How about a new idea for NGNs.  A completely new number range, say 030 xxxxxxxx.  These would be charged exactly the same as Geographic numbers, and would be included in mobile packages, and any landline that gives inclusive minutes, these numbers as well.

There would of course be no revenue paid out, and telecoms companies could market these numbers, on the ground that it won't cost anything to divert them to their geographic number (same as 0845)

Companies that use freephone or 0845 numbers, would be attracted to these numbers, as they would like to give their customers a memorable number, and can use a virtual switchboard etc, and of course, it costs exactly the same as calling any geographic number.

Now those companies using 0870, if they genuinly took on the numbers, as they wanted to give their customers "greater ease of dialling" or a "memorable number" then they would also be attracted to 030 numbers (or whatever ofcom decide)

However, those companies that claim it would cause too much inconvenience to customers, and cost to change letterheads etc, well it didn't cause much hardship when you decided on going 0870 instead of geographic did it!!  Customers can still use your old 0870 number, or your geographic number if they have old letters.

The incentive for telecoms companies to provide these numbers, is that companies will pay for value added services, such as virtial switchboards, and itemised details of callers etc, and pay a monthly fee for this, but what they shouldn't have to pay for is a per minute rate for receiving calls (unless diverted to mobile or abroad) like you would on freephone numbers.

Many companies use freephone numbers, to attract new business, and others are put off, cos of the cost of receiving calls.  Surely this new idea is the perfect compromise.

Dead right. If telecom companies sold clever call-routing software and hardware to end users at transparent monthly (or whatever) prices (instead of collecting incomprehensible fractions of rip-off pence per minute from the punters calling 0870 and 0845 numbers), everyone would be better off, except BT.

I'm not sure about a whole new range of numbers, though I agree it would be better than the present mess. Wouldn't it be better still to have all these services fronted by dear old-fashioned 01 and 02 numbers, based on the geographical location of at least one place of business of the user? If (which I doubt) there are users wanting custom from UK punters who have good reasons for not having any UK address, then they could be allocated virtual geographic numbers, for example in the 020 3xxxxxx range. 0870 (and 0845) could then be phased out, say from 1 January 2006.

Ofcom claims that there is a demand for services collecting "micro-payments" (ie 1 or 2 ppm) via telephone bills, for example for pay-as-you go internet services. If so, then is there any good reason why these shouldn't all migrate to 0844?

Other than ISPs, users that want a share of call charges would then be forced to use 09 numbers. Which seems fine to me, although maybe some reader knows otherwise?

An extremely valid point as well.  There are still companies who need to collect small payments via phone bills.  Just remember that sometimes these numbers are useful for getting cheaper calls abroad for instance.

Some companies do actually use London numbers which get routed elsewhere in the country.

However, there are some companies that did migrate to 0845 numbers, with the purpose of getting a more memorable number.  Perhaps those going to 0870 had that intention and were of course attracted by the call revenue.

Naturally, a brand new code such as 030 xxxxxxx there would be plenty of memorable numbers, and of course profit to the telecom companies selling them to customers, and of course if they are sold these numbers, with the same hard sell as 0870, 0845 numbers, with the added selling point as "your customers have a memorable number, and might be able to call free of charge" then the arguement of "customer convenience" of selling 0870 and 0845 dissappears overnight.

Remember this is rip off Britain here.  People need to make a stand against 0870, and for every customer that finds it easier to remember an 0870 number, there should be more that will research the geo alternative.

On another rip of Britain subject, there is a growing trend of people who will draw cash from a fee paying cash machine at the pub, club or petrol station, cos of the convenience, instead of drawing out the hole in the wall from a normal bank.

0870 works on the same principle, people see the phone number, and call the company, and don't worry about the cost, cos it's too much inconvienience for some to research an alternative number (same as it is to walk up the street to the bank when you're in a club!!)

Yes there is a good reason why that would not be acceptable - The New Telephone Numbering system (NTNs). When this was conceived it was accepted that unless all "revenue sharing" numbers had the SAME prefix consumers would continue to be confused about which numbers were "revenue sharing numbers" - as indeed they now are. (At that time of course the term "revenue sharing" had not been thought-up! It was invented later to attempt to pretend that it was different from collecting Premiums, after revenue sharing had already been commenced and operated for some time IN DIRECT CONTRAVENTION OF THE NTNs.)

There is no reason why there cannot be more charge bands within the 09 category. A low charge band could be used for any application as you suggest if that were considered to be desirable. In my opinion though it would just add to the current confusion. I believe a telephone call should be just that - "a telephone call". If there is no TRUE value-added service provided the use of 09 or any other revenue sharing number should not be permitted. As Ofcom have failed to implement an equitable solution to the problem of revenue sharing distorting competition, and encouraging call protaction techniques with queuing, after all this time I believe the forcing of all revenue sharing to 09 is now the only equitable solution to avoid queuing abuses, to restore proper competition and to conform to the NTNs.

You are absolutely right! This is effectively what might be called Ofcom's Option 7 in their current consultation document. (Section 1.10, second bullet) Ofcom says it did not pursue this option primarily because

"in Ofcom’s view, the benefits to consumers of being able to use NTS as a micro-payment mechanism are significant, and there is insufficient evidence for the view that these benefits are outweighed by unavoidable, detrimental effects."

This is, of course, complete nonsense. I have met no one who regards 0870 numbers as a benefit! (The use of 0845 numbers for PAYG internet services is a whole different ball-park, for call costs are agreed by contract in advance.)

I spoke to Geoff Brighton, the Ofcom officer responsible for this consultation, and put it to him that they had rejected the only sensible solution for the wrong reasons. He denied that Ofcom's mind was already restricted to Options 1 to 5 and actually encouraged me to make this point in my response.

May I suggest that members respond (courteously) to the consultation before 7 January and concentrate on this positive approach.