I have been reading this forum with a great deal of professional interest over the past few months and felt it was time to put forward a view from “the other side”. As someone who has been involved with the telecommunications industry and call centres for more than 23 years and is currently an Operations Director with an organisation with a number of call centres I feel I can talk on the subject as an expert.

There is a great deal of misinformation perpetuated in some parts of the media and on-line (mostly on this site) about companies using 0845 and 0870 numbers simply to earn revenue. While it may be true in a small number of cases it is blatantly untrue in the vast majority. I accept that there are valid grounds for complaint about 0870 and Ofcom really do need to address the issues, but the case against 0845 is less clear cut.

In our business we use 0845 across the board. We do not earn a penny from them. In fact, it is the exact opposite. We currently pay our telecommunications supplier a (very small) “pence per minute charge”. I accept that with the volumes that we generate there are one or two small Telecommunications companies who would revenue share with us; however, none of these offer the type of services, reliability or support that we require.

We operate over multiple sites. By using 0845 numbers and automated menus we have greater flexibility in routing calls to the most appropriate location and ensuring our customers speak to the right person first time. This network level routing is also a critical part of our Business Recovery plan. In the event of us having serious technical problems at one of our sites or if we suffer an event that causes a building to be unusable we can immediately route calls to another location or to one of our disaster recovery partners sites. Doing that with standard geographic numbers is almost impossible.

The other complaint I hear about 0845 numbers is that it costs callers who are on inclusive call plans or 18866 type providers more to call 0845 than it does a standard number. This may be true but again it does not apply to everyone. We receive more than 95% of our total call volume on weekdays between 08:00 and 18:00. During these times it would cost someone on BT’s Option 1 Tariff the same to call either a standard geographic number or 0845 number; 3 pence per minute. Our average call duration is less than four minutes; therefore the vast majority of customers calling either a geographic number or 0845 on BT Option 1 will pay around 12p per call.

I pointed out to a customer recently that his threat to write to us each time he had an enquiry would cost him more. A stamp costs between 21p (Second Class) and 30p (First Class) but an average call to us would cost 12p. It would also take him around 7 days to get a reply whereas our average time to answer a call in our contact centre is 7 seconds.

To those who think every business should provide a 0800 number I would put this to you:-

If you go commodity shopping does the retailer refund your travel costs or parking charges? I do not know any that do. So why should I pay for you to call me?

At the end of the day a business is there to make money. If Telcos did not make money from 0845/0870 they would have to look elsewhere. That would result in higher charges for other services. If I had to use 0800 in all my operations I would have to fund it by making products more expensive.

wrote on Aug 1^st, 2005 at 8:36pm:

I have been reading this forum with a great deal of professional interest over the past few months and felt it was time to put forward a view from “the other side”. As someone who has been involved with the telecommunications industry and call centres for more than 23 years and is currently an Operations Director with an organisation with a number of call centres I feel I can talk on the subject as an expert.

Please tell me how I am expected to call certain organizations in the UK (bank, airline, government, health providers) when many providers here (the United States) either do not route calls to 0870 and the like, or charge a very large premium.

wrote on Aug 1^st, 2005 at 8:36pm:

To those who think every business should provide a 0800 number I would put this to you:- If you go commodity shopping does the retailer refund your travel costs or parking charges? I do not know any that do. So why should I pay for you to call me?

There is a new retail complex near my home.  They charge to enter the car park but having bought anything in any of the stores on site they will refund the car parking charges.  This also applies to the new Morrisons and Waitrose which also refund customers' parking charges when goods are bought.

However, Tesco and Sainsburys offer free unlimited parking and this is why these stores are usually packed full in comparison to the above-mentioned others.  It is an incentive to visit Tesco and Sainsburys in the same way that 0800 numbers are an incentive to phone a company.  

I am currently looking for car and home insurance and have made a point over the past few years of only taking out policies with companies who offer 0800 numbers for customer service and claims, or those who openly disclose their geographical numbers - this option costs nothing extra to the company concerned.  It shows that the company cares about its customers before and after sales.  This doesn't stop banks like A&L from not answering calls made to their geo number and harrassing customers to call their 0870 number and is therefore conclusive evidence that they wish to profit from the 0870 numbers.

So, what do you have to say about 0800 numbers now?

wrote on Aug 1^st, 2005 at 8:39pm:

Please tell me how I am expected to call certain organizations in the UK (bank, airline, government, health providers) when many providers here (the United States) either do not route calls to 0870 and the like, or charge a very large premium.

We have many overseas customers to whom we provide a geographic number that has a higher priority in our call queues. For this reason we do not publish it.

wrote on Aug 1^st, 2005 at 8:36pm:

There is a great deal of misinformation perpetuated in some parts of the media and on-line (mostly on this site) about companies using 0845 and 0870 numbers simply to earn revenue. While it may be true in a small number of cases it is blatantly untrue in the vast majority. I accept that there are valid grounds for complaint about 0870 and Ofcom really do need to address the issues, but the case against 0845 is less clear cut.

What misinformation? Please elaborate.


Quote:

We operate over multiple sites. By using 0845 numbers and automated menus we have greater flexibility in routing calls to the most appropriate location and ensuring our customers speak to the right person first time. This network level routing is also a critical part of our Business Recovery plan. In the event of us having serious technical problems at one of our sites or if we suffer an event that causes a building to be unusable we can immediately route calls to another location or to one of our disaster recovery partners sites. Doing that with standard geographic numbers is almost impossible.

That does not justify why I should have to pay more to call you. Had I called the geographical number directly it would have cost me a 'normal' call charge. Thus, the extra expense incurred is for the receiver's benefit. Why should such 'services' be charged at more than a normal call to the caller? Surely the rest should be borne by the receiving party who are using the NTS?


Quote:

The other complaint I hear about 0845 numbers is that it costs callers who are on inclusive call plans or 18866 type providers more to call 0845 than it does a standard number. This may be true but again it does not apply to everyone.

But it does more and more due to competition in the telecommunications industry. These numbers stiffle that competition! For someone in your position I would have thought you would have realised that basic fact.


Quote:

If Telcos did not make money from 0845/0870 they would have to look elsewhere. That would result in higher charges for other services.

Yes, and they make their money by 'selling' their 'product' to people like you and getting us to pay them for it! The fact that you may pay your NGN provider is irrelevant. They receive money from you and the caller, and you are happy with that!

wrote on Aug 1^st, 2005 at 9:20pm:

We have many overseas customers to whom we provide a geographic number that has a higher priority in our call queues. For this reason we do not publish it.

Common sense - you clearly understand the problem, however I suspect you are in a minority in your industry by providing alternative numbers. What is your view on, say, organizations such as NEG that go to extraordinary lengths to hide geographic numbers.

wrote on Aug 1^st, 2005 at 8:56pm:

There is a new retail complex near my home.  They charge to enter the car park but having bought anything in any of the stores on site they will refund the car parking charges.  This also applies to the new Morrisons and Waitrose which also refund customers' parking charges when goods are bought. However, Tesco and Sainsburys offer free unlimited parking and this is why these stores are usually packed full in comparison to the above-mentioned others.  It is an incentive to visit Tesco and Sainsburys in the same way that 0800 numbers are an incentive to phone a company.

The car parking is only part of your expense in going shopping. What about the travel costs? Do the stores refund these? Using the current Inland Revenue mileage rate of 40p per mile do you think my local Sainburys will give me £1.60 off the cost of my purchases to cover my costs - pertol, depreciation, wear & tear?


wrote on Aug 1^st, 2005 at 8:56pm:

I am currently looking for car and home insurance and have made a point over the past few years of only taking out policies with companies who offer 0800 numbers for customer service and claims, or those who openly disclose their geographical numbers.

If you can find suppliers who use 0800 and who provide the same cover and charge the same or less than competitors who use 0845 then feel free to sign-up with them.


wrote on Aug 1^st, 2005 at 8:56pm:

this option costs nothing extra to the company concerned.

Yes it does. If I switched to 0800 from 0845 my costs would almost triple.


wrote on Aug 1^st, 2005 at 8:56pm:

So, what do you have to say about 0800 numbers now?

My statements remain valid.

More seriously I gather that there was never any intention of revenue share when these codes were introduced. They were designed to do exactly what they were originally called:
0345 Local rate - callee paid the balance
0990 National rate - no extra charge to callee.

So why is the change suddenly deemed acceptable? Let aside the PTO's desperation to retain the income?

This stuff by a so-called "Operations Director" is typical drivel from someone with a commercial interest in the maintenance of the status quo. It is significant that all through this lengthy attempted defence of using NGNs all the pronouns used are "we" and "I". (We are of course sick to death of the excuse "but we do not receive any revenue from this.....")

This is the typical scenario of a non-market-oriented business run by amateurs. There is no consideration at any time of what their customers, who provide their revenue and profit, want - only what is easiest and least costly for our business - "We" and "Us" and "I"!

It might be good idea to go to business school for a couple of years to learn what market orientation is all about. It seems it might take you that long. You do not obtain new customers and retain existing customers by concentrating on what is easiest and cheapest for your business. You do that by concentrating on what your existing and potential customers want!

No one expects you to provide freephone numbers for customers to call. That is now not really necessary since competition in the domestic telecommunications market has brought down the cost of normal geographic calls to an unprecedented level. Customers can now call you for as long as necessary even with queuing from anywhere in the country for 2 p only on a geographic number. You are clearly out of touch even with reality with regard to BT call costs. On Option 1 which almost everyone has been forced to no call to an NGN is the same cost as a call to any normal geographic number at any time.

If you look on this forum you will find information concerning the fact that all of the features desired by businesses for call centres may be configured on normal geographic lines. (These features are not however desired by customers, and again this is all about whether a company is truly market oriented or not.)

Your comments about the quality of data on this site are just completely wrong. I think that seems to be because in reality you are not truly a professional. You have probably been misinformed by your telecommunications provider who has a hidden agenda, and you have just accepted what they have told you.

Despite your denegration of this forum, you should be aware that there are many contributors to this forum who are themselves actual experts in telecommunications engineering and business management. The quality of data on this forum is on the whole sound and in some cases is world class information from experienced experts.

wrote on Aug 1^st, 2005 at 9:21pm:

What misinformation? Please elaborate.

"about companies using 0845 and 0870 numbers simply to earn revenue."

From discussions with others in the industry I know that very few organisations receive revenue from their use of 0845. Therefore to keep trotting this out is misleading.


wrote on Aug 1^st, 2005 at 9:21pm:

That does not justify why I should have to pay more to call you. Had I called the geographical number directly it would have cost me a 'normal' call charge.

In my view it does justify it. If you had called the geographic number directly we would have to have an automated menu on our call centre switch replicating functionality we already have in the network. This doubles the management overhead. Depending on the option selected we would have to route you over our private network and make sure it there was sufficient capacity. As I said in my original post if we had a technical problem or lost the site we would not be able to easily reroute a geographic number.


wrote on Aug 1^st, 2005 at 9:21pm:

Thus, the extra expense incurred is for the receiver's benefit. Why should such 'services' be charged at more than a normal call to the caller? Surely the rest should be borne by the receiving party who are using the NTS?

I choose to drive about 5 miles further to do my food shopping at a shopping centre that has a M&S and Sainburys rather than shop at my local Tesco. I pay more for a premium service.


wrote on Aug 1^st, 2005 at 9:21pm:

Yes, and they make their money by 'selling' their 'product' to people like you and getting us to pay them for it! The fact that you may pay your NGN provider is irrelevant. They receive money from you and the caller, and you are happy with that!

It does not bother me one little bit. If I buy a newspaper it has adverts in it. The advertisers have paid. I have paid. The newspaper is being paid twice. Is that so different from a Telco?

wrote on Aug 1^st, 2005 at 8:36pm:

We operate over multiple sites. By using 0845 numbers and automated menus we have greater flexibility in routing calls to the most appropriate location and ensuring our customers speak to the right person first time. This network level routing is also a critical part of our Business Recovery plan. In the event of us having serious technical problems at one of our sites or if we suffer an event that causes a building to be unusable we can immediately route calls to another location or to one of our disaster recovery partners sites. Doing that with standard geographic numbers is almost impossible.

Doing what you want to with these calls with standard geographical numbers is not impossible it is just that you have been uncritically hoodwinked into believing it is impossible by a sharp BT or Cable & Wireless 084/7 salesman.

I have had a long conversation with a director of one of the largest and most reputable companies selling NGN services to companies like yours and he says that for him a geographic number could be as easily configured to reroute round numerous different regional call centres at different times of day as an NGN.  The only difference is in the price the call centre customer has to pay for the service.

We do not want your company to have to use an 0800 number.  They are part of the same NGN ripoff as 084/7x and you will be overcharged for receiving the incoming calls at unfair anticompetitive rates whilst all mobile phone users, apart from Orange contract customers, will have to pay more to call an 0800 number than an ordinary geographical number starting 01 or 02.

If you employ the correct professional call routing company they can receive the calls for you on a geographic number on their switch and then push them to wherever you need them to go using Voip.  Ok you probably may be using some crungy old analogue call centre system that can't handle VoIP but that is your problem not ours.  The world is going the VoIP way so you may as well go that way sooner rather than later.  Unless of course you look as though you are in danger of going bust next month or next year.

If you have old analogue equipment and NTS really does provide call direction capabilities that are just not possible with 01 or 02 numbers (which from the research I have done I highly doubt) then your company should pay extra for this convenience and not your customers.

For anyone based mainly at home (retired unemployed etc) it is not at all difficult to make 20 minutes of calls a day to an 0870 number in the weekday daytime.  That costs £1.50 a day compared to nothing for a geographic number on BT Options 3 and cheaper equivalents elsewhere.  There are 5 days in a working week so that's £7.50.  There are 13 weeks in a BT billing quarter so that's £97.50 compared to just £10 or so for an inclusive calling plan to all 01 and 02 numbers. So for someone on a pension or social security at £4,000 to £5,000 a year that's a huge extra annual cost of nearly £400 that they shouldn't have to pay.  Ok you are on 0845 but most abusers are on 0870 or 0871.  The customer has no choice if they are an existing customer -you just decide how much you want to scam them for.

So ok for you as Operations Director of a big call centre on say £80,000 a year and out of touch with actually being short of money it may seem like a few pennies a day but its not.  The NTS industry is now 25% of all uk call volumes and £1.5bn a year.  It is like a cancer eating price competition out of the uk fixed line calling network.  There is no competition for these calls because BT is allowed to charge its competitors more for terminating them than it charges itself.

If the NTS market was competitive and if we the customers truly got added value then fine.  But as it is not competitive and you the call centres get all the extra benefits from handling calls in this way you, and not the customer, should pay the extra cost.

OD. What about the folks who have to contact your call centres from mobile phones or call boxes.Have you no thought for the extra charges they incur by having to ring 0845 numbers.Or dont they matter?

While you are at it ,would you mind posting your 0845 numbers, and the alternative geographic ones, if we dont already have them.

wrote on Aug 1^st, 2005 at 10:06pm:

Doing what you want to with these calls with standard geographical numbers is not impossible it is just that you have been uncritically hoodwinked into believing it is impossible by a sharp BT or Cable & Wireless 084/7 salesman.

I worked for a major international Telco for many years
in various roles including a lengthy spell in the NGN arena.


wrote on Aug 1^st, 2005 at 10:06pm:

I have had a long conversation with a director of one of the largest and most reputable companies selling NGN services to companies like yours and he says that for him a geographic number could be as easily configured to reroute round numerous different regional call centres at different times of day as an NGN.  The only difference is in the price the call centre customer has to pay for the service.

I do not doubt this. In fact I know it is possible. In the 90s Mercury offered a service called something like "AreaCall". It offered NGN services on Geographic numbers. They had number ranges for major towns and cities. It allowed national companies to have a "local" presence. The rates to the number owner were the same as 0645 (Mercury's equivalent of 0345).

If Telcos could offer the same service today it would negate the need for non-geographics. However, as the revenue to the Telco would be less they would pass the cost to the number owner and we are back in the "who pays" cost trap.

[quote][/quote]

Without wishing to sound hostile to a newbie Alex how can we be sure you are on our side when you only just got here?

The comments you have made so far appear to show a certain naivety and do not really seem to show that you appreciate what we are actually up against on the whole NTS issue

I would like to make clear that Alex deleted himself as a member of the forum before he read my last comments so I don't think I can be held to blame.

I can only assume that perhaps he suddenly realised his cover was blown.  I can't believe any genuine supporter of this forum could possibly start defending Patientline's use of a 49p per minute personal number for incoming calls.

wrote on Aug 1^st, 2005 at 10:52pm:

If Telcos could offer the same service today it would negate the need for non-geographics. However, as the revenue to the Telco would be less they would pass the cost to the number owner and we are back in the "who pays" cost trap.

How is it that, where I live, voice services either operate on toll-free numbers or on standard geographic area codes? The terminating numbers are freely interchangeable, so where an organization provides, for example, a 1-866 number and say a 1-212 number, it really does not matter which number is used. Both deliver to exactly the same service. Businesses here seem fully capable of absorbing the toll-free cost *and* provide lower prices into the bargain.

The only reason NGNs are used in the UK is that the businesses know they can get away with them due to the weak regulator.

wrote on Aug 1^st, 2005 at 10:52pm:

I do not doubt this. In fact I know it is possible. In the 90s Mercury offered a service called something like "AreaCall". It offered NGN services on Geographic numbers. The rates to the number owner were the same as 0645 (Mercury's equivalent of 0345). However, as the revenue to the Telco would be less they would pass the cost to the number owner and we are back in the "who pays" cost trap.

It looks like we are on the same side here after all but started off on the wrong front.  As I have always believed the real enemies here are not actually the call centre operators (especially the 0845 call centres) but the telcos who have behaved as a quite disgraceful cartel in the way that they both price and market these NTS number ranges.  They have ripped off the 0845 call centres, who just want to get the calls efficiently, every bit as much as they have ripped of the customers.  It is the telcos and OFTEL/Ofcom who are the real guilty men here.

The NTS system provided a certain amount of extra call monitoring and routing facilities that were new in the early 90s.  There was no reason why these extra facilities ever needed to be on new telephone exchange number ranges that were non geographic.  That was pure marketing by the cynics in BT who always intended to turn them into a special class of number that they always intended to gradually separate into premium rate traffic.  The only numbers which ever actually had a case for their own exchange code was 0800 which needed to have the special code to make clear that they were free.

0845 were a particular master stroke of deceit by BT and Cable & Wireless since originally companies who had them were seen to be doing ordinary BT customers a favour by offering a lower price if they were outside the local calling area.  Of course those of us who used non BT call carriers found that we did not reap these benefits with 0845 from as early on as 1997 or 1998 but for the average BT customer 0845 could be said to have been an advantage.

Then having got thousands of call centres signed up on 0845 another part of BT panicked under the onslaught of all that aggressive Tele2 advertising in early 2004 and said they must have lower prices for geographic fixed line calls.  And thus voila in a moment local rate was abolished and BT Option 1 became a compulsory minimum plan.  Suddenly normal national calls only cost 5.5p per hour off peak and 0845 calls cost 60p per hour and so it all began to unravel.

The whole problem could be solved if revenue shares taken by the TCPs on 0845 were drastically cut (especially off peak and at the weekends) so the calls cost the same as 01 and 02 calls.  The only people to suffer would be the Telcos who have had large amounts of their conventional fixed line phone charges replaced by broadband line rental.

So in summary I understand how your call centre ended up where it is today with 0845 but it is not us you need to attack for asking unreasonable questions it is the Telcos and Ofcom you need to challenge.  You need to ask them why the same old high 0845 NTS revenue share for the Telcos and terminating call parties are still allowed in this new low cost call environment.

If we re-examine where each of us are coming from here I think you can start to see that potentially we are both on the same side.

wrote on Aug 1^st, 2005 at 11:19pm:

The only reason NGNs are used in the UK is that the businesses know they can get away with them due to the weak regulator.

And also due to a pathetically weak consumer affairs press in the UK too.

With a strong regulator and decent journalists the uk telcos and call centres would never have got away with it.

wrote on Aug 1^st, 2005 at 9:57pm:

"about companies using 0845 and 0870 numbers simply to earn revenue."

That is one aspect. The fact that some of the call charges are passed on to your company's subcontractor for services provided to your company means that the caller is really subsidising your phone system!


Quote:

In my view it does justify it. If you had called the geographic number directly we would have to have an automated menu on our call centre switch replicating functionality we already have in the network. This doubles the management overhead. Depending on the option selected we would have to route you over our private network and make sure it there was sufficient capacity. As I said in my original post if we had a technical problem or lost the site we would not be able to easily reroute a geographic number.

I think you misunderstood. The fact that NGNs exist in their present state does not justify it. They should surely be charged at 'normal' rates.


Quote:

It does not bother me one little bit. If I buy a newspaper it has adverts in it. The advertisers have paid. I have paid. The newspaper is being paid twice. Is that so different from a Telco?

It's a plain dishonest way of 'profiting' from your customers.

Dave,

You put these things so much more succinctly than I am inclined to do.

But I agree with all of the points that you make in response to Operations Director.

Unfortunately these people are inclined to see things only from their own blinkered and selfish operational perspective rather than in their wider context.

wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2005 at 6:05pm:

Dave, You put these things so much more succinctly than I am inclined to do. But I agree with all of the points that you make in response to Operations Director. Unfortunately these people are inclined to see things only from their own blinkered and selfish operational perspective rather than in their wider context.

But have you scared off the 'Operations Director' or will he/she return?!!

wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2005 at 6:08pm:

But have you scared off the 'Operations Director' or will he/she return?!!

I do not feel that Operations Director is the kind of person to be scared off, although we must of course not forget the somewhat notorious Chickpea incident.

I think Operations Director is merely interpreting our feedback and investigating the matter further with his telecoms suppliers.  Since Operations Director indicated a certain broad mindedness once pushed to think outside the corporate box I hope that he/she will be back here soon.  I hope to hear that they have found a way to offer a geographic number for their call centre without it in fact costing their company any more money.

What me optimistic.  Well you never can tell. ;)

wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2005 at 6:20pm:

Chickpea incident? ;)

juby

wrote on Aug 1^st, 2005 at 9:32pm:

If you can find suppliers who use 0800 and who provide the same cover and charge the same or less than competitors who use 0845 then feel free to sign-up with them.

I buy my insurance through a local broker to whom I specify that i do not intend to deal with companies who use 0870 numbers for helplines as these have cost me dearly in the past before I came across this site.

I have just been arranged cover with a company who provide 0800 numbers for customer service and claims and additionally provide a 24hr helpline for home emergencies.  This was the cheapest quotation so I hope this answers your question.  ;D


wrote on Aug 1^st, 2005 at 9:32pm:

Yes it does. If I switched to 0800 from 0845 my costs would almost triple.

I was talking about it not costing the companies more if the geographical numbers were released, not if they used 0800 numbers.  You are just clouding the issue.  If you care to read my post more carefully then you'll see that you interpreted it incorrectly, however, given most of your shallow-minded and selfish views expressed so far, it doesn't come as much of a surprise.  ::)

Been a bit busy the last few days, so pity I didn't add my 2 pence worth in this debate at the time!!

When you shop in a supermarket, no I don't expect them to pay for my petrol, or car running costs to get to the store.

In that the same way, when I phone either a friend on an 01/02 number, or phone a company on an 01/02 number, I don't expect them to pay part of my BT line rental, or the cost of buying my cordless telephone.

However if the £1 you put in a trolly was non refundable because the trolly provider provides Sainsburys with free trollys, and decided to enter into a commercial arrangement that every customer entering the store MUST use one.  Also, the trolly provider would con Sainsburys into thinking that customers get added benifit of using their trollys instead of a rival company that would would offer Sainsburys to buy their trollys, for their customers to use free of charge.  Now the company would also offer to pay Sainsburys 25p of every £1 that was collected, so surely providing free trollys and a chance to share the profits is such a good idea, and money spinner for Sainsburys, it must be worth it, and of course the customers will pay.

Actually Sainsburys would go with the other offer.  They buy trollys, and customers can use them free of charge.  Despite that other tempting offer, any supermarket would know that if we had to pay a premium on top of travelling to the shop, and buying our goods, customers would go somewhere else.

So, why don't call centre managers follow the example of supermarkets.  We don't expect you to pay our travelling costs to the supermarket (or our line rental costs) but we won't pay extra for using a trolly which you profit share from (0870, and 0845) when all we want to do is shop at your store (talk to a company as a customer)


Now for the newspaper having adverts, and charging a cover price.

We know this before we buy the paper!!  We have a choice before we buy the paper!!  Sometimes people reading those adverts decide to respond, and the reader is grateful that the paper has advertised a business that offers a service at a better deal than they were getting before.  The business is grateful that the paper has increased their customer base.

What benefits do we get from calling 0845, and 0870?  Do we speak to a more professional call centre agent than we would get on an 01/02 number? Does our call get answered quicker?  No, we speak to the same call centre agent that answers the 0870 lines, and with call queueing, the call certainly does not get answered quicker!!

Whilst I accept that many companies like Operation Director don't use NGN for revenue sharing, many more do.  Companies have been conned as much as the public on NGN numbers, and many are quite happy to inform customers of the 01/02 number if asked.  However many more refuse point blank to do so, and some deny their existance.  Once an 01/02 number is discovered, some companies go out their way to withdraw that facility, and insist we MUST call 0870.

Further to my points above, which Operations_Directo has so far declined to comment on, I would like to put it another way.

Most of the calls from your call centre are presumably to geographical numbers.

Now imagine if all your customers provided your company with 0845 contact numbers. How much will this cost you in extra call charges, and will it be such that it will have a significant effect on your business?

If this is the case, you would presumably prefer your customers to provide you with (cheaper to call) geographical numbers.

So why is it acceptable for you to push up calling costs for your customers, but not the other way round?

Good point.  I've been following this thread with interest.  I am also currently waiting for PayPal to respond to an escalated complaint I have made as to why it must cost around 4 times as much to phone PayPal here in the Uk compared to phoning PayPal in America out of all places!

I was sent an e-mail back on Monday telling me that my complaint had been escalated to a manager.  They haven't replied yet and I do not know what they will say when and if they do!

Alternative (to NGN's!)

Phew, somebody at last has mentioned them there over the water - the USA!
No company in their right mind that operates in the States would treat their customers as they do in this country. The Yanks expect (and get it) first class customer service and if that means Tollfree - Freepost - Free pizzas if five minutes late, good for them and a great shame that we cannot take at least one leaf out of their book, not for the free pizza, just the high level of perceived customer service
Ask yourself this Mr Operations Directo, why does BA use Tollfree in the USA and then subject us to 0870 numbers here in the UK? Obvious, they just wouldn't get away with it over there!

But then again, who in their right mind wants to be an ªm*®!©ªn !! :-/

If you want to be like them, go over there. Let them keep their systems and we'll keep ours thanks very much.  

Try working with them for 5 years or more and you'll see what I mean. But that's another story !!  :-X

wrote on Aug 1^st, 2005 at 9:32pm:

If you can find suppliers who use 0800 and who provide the same cover and charge the same or less than competitors who use 0845 then feel free to sign-up with them.

Well, "Operations Director", if you're still around, you may like to know that since I made my original comment about 0800 numbers being used instead of 0870, I have set up 2 policies (Breakdown Cover and Car Insurance), with Norwich Union Direct, who have 0800 numbers for all their customer service departments and are open 24 hrs a day. :)

Furthermore, on their car insurance they certainly quoted me happy and undercut the cheapest quote I'd had by over £100.  Their breakdown cover was also cheaper than AA Option 100, even with the full options included (equivalent Option 400). ;D :D 8)

Any comments?  No, I didn't think so.

wrote on Aug 1^st, 2005 at 8:36pm:

In fact, it is the exact opposite. We currently pay our telecommunications supplier a (very small) “pence per minute charge”.

Pardon me, I stopped reading at this point.. I also have an 0845 number, I pay piddle all for it and even less for calls..

I may continue to read this at a future time.

I wonder what happened to Operations Director? ;)

It looks like he went to ground once he realised he couldn't force us to accept the rightness of his own quite illogical arguments.

These egomaniac characters are usually control freaks who cannot tolerate any opposing point of view.

kinda like IRC these days. :-/

wrote on Aug 31^st, 2005 at 7:29pm:

These egomaniac characters are usually control freaks who cannot tolerate any opposing point of view.

Hmm now why does these CEO's of major telcos spring to mind, oh and wait the head of ofcon

bigjohn wrote on Aug 1^st, 2005 at 10:51pm:

OD. What about the folks who have to contact your call centres from mobile phones or call boxes.Have you no thought for the extra charges they incur by having to ring 0845 numbers.Or dont they matter? While you are at it ,would you mind posting your 0845 numbers, and the alternative geographic ones, if we dont already have them.

ABSOLUTELY!  So many of us have to do business (personal or otherwise) on the hoof that we sign up for whatever package of minutes suits us - ONLY TO FIND THE MAJORITY OF OFFICES AREN'T CONTACTABLE USING OUR PACKAGES!!

One example that I find particularly horrendous is the DWP's insistence on using 0845 nos for their offices.  In a discussion with the manager of my local Job CEntre Plus I pointed out that a huge number of benefit claimants ONLY HAVE MOBILES and therefore the very people who have the least income have to pay the most!!  He agreed wholeheartedly and said he had pointed this out himself but was ignored!!

THe only alternative to this is to ring from the Job Ctre itself, but of course then you have to pay to get there!!  A recent experience I had trying to sort out a claim I had made (for the umpteenth time) was waiting 30 MINS to get a reply from their office.  FOrtunately I was in the Job Ctre, or I would have been even less happy at the whole mess.

and I thought my internet connection was slow!

i think oprations director needs to come out & down from his class ridden ivory tower & learn that by been nice he will gain more customers despite the cost despite his co:s pices [ maybe ] rising.these are the same bunch of social parasites who said te minimum wage would send co:s to the wall ,load of rubbish. in his world greed & selfishnss are moral virtues