When the new telephone numbering structure was implemented, it seems that BT managed in effect by some slight of hand to get Oftel to allow them to conceal certain number prefixes which they alone could use and market for clandestine purposes amongst the newly allocated 04, 05, 07 and 08 codes, to enable them to recover some of the monopoly which they had lost with the "privatisation" of telephone services. This was done by concealing these prefixes within categories intended for, and generally understood to be for, other purposes; BT decided to use them effectively for disguised "Premium Line" purposes. (The definition of a Premium Line is a number which has a higher charge then the normal "geographically" appropriate charge rate, and where part of the charge collected by the Telco is paid to the called subscriber!!! This is exactly what BT is doing with this scam of DPLs!! Note also that the charge for 0871... numbers is higher than that for 0870... numbers because a larger premium is paid to the called subscriber.) There is now a series of prefixes which BT have a monopoly in, and which all competing call carriers are therefore forced either not to provide or to provide and charge at a higher rate, because they have to pay the premium portions to BT, who have the monopoly now once again for calls with these particular codes. For example most people probably believe that all numbers with the prefix 07 are now either mobile telephone or pager numbers. This is not true, since BT have been able to inject some 07 prefix numbers which they call "Personal Numbering System" numbers, and which pay a significant premium portion of the call cost (as high as or an even higher rate than many overt Premium Line numbers) to the called subscriber. Other examples are within the 04, 05 and 08 series. They use a deceiving misnomer for these collectively - "Non-Geographic" numbers. Whatever does that mean? All fixed or landline numbers (as opposed to mobile numbers) have a specific geographical point where they are located. Unless a number is based on Mars or some planet other than earth it must be a geographic number!!

It seems that BT has been marketing the concept to many companies that if they change their number advertised to customers or their advertised number for their call centre from a normal so-called geographic number to one of these Disguised Premium Line numbers, indirectly indicating that they should then arrange for their call centre to have many times more incoming lines than operators and as many levels of menu selection as possible, significant amounts of revenue can be generated both for BT and the company with the number or operating the call centre, by forcing callers to queue and listen to the ubiquitous Musac and voice-overs. This is now the increasingly prevalent reason for relatively long waiting or queuing times when calling companies or their call centres.

I now make it a matter of principle since having discovered this not to do business with or call any company or organisation which uses these numbers, particularly 07, 0870 and 0871 prefixes, and in some instances a company might in any case be local to the area from which you were calling, and so would and should be normally at a local call rate.

This whole area and these abuses are a dishonest racket. The salient principle of the "New Telephone Numbering System" was supposed to be that subscibers could identify the category of number which they were calling and particularly could see which numbers were PREMIUM lines. BT have managed to circumvent this principle by inserting these disguised PREMIUM line numbers and marketing them in this way to companies. This is why you will find many companies now changing their advertised number for customers to a 0870... or 0871... type number. They are making significant amounts of money out of the clueless and unsuspecting callers who hold waiting for their "turn" in the queue.

As well as encouraging companies using these numbers to have as many levels of menu structure as possible BT is also encouraging companies to have as much recorded announcement prior to or interleafed with this structure as possible. This all increases the queueing time on line and makes more money for both the dishonest company and BT.

The whole thing is outrageous and a deliberate contravention of the new numbering system, and the true spirit of commercial competition, (particularly because they also then escape the requirement to state the cost per minute and that it is a premium line), which Oftel have done nothing to address. We need as many consumers as possible to complain to Oftel, so that they have to take some action to prevent BT pulling this trick any longer.

Agree with the bulk of your post.

Not too sure about putting all the blame on BT though, I thought all the major telcos can get allocations within these numbers ranges.  i.e. all 080 prefixed numbers are freephone I believe, e.g 0800, 0808, and so a telco such as NTL is allocated, for example 0800 16x xxx range, and additional varying size ranges, as the demand is needed.  There's a spreadsheet you can download from another site I once came across which has a huge list of these allocations, I'll try to find it again and post the link.

With regards to the 087x prefix range, I have to admit it wasn't all that long ago when I was quite sure that all numbers starting with this prefix were national rate, with the only caveat that the likes of NTL (or C&W as they were then) charged these at a higher rate, very annoying, but bearable.

Now we come to these "other" 0870, 0871 and I think even 0870 2 and so one prefixes.  To begin with, one would expect that by now, all telco's (with the help/assistance/insistance) of Oftel could have actually come to some sort of agreements to charge all outbound calls to 0870 numbers at the orginating telco's STANDARD national rate, i.e. if national is even free or discounted within certain conditions the same applies to 0870.  Can this really be all that hard?  Maybe this would result in sligher higher charges for national calls, and cheese off telco's, but would certainly make things a hell of a lot more transparent to the consumer, which I thought is (or was?) one of Oftel's main aims???

When I first heard that 0871 numbers were actually more expensive that whatever rate a telco may charge for an 0870 number I was quite shocked.  Even if 087x was never specificly advertised at "national rate" many could still argue that due to the lack of any other 087 numbers in common use for such a long duration that most had come to accept 0871 is also national rate.

And I find the whole thing about small print quite ridiculous really.  Lets assume we're quite happy not to have any small print for numbers when they're charged at equal to or less than the "standard" national call rate (whatever this really means these days!).  For 0870 numbers it could still be helpfull to the advertisers to point out that this is a national (and not premium) rate call, as well as educating the public.

So now we come to an advertiser using an 0871 or higher rate number, so they SHOULD be printing some form of small print to point this out.  Apart from a small case I notice of this missing completely, the font size used is often so small that they are seriously taking the piss, surely this is legally meant to be legible in the enviroment/media printed?  As an example on the London Underground I could without too much difficulty make out a number amongst a packed train, add it to my phonebook - all well and good for the advertiser.  But the question is, would I be able to read the small print without walking right up to the advert?  Seldom not!  And even if I could walk right up to it, (empty train or whatever), the motion of the train while moving still often makes it difficult to read the tiny fonts used!  It wouldn't surprise me if the advertising agencies who let the space don't check these things either.

Phew, I think better leave it there before I raise me blood pressure any futher!  ;D

I agree, watch the Busch gardens ad carefully! It uses 0871, which I believe is 10ppm AT ALL TIMES! But they don't say what the charge is. It's the first time I have seen 0871 used for attracting new customers!
I have looked at the OFTEL website too. From what I can gather, they have introduced regulations that PROHIBIT caller's telcos from charging significantly lower prices for these numbers, after a complaint from C&W that BT were offering discounts and inclusive call allowance on their blocks of 0870/0845 numbers!
OFTEL seem more worried that the 0870/0845 (Known as Number Translation Services or NTS in the jargon) providers can generate a stable 'extra' revenue stream from these calls rather than have them go through a geographic service. Further, OFTEL actually allow this generation, and sharing with the companys they have persuaded to use 0870/0845 for their customer contacts.
The technical document states that the NTS number always has to be routed to a proper geographic number in the end so that the call centre can receive it. The NTS provider performs services, such as call pattern analysis, for the benefit of the receiving company, and WE are paying for it! :o

It seems to me that ALL these numbers must have a geographic equivalent (probably ex-directory) so there is hope yet of thwarting this con if enough people look through their local phone books, note when they are given (sometimes reluctantly) an alternative number, find an old leaflet with the old geographic number (it may still work) and constantly remind the businesses that use them that they KNOW what they are up to and it may influence who gets the business next time round. (I did this as a parting quip to a British Gas salesman who was peddling electricity).

All of us should look at the database, and add numbers we have come across. (I have just added Legoland and Frizzell, and they both work if you are nice to whoever answers - if challenged (rare) I say that the other number is not working, or, this is the number I was given/was on the letter.

Telewest is the biggest one to watch with calls to non geographic numbers, they charge the same rate as BT plus a 6 pence connection charge. This also aplies to calls to mobiles.

Telewest off peak calls now also finish at 6 am, something very people have realised

Laughable nonsense

I'd support the formation of some sort of national protest group to further highlight the scam of 0845 and 0870 numbers. Or a petition with thousands of signatures sent to OFTEL perhaps? Complaints to the Government for their own use of 0845 and 0870 numbers would be a priority. Most people seem totally taken-in by the claim that 'national' and especially 'local' rate numbers are doing callers a favour.  Staff who receive calls seem honestly and completely oblivious to the scam as well. Like some other people posting here, I avoid calling companies with 0845 or 0870 numbers. They lose my business.

Regards
George

I agree with you about the scam of charging higher rates for numbers that do not appear to be premium rate. Oftel or whatever they are now (Ofcom is it?) should be lobbied to do something about this.

However  I feel that the idea that non geographic numbers do in fact have a geographic location needs some qualification.
In some cases calling an 0845 / 0870 number will indeed take you to one location but in lots of cases this is simply not true. If a company has 5 call centres dotted around the country (or even the world!) then calls could be programmed to ring at a call centre in say Newcastle first on 0191 233 xxxx, if all the lines were busy or the call was not answered within a certain time the call can be presented to 0121 236 xxxx and so on. This means that it is much more likely your call will be answered in a shorter length of time than if you use the geographic numbers posted on this site. A big organisation such as the National rail enquiries can deal with the large number of calls they receive so much more effectivley by using a non geographic number and routing the calls to where they have the staff to answer them at the time be it in Newcastle, Cardiff, Mumbai or wherever.
They do of course receive a proportion of the call charge but hey, they have to pay the staff and it's costing you only a local call charge anyway.
I do not see the percieved problem with calling an 0845 number. Are you saying that these are not charged at a local call rate (other than from a mobile) ?

BT did try this before and failed!

does anyone remember 0990 numbers?

They were around only a few years ago but cost 15p a min.

Im sure there was some sort of press attack which killed most of it off before it started.

I do know Norwich union did use them as I was a customer.

These numbers were very lucrative. I know as I worked for a company selling 0800 nos for a while.

I would be happy to join any group emailing or complaining to companies that use them.

A recent radio 2 show was supporting this.

now is the time to strike

cheers
G

;D  It's great to find so many other people incensed by 0845 and 0870, etc, numbers.  Thought it was just me being a sad b*stard.

I have e-mailed BT Customer Service (an expression used loosely) several times, only to be told that they cannot treat me (a BT Together Option 3 customer) differently as it would be against their charter not to discriminate!!  Words fail me.

Here's what they actually wrote:

.....Unfortunately, as you are no doubt aware calls to 0870 and 0845 numbers do not qualify for calls at the BT Together call charge rate. This is explained in the BT Together leaflet included with recent telephone bills and on line at www.bt.com.

It is a condition of BT's Operating License that we publish and adhere to standard national charges for our services, and our license precludes us from showing undue preference or discrimination towards any particular customer or group of customers......

As I said, words fail me.

Sorry to preach/moan to the converted - but just what can we all do to help sort this out?? :'(

Barrie Trevena

I have just discovered this site. It is nice to know that there are other people with similar views to myself.  I agree that the 0845/0870 is a big con which 95% of people do not realise is costing them a lot of money.

wrote on Jul 12^th, 2003 at 12:15am:

...For example most people probably believe that all numbers with the prefix 07 are now either mobile telephone or pager numbers. This is not true, since BT have been able to inject some 07 prefix numbers which they call "Personal Numbering System" numbers, and which pay a significant premium portion of the call cost (as high as or an even higher rate than many overt Premium Line numbers) to the called subscriber.

BT do not operate any 070 personal numbers!

These numbers are operated by different companies, the details are here. This list includes all numbers beginning 07. The names of operators running other numbers can be found here.


wrote on Mar 11^th, 2004 at 5:10pm:

does anyone remember 0990 numbers?

I understand that 0990 is now 08705, similarly 0345 changed to 08457.

x
Ofcom Consultation  -  084 and 087 non-geographical telephone numbers. My response to Ofcom.

084/087 number are in the same 08 category as free (080) telephone numbers.  This leads to confusion, with many thinking that 084/087 numbers are also free. This confusion is not only in the minds of consumers, but is prevalent in the minds of personnel of the various companies who use 084/087  numbers.  When I complain about the use of 084/087 numbers, I am constantly been told that they are free.   084/087 numbers are never less expensive than geographical numbers and companies often receive a premium (revenue sharing) based on the length of call, these numbers should be placed in the 09 category.

All users of non-geographical telephone numbers should print the cost of the calls near the telephone number, together with the amount of  premium  they receive.  I feel that there is an element dishonesty in receiving money from a person making a telephone call without disclosing that fact. Revenue sharing removes any incentive to deal with calls quickly, and as companies receive more money the longer the call lasts, it is an incentive to keep customers on the line for as long as possible.

Public or semi-public organisations which have a monopoly on their services (eg the Land Registry, Passport Agency and DVLA) should not use non-geographical numbers unless they provide an alternative geographical number.

It is ironic that when BT and other telephone providers are offering various call options to reduce or eliminate the cost of calls, companies and organisations, encouraged by revenue sharing, are increasingly using non-geographical numbers which are excluded from all those options.  BT?s Option 1, which is now to be introduced for all customers as a minimum option package, removes the cost distinction between national and local calls, this cost distinction is being perpetuated by the use of so called, and misleadingly named, local and national rate non-geographical numbers.  

By the insidious and increasing use of revenue sharing customers are being locked into making expensive non-geographical calls.  The price of non-geographical call can never go below the revenue sharing element of the call.

K Kearney

Regarding this matter, I sent the following letter to my MP (email) and await his response.  Perhaps if we all did something like this it might help.

I wish to bring to your attention the growing usage of these NGN's and their costliness to consumers.
BT are making people pay so much extra and it is a virtual monopoly the way they have set it up.  It allows businesses to take a cut of all their incoming calls, thus encouraging the use of 'multi-choice options' to keep customers on the line, making more money for them.  They are allowed to advertise these calls as 'Local' and 'National'- but these are not the same cost as local and National calls if they are taken by other carriers.
Because of the charge structure customers cannot have these calls included in any 'package' and so have to pay up to 15 times more for their calls than if they were able to use a 'cheap' call carrier.
But, by far the worst offender is our own Government, who now use 0845 numbers for their (our??) departments thus causing, for example, people on benefits to have to pay extortionate amounts when they need to make contact - the very people who are disadvantaged get proportionately hit worst!  Often these same people are also the ones who may not completely understand the cost implications of the confusing setup.
Please consider using your good offices to campaign against this iniquity, surely Government is supposed to be FOR the people.
Sincerely

wrote on May 31^st, 2004 at 3:00pm:

BT are making people pay so much extra and it is a virtual monopoly the way they have set it up.

How do they do this ? Which way is this virtual monopoly set up  ??? ?


wrote on May 31^st, 2004 at 3:00pm:

It allows businesses to take a cut of all their incoming calls, thus encouraging the use of 'multi-choice options' to keep customers on the line, making more money for them.

More true for 0870 numbers than 0845 calls. The idea of the 'multi-choice options' is to get you to the person required quicker and without the extra cost of a 'Human' operator - ie. You pay less for the call !!
Note: A lot of these menu's have a bypass function so play around to find the quick way through.


wrote on May 31^st, 2004 at 3:00pm:

They are allowed to advertise these calls as 'Local' and 'National'- but these are not the same cost as local and National calls if they are taken by other carriers.

0845 and 0870 calls are charged to the Telcos at normal rate and the Telcos then charge the higher rate. ie. THEY are making the money, NOT BT  !

Telcos list for comparison.

I think we must agree to disagree, DaveM, as your statement about getting you through to the person quicker was hilarious!  Have you ever sat for 30 mins or more in a queue, paying 3/7 p a min for the privilege??  If not, you must be unique.
I would suspect from the tone of your argument some 'involvement' here - you see no problem in being unable to utilise low cost chargers.
The basic question is "Should companies be able to charge us 'Premium' (in all but name) rates for sitting listening to their musak"?
And, as for 'getting you to the right person quicker' - in my experience you just go through to the call centre operative, they are not 'specialised' within a Company (ever worked in one??).

As a matter of interest, I agree with your latter points. But we weren't talking about sitting in queues, it was about the multi-choice options. Queues happen whichever number you use, Geo or Non-Geo !
As for the 3/7p a min for the privilege, try looking at the TRUE cost to those without  the benefit of inclusive call plans. Doh !! It's the same ! Well I never.

My point was to find out from you -

Quote:

How do they do this ? Which way is this virtual monopoly set up ?

and to make the point on Telcos charges, which you obviously ignored.
Instead of sidestepping, try answering the questions and read before you write !

I did not want to further repeat the original link in this, from Dr Feltham, as it was quite lengthy - have you read it?
Sitting in queues and multi-choice options are invariably directly linked, and I only mentioned them after you postulated that these multi choice options get you through to someone 'quicker' and 'you pay less'!!  No one I have ever spoken to seems to agree with that.
I see that BT have just increased charges by stealth, insisting all customers go onto their Option 1, no 'line only rental now'.  Presumably "a good thing"?
Since privatisation BT have found it very hard to 'let go' and face true competition on their lines (or were they our lines??).  Hopefully OFCOM will show some teeth, although I am not hopeful.
As an obviously 'interested party' nothing anyone says will change your position, so be it.

Kevin Kearney,

I note that you have posted here some or all of your response to the last Ofcom "consultation". However I also note that you are not included within the Ofcom published responses? Since you were prepared to publish your response on this forum I would presume that you did not withhold your permission for Ofcom to publish your response?

I am collecting examples of where Ofcom have evidently attempted to conceal the real number of adverse responses which they received on this subject. Can you please inform me whether you actually submitted your response on an official Ofcom form and whether you submitted it specifically as a consultation response rather then a complaint?  Also what date did you submit it please. I already have significant evidence that Ofcom have deliberately covered up the true avalanche of responses which they received.

wrote on Jan 26^th, 2004 at 8:18pm:

... it's costing you only a local call charge anyway. I do not see the percieved problem with calling an 0845 number. Are you saying that these are not charged at a local call rate (other than from a mobile) ?

Calls to 0845 are not charged at a local call rate from landlines or mobiles, they're charged at the originating operator's 0845 'special services basic rate' rate which is, in almost every case, significantly higher than their local rate, and in most cases significantly higher than their national rate (where there's a distinction between local and national rate).

Faz referred to a website that identifies the operator associated with a given code but couldn't remember the address.  Its http://www.ukphoneinfo.com/section/home/introduction.shtml for anybody interested.

wrote on Nov 9^th, 2004 at 1:46pm:

Faz referred to a website that identifies the operator associated with a given code but couldn't remember the address.  Its http://www.ukphoneinfo.com/section/home/introduction.shtml for anybody interested.

You can download this data from Ofcom:
Numbers administered by Ofcom