The ASA have recently ruled that advertisers must not  describe an offer as free if there are costs to consumers,other then non premium rate phone calls,postage,carriage or reasonable travel to collect the item.It goes on to say ( The Advertiser must make it clear the extent of the consumers liability for any costs).

So therefore if it is accepted that calls to 0844,0845,and 0870 are premium rate and the advertiser does does make it clear in the ad the true cost of the calls.There would appear to be grounds for complaint to the ASA.

I suppose it all hinges on whether or not the ASA consider 0844,0845,0870 calls to be premium rate.

BT now admit them to be Premium in their price lists. Ofcom have stated publicly that they are in effect Premium.

I have emailed the ASA to clarify this point.I will post the outcome.

The ASA have advised me that they do not consider 0844/0845/and 0870 numbers to be a premium service.

However they are recommending that advertisers adopt the OFCOM guidelines(see Telephone Helplines Posting for exact details.)

I suggest you ask the ASA what is the difference between 0871 and 0901, both cost exactly the same.

One is a premium number, the other one is not!

(According to them.)

juby

Clearly they dont know there posterior from there elbow.

wrote on May 4^th, 2005 at 11:06am:

I suggest you ask the ASA what is the difference between 0871 and 0901, both cost exactly the same. One is a premium number, the other one is not! (According to them.) juby

That's not actually true.  

From a BT residential landline, calls to 0871 numbers cost 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 or 10p per minute depending upon subsequent digits.

Similarly, calls to 0901 numbers cost up to £1.01 per minute depending upon subsequent digits.

The second I don't object to because users are required to publish the call cost.

The first is the problem because there is no requirement to publish the call cost, there are six different possibilities (which most people don't know anyway) and, being so similar to 0870, the 'charged at national call rate' ambiguity (lie) is again present.

wrote on May 4^th, 2005 at 11:21am:

That's not actually true.

OK I'll rephrase the question, I suggest you ask the ASA  what is the difference between an 0871 call (costing 10 pence per minute) and a 0901 call (costing 10 pence per minute) both cost exactly the same.  

One is a premium number, the other one is not!  

(According to them.)

The fact that I agree that the latter is fair because it states the cost is not the point, the fact that it is legally required in one case but not in the other is.

Whos side are you on? I am sure that most people got the point, and whoever heard of an advertiser using a 0871 number that cost less than 10 pence per minute?

juby

wrote on May 4^th, 2005 at 10:26pm:

Whos side are you on?

I am not a politician and, as a result, I am on the side of truth.

Hence, the figures I quoted are truthful and are not selective to suit my argument.

ICSTIS don't require the cost to be displayed for 09 numbers which cost less than 50p.

Quote:

4.4.4 Direct-dialled services which cost 50 pence or less and are terminated by forced release are exempt from all ICSTIS requirements concerning pricing information. Source: ICSTIS Code of Practice (Tenth edition) - January 2004

IMHO most 0871s are 10p/min. Why? The answer is simple, because no requirement for pricing information means that there is no incentive for lower charged numbers. Which is why Ofcom's idea of price competition between service providers is a complete load of rubbish.

Lower priced 0844/0871 numbers are often used for PAYG internet services and call carriers (for example, for overseas) where pricing information is given.