes. Northern Ireland is a good example of this, where previously smaller STD code areas have been absorbed into one large "wide" one.


The move to 118xxx directory enquiry numbering was part of a pan-European plan. Was this a directive or did we have any say in whether it be adopted?

In any case it took place years after Reading's code became 0118, so I can't see how it could have been forseen.

If the UK was forced to use 118xxx for directory enquiries then the only way to avoid possible confusion with 0118 numbers would have been for Reading to change its code again — this could have been the only action Ofcom could have taken if its hands were tied with respect to 118 for directory enquiries.


I think that there are those who dial incorrectly, omitting the leading zero, and not realising the significance of, or being aware of, the ringing tone before finishing dialling what they thought to be the correct number. In any case, how many directory enquiries services have a period of ringing and how long is this before it trips?
Back to top
« Last Edit: Jan 4th, 2014 at 3:42pm by Dave »  
 
IP Logged
 
SilentCallsVictim
Supreme Member
*****
Offline


aka NHS.Patient, DH_fairtelecoms

Posts: 2,494
Re: Expensive charges caused by misdialling numbers
Reply #22 - Jan 4th, 2014 at 5:18pm
 
loddon wrote on Jan 4th, 2014 at 12:16pm:
Now even you are getting confused, thereby illustrating my point poetically.

When you referred to "advertising of 118 numbers continually omitting the zero", I assumed that you were referring to numbers from which a zero had been omitted. I wondering at first, but recognised that there is no (leading) zero to omit from a DQ number and noted that you clearly stated "omitting the zero", and so surely must have been referring to a number from which a zero may be omitted.

I would therefore rather use the word "misled", than "confused", to describe what happened to me, which probably illustrates a quite different point.
(I see that other contributors have had to intervene to point out that many comments are being made here without a necessary awareness of the true history. We do not all have the time to research issues properly and I believe that one should take care not to offer pointed comment based on falsehoods, albeit mistaken assumptions, nor lead others into doing so.)


I can see how "heavy and extensive advertising" of any telephone number, or part thereof, may subliminally cause anyone to repeat those digits when dialling any telephone number. I cannot however see how this could create the rational idea that the leading zero may be omitted from a geographic 0118 number when presenting or dialling it. DQ access codes are not the same as Reading telephone numbers; this difference must surely be highlighted, rather than undermined, on noting the similarity of the leading digits.

If there is evidence from psychological studies to contradict these common sense observations, then it needs to be presented. More importantly however, one needs evidence of the extent of mis-dialling, and perhaps the refusal of requests for refunds, to establish that this is a serious problem.


I fear that the nature and scale of this specific problem is being exaggerated. I personally believe that the vast majority of the telephone-using population are perfectly capable of dialling a 11-digit number accurately, if it is presented to them properly. The whole system relies on this capability. Difficulties can arise if one tries to get clever by analysing the digits. I find it hard to believe that a significant number of people believe that they can present a geographic area code without the leading zero, or that the zero at the front of a "long" geographic number need not be dialled.


The OP offers an example of someone who makes a particular mistake repeatedly - we must accept that this is a genuine case, and note the repetition of the error after it has been recognised. There are indeed many cases reported of those who are unwell and repeatedly dial PRS numbers without having properly decided to purchase the service, perhaps because they see them advertised or are unaware of the cost implications (nothing to do with any confusion over the digits of the number). We must be aware of such cases and press for all appropriate assistance to be provided for those unable to handle the full responsibilities that go with being connected to the telephone network.

The extent to which the National Numbering Plan can protect against the danger of mis-dialling is however limited.
Back to top
 
WWW  
IP Logged
 
loddon
Supreme Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 599
Reading  UK
Gender: male
Re: Expensive charges caused by misdialling numbers
Reply #23 - Jan 4th, 2014 at 8:31pm
 
SilentCallsVictim wrote on Jan 4th, 2014 at 5:18pm:
[quote author=loddon link=1388600971/17#17 date=1388837774]
I can see how "heavy and extensive advertising" of any telephone number, or part thereof, may subliminally cause anyone to repeat those digits when dialling ..... 


I appreciate all the thoughtful comments made on this topic.   My point is that we are not talking about the ability of the majority to carefully avoid the trap, but a vulnerable minority that I have seen actually suffer some harm.   What are the thought processes or trembling frailties which could lead to such a mistake we will probably never know.   How many are being affected?   How could we find out?    The point is that this is prima facie a disastrous juxtaposition of very similar codes, one of which most people would expect to use and not incur any cost for dialling while the other is a very high priced premium number which can be mistakenly dialled.

The fact is, whatever the EU might say, DQ numbers belong in the 09 range and to put them so perilously close to an important area code has been a big mistake.    My objective is to bring this to Ofcom's attention.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Jan 4th, 2014 at 8:35pm by loddon »  
Campaignagainstripofftelecoms  
IP Logged
 
CJT-80
Global Moderator
*****
Offline



Posts: 1,714
Manchester
Gender: male
Re: Expensive charges caused by misdialling numbers
Reply #24 - Jan 4th, 2014 at 8:55pm
 
loddon wrote on Jan 4th, 2014 at 8:31pm:
The fact is, whatever the EU might say, DQ numbers belong in the 09 range and to put them so perilously close to an important area code has been a big mistake.    My objective is to bring this to Ofcom's attention.

Or better still removed from existence and replaced with a set charge service provided by the user's telecom provider.. IE: O2/EE/TalkTalk etc.. with a SET maxium call charge such as 60p or £1 PER call.

That would be fairer and encourage competition... you could of course still have the callers being able to call another provider but the call costs SHOULD be advised before the call is connected..

However as we have noticed on here before Ofcom does not appear to work in the favour of the consumer...

Just a thought....
Back to top
 

Regards,

CJT-80

Any comments made are my own and are not those of SayNoTo0870.com
 
IP Logged
 
SilentCallsVictim
Supreme Member
*****
Offline


aka NHS.Patient, DH_fairtelecoms

Posts: 2,494
Re: Expensive charges caused by misdialling numbers
Reply #25 - Jan 5th, 2014 at 3:06am
 
loddon wrote on Jan 4th, 2014 at 8:31pm:
DQ numbers belong in the 09 range and to put them so perilously close to an important area code has been a big mistake. My objective is to bring this to Ofcom's attention.

The opportunity to make this point was offered in a consultation that concluded on 22 February 2001.

Just for the record, the final cutover to 0118 numbers for Reading (on 9 January 1998) was advised in this Numbering Bulletin.

loddon wrote on Jan 4th, 2014 at 8:31pm:
What are the thought processes or trembling frailties which could lead to such a mistake we will probably never know.

To suggest a change to a decision made nearly 12 years ago and to justify the consequent enormous cost and disruption, I would think it necessary to offer highly convincing evidence of the alleged damage that has been done over this period. If this has been seen to be "disastrous", as alleged, then surely some evidence would have come to light.

As I stated previously, there are many who are unable to cope with the responsibility that goes with being connected to the telephone network. I believe that everything possible should be done to accommodate the particular needs and limited capabilities of some users, however this should be done by special measures, so as to avoid limiting the features available to all.

In particular, I think it reasonable to assume that geographic numbers of up to 11 digits (in the standard national number format) may be presented and dialled correctly. The fact that all national numbers begin with a zero (which cannot be omitted) is surely sufficiently simple and clear.

If anything, I would see the danger of omitting the leading zero from a geographic number as being less than that of omitting the "1" from a 0184, 0187 or 019 number. The danger of incurring a charge for an unwanted service is even greater as a result of misdialling a PRS number - this is being deliberately exploited by those who offer high priced services on numbers similar to those used for voting in relation to popular TV shows.


My personal view is that any review of number allocation for PRS should await the fall-out from the mass migration from 084 and 087 - which I predict will leave these ranges largely de-populated. There is also whatever emerges from Ofcom's forthcoming review of the 070 range to consider. Furthermore, there are many PRS mobile shortcodes already in use and there is a wish to extend the option for charitable giving through the phone bill to landline users.

The OP may have already decided that all of these "belong in the 09 range", effectively prohibiting the use of shortcodes for chargeable services and leaving the 08 range with nothing more than a dwindling number of "freephone" services. I am not yet sufficiently acquainted with all the relevant issues, and the impact of future changes that has yet to be seen, in order to offer a clear opinion on the future of the 09 ranges. Furthermore, I see other issues as being of far higher priority for Ofcom in 2014/5. Background work and thinking about issues that will feature in the work plan in future years is important, but I believe that decisions must wait a while.

It is fair enough to make uninformed and ill-considered casual comments, but serious criticism of the National Numbering Plan, and serious proposals for change, do require serious consideration.

Back to top
 
WWW  
IP Logged
 
loddon
Supreme Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 599
Reading  UK
Gender: male
Re: Expensive charges caused by misdialling numbers
Reply #26 - Jan 5th, 2014 at 10:40am
 
CJT-80 wrote on Jan 4th, 2014 at 8:55pm:
However as we have noticed on here before Ofcom does not appear to work in the favour of the consumer...


You may be right in your view but that should absolutely NOT be the case.   If you look at the Ofcom Summary of their current consultation on the Ofcom plan for 2014-15 it is full of references to their obligations to consumers, for example :---


1.3 Ofcom's principal duties are to further the interests of citizens in relation to communications matters and to further the interests of consumers in relevant markets …..

1.5 In 2013, we defined an over-arching strategy, set out below, which we believe best delivers consumer and citizen benefits in the light of these duties

Strategy
We will provide proportionate protection for consumers ...
One of the five Strategic Purposes declared by Ofcom is to “Protect Consumers from Harm”.

Protect consumers in a range of priority areas …. continue to identify areas of consumer harm …..

We will assess the successful delivery of these proposed priorities against the outcomes we are seeking to secure for citizens and consumers.

1.18 We will also remain responsive to new issues, emerging concerns that affect consumers across the UK …..

….... we will aid governments in the UK nations, to ensure that consumer and citizen benefits are available …...

Ofcom also ask :---
What are your views on Ofcom's proposed priorities for 2014/15?
What are your views on Ofcom's proposed major work areas for 2014/15?


I would suggest that it is up to us to bring our concerns relating to consumer and citizen issues with telecom services to the attention of Ofcom and then to hold them to account.

http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/consultations/draft-annual-plan-2014-15/summary
Back to top
« Last Edit: Jan 5th, 2014 at 10:41am by loddon »  
Campaignagainstripofftelecoms  
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 2 
Send Topic Print
(Moderators: Forum Admin, Dave, bbb_uk, DaveM, 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