Ok, I'll admit to having a slight agenda as I do work in telecoms, but I am also a user of phone services and call centres much like everybody else.

I thought I'd check this website out and I honestly have not seen such a load of drivel in a long time.  Firstly, it amazes me that people feel strongly enough to start an anti-0870 campaign when as consumers, we're genuinely getting ripped off for petrol, credit cards, income tax and so many other things every single day, yet you all feel the need to complain about calls (that let's face it, we don't have to make that often anyway) which typically cost just 5 or 6 pence per minute.  I wished I had so little going on in my life that I too could dedicate time to your admirable cause.

Have you ever actually stopped to think that maybe 0870 is giving you good value as consumers?  Ok, let's look at it like this;  Ofcom abolishes revenue share on 0870.  What then for the companies running huge call centres?  Do they then turn round and say 'Ok, it was fun whilst it lasted but the gigs up now.  Let's give all our customers free access to our call centres'?  Not a chance.  You will always be funding the call centre whether you like it or not.  If it's an insurance company, your premiums will go up.  If it's a bank, your bank charges will go up.

However, what is more likely is that the major companies that use 0870 now will instead switch to 0871 and in many cases, higher rate premium rate tariffs.  How will you feel then?  A smug sense of satisfaction that you've beaten the big bad telecoms companies even though you're now paying 15 pence per minute for a call that used to cost you 6 pence per minute?  What a victory that would be hey?

To be honest, as a consumer, what narks me far more than the per minute charge is the overall value of a call.  I'd far rather use an 0870 number to get through to a British call centre than pay nothing to spend ages spelling every single word to an operative in an off-shore call centre, but that's just me I suppose.

Anyway, I wish you all the best in your campaign, and if you're successful, perhaps you can then move on to those evil chippies who've started charging for sachets of ketchup.

Ponder this:

United Utilities 0845 746 1100, date March 05.  
Total length of call: 31 min 32 seconds    
Time on hold (with music): 25 min 30 seconds


KK

I agree KK; this is my point.  I'm concerned with the overall value of a call and I'd be livid if I'd been on hold for 25 minutes, even if the call was costing me nothing.  Funnily enough, it's not actually in the interest of an organisation like UU to make a call like this last 30 mins plus.  In fact, if you've ever been in a call centre, you'll see that most have huge screens up identifying average hold times and the pressure on the staff is to reduce these numbers, not keep people waiting for longer.  They would much rather get customers problems sorted quickly and efficiently, get them off the line and move on to the next customer.  Part of the problem of course is predicting traffic flows and manning the phone lines appropriately - it's actually very difficult.  Why do you think many companies now are offering e-mail support to customers as an option if 0870 revenue is so vital?

I think what your experience shows is that there is a case for legislating how call centres should operate, if of course you believe in interfering in the free market to that extent....

Oh by the way KK, erm...you're complaining about the cost of a call to an 0845 number?  Thought this was 'Say no to 0870'??

Redtreble wrote on Dec 13^th, 2005 at 5:05pm:

I think what your experience shows is that there is a case for legislating how call centres should operate, if of course you believe in interfering in the free market to that extent....

What you have failed to touch on is the fact that (as I'm sure you're aware), these numbers have been promoted as local and national rate. They are in fact premium numbers, and that is by definition.

You state that they "typically cost just 5 or 6 pence per minute". 7.51p/min is lowest rate on BT's tariffs any many others during the daytime, when most of these calls are made. That means that a call to an 0870 which lasts half an hour costs £2.25!!!

Just why should I pay for the service (NTS) provided to my insurance company on a per minute basis? What's more, you talk about "free market." Just how is the UK 084/087 NTS market a "free" one, whereby prices are driven down by competition? The answer, as you well know, is that it isn't. The 'micro-payments' that the telcos providing these numbers are pretty much fixed, are they not?

The website is here to generally cover revenue generating non geographical premium rate numbers and 0845 is one such number although not to the same degree as an 0870.  Why should I as a customer have to pay a premium rate to call someone like an IT company to report a fault in goods they have supplied or if there is a  problem with their delivery which is their fault and why should my call which I am paying for be allowed to 'earn' them a 'Kickback' out of the costs adding insult to injury, when the problem is their fault?  There are some IT companies which have gone to extraordinary lengths to hide their geographical numbers.  WHY?

We once had an American on this website who said something like.

'...if this was the states, there would be blood on the street....'  

In America, they use toll free numbers and over much bigger distances as well.  Well we here don't ask for toll free numbers, just that companies honestly disclose their geographical equivalent numbers.  I have all my geographical numbers provided for a fixed monthly fee of £15, so why should I have to pay a further 7-8p per minute (and hugely more than this from my PAYG mobile phone) just to have to ring one of these numbers?

Quote:

What you have failed to touch on is the fact that (as I'm sure you're aware), these numbers have been promoted as local and national rate. They are in fact premium numbers, and that is by definition. You state that they "typically cost just 5 or 6 pence per minute". 7.51p/min is lowest rate on BT's tariffs any many others during the daytime, when most of these calls are made. That means that a call to an 0870 which lasts half an hour costs £2.25!!! Just why should I pay for the service (NTS) provided to my insurance company on a per minute basis? What's more, you talk about "free market." Just how is the UK 084/087 NTS market a "free" one, whereby prices are driven down by competition? The answer, as you well know, is that it isn't. The 'micro-payments' that the telcos providing these numbers are pretty much fixed, are they not?

I totally agree with your point about local and national rate as definitions.  There hasn't been a link for years, if ever, and in the response that I helped compile to the consulation, I made just this very point to Ofcom.  The use of the terms national rate and local rate is an anachronism in this day of flat rate calls and optic networks.  But that doesn't justify the abolition of revenue share though does it?  It screams to me that Ofcom need to sort out the issue of defining just what an 08 call is.  

The point I was making before is valid here.  If Ofcom decide to abolish revenue share on 0870, then most companies are simply going to migrate to other tariffs anyway, so what on earth will be achieved?  Especially as we all know that the migration will be to higher tariffs.

And again, I don't care if I pay £2 or £2.50 for a 30-minute call; what I object to is the 30-minute per se.  I am not naive enough to think that I am ever not going to be paying for this call in some way or other, so perhaps a per minute basis for charging is as fair as any a method for contacting your insurance company?

I'm not sure I understand your point about lack of competition.  There's loads of telcos out there, plenty of tariffs to choose from, lots of different companies in every industry that have call centres.....

Alternative wrote on Dec 13^th, 2005 at 5:32pm:

The website is here to generally cover revenue generating non geographical premium rate numbers and 0845 is one such number although not to the same degree as an 0870.  Why should I as a customer have to pay a premium rate to call someone like an IT company to report a fault in goods they have supplied or if there is a  problem with their delivery which is their fault and why should my call which I am paying for be allowed to 'earn' them a 'Kickback' out of the costs adding insult to injury, when the problem is their fault?  There are some IT companies which have gone to extraordinary lengths to hide their geographical numbers.  WHY? We once had an American on this website who said something like. '...if this was the states, there would be blood on the street....'   In America, they use toll free numbers and over much bigger distances as well.  Well we here don't ask for toll free numbers, just that companies honestly disclose their geographical equivalent numbers.  I have all my geographical numbers provided for a fixed monthly fee of £15, so why should I have to pay a further 7-8p per minute (and hugely more than this from my PAYG mobile phone) just to have to ring one of these numbers?

Ah, so this site is about the evils of all revenue share is it then?  Well perhaps I would suggest, a re-brand might be the order of the day?

Distance is largely irrelevant when you're talking about delivering a telecoms call.

And I'll re-state my key message.  If the companies in question provided you with an 01 or an 02 number, do you still believe that they wouldn't find a way of making you as the customer, pay for funding the call centre?  A point people on here seem happy to ignore...

Redtreble wrote on Dec 13^th, 2005 at 5:34pm:

I totally agree with your point about local and national rate as definitions. [...]

These numbers have been 'sold' as such, and that is where alot of the issues lie. If they had been promoted as a premium paying type, then would businesses have been so quick to sign up? This would have been decided, ultimately, by consumers who would choose whether to do business with such a company.


Redtreble wrote on Dec 13^th, 2005 at 5:34pm:

I'm not sure I understand your point about lack of competition.  There's loads of telcos out there, plenty of tariffs to choose from, lots of different companies in every industry that have call centres.....

My point about competition refers to the fact that originating CPs charge pretty much the same price, due to the micro-payments they have to pass on. Typically, service providers peddle the lie that these calls are some 'local' or 'national' rate, and say that it's up to the telco what they charge.

Similarly, all the NGN supplying telcos are in a market where the payments for their services aren't driven down by market forces. How is this reasonabe competition?

I have written to companies I use who use these numbers and they 'justify' the use of such numbers by the routing and statistical benefits they bring. They don't want to answer questions about whether they receive revenue or not.


Redtreble wrote on Dec 13^th, 2005 at 5:40pm:

Ah, so this site is about the evils of all revenue share is it then? [...]

No, it's about covertly collected revenue. Pay as you go internet and dial-through services providing cheap overseas calls are two examples of where such revenue is obviously acceptable.


Redtreble wrote on Dec 13^th, 2005 at 5:40pm:

And I'll re-state my key message.  If the companies in question provided you with an 01 or an 02 number, do you still believe that they wouldn't find a way of making you as the customer, pay for funding the call centre?  A point people on here seem happy to ignore...

That would provide for a more transparent market. I pay my insurance company an annual fee. I shouldn't have to pay them extra just because I want some service!

And, as I have stated above, my insurance company doesn't want to talk about any revenue it gets from its 0870 numbers.

Quote:

These numbers have been 'sold' as such, and that is where alot of the issues lie. If they had been promoted as a premium paying type, then would businesses have been so quick to sign up? This would have been decided, ultimately, by consumers who would choose whether to do business with such a company.

Er...yes, they would.  Businessmen aren't stupid enough to be fooled by semantics.  It's a revenue stream to them, whatever you choose to call it.


Quote:

My point about competition refers to the fact that originating CPs charge pretty much the same price, due to the micro-payments they have to pass on. Typically, service providers peddle the lie that these calls are some 'local' or 'national' rate, and say that it's up to the telco what they charge. Similarly, all the NGN supplying telcos are in a market where the payments for their services aren't driven down by market forces. How is this reasonabe competition? I have written to companies I use who use these numbers and they 'justify' the use of such numbers by the routing and statistical benefits they bring. They don't want to answer questions about whether they receive revenue or not.

What you have to remember is that the competition in this market place occurs at both ends - from the consumer making calls and also from the end users demanding an ever-increasing slice of the pie.  The result is that the margin squeeze tends to affect the middle men and there is very little left for them if you know the numbers.  The only way that the rates can come down is if the end users take a lower cut (like for instance if revenue is abolished) but all that will happen is that they'll migrate to new, higher tariffs, with larger outpayments.


Quote:

No, it's about covertly collected revenue. Pay as you go internet and dial-through services providing cheap overseas calls are two examples of where such revenue is obviously acceptable.

My point still stands - the campaign name is misleading.


Quote:

That would provide for a more transparent market. I pay my insurance company an annual fee. I shouldn't have to pay them extra just because I want some service! And, as I have stated above, my insurance company doesn't want to talk about any revenue it gets from its 0870 numbers.

You will always pay for having to contact them, whichever way they choose to charge you.  And as for asking for revenue stats. on 0870 payments, did you really expect them to share that info. with you?

Redtreble wrote on Dec 13^th, 2005 at 6:10pm:

Quote: These numbers have been 'sold' as such, and that is where alot of the issues lie. If they had been promoted as a premium paying type, then would businesses have been so quick to sign up? This would have been decided, ultimately, by consumers who would choose whether to do business with such a company. Er...yes, they would.  Businessmen aren't stupid enough to be fooled by semantics.  It's a revenue stream to them, whatever you choose to call it.

My point refers to the fact that consumers would be plainly aware that the calling party benefitted, rather then paying for a 'standard' UK geographical rate call.


Redtreble wrote on Dec 13^th, 2005 at 6:10pm:

What you have to remember is that the competition in this market place occurs at both ends - from the consumer making calls and also from the end users demanding an ever-increasing slice of the pie. [...]

It is my understanding that BT charges its local/national rate for 0845/0870 calls. It keeps a small amount to cover the cost of originating the call and passes the rest to the terminating provider. Where other providers originate a call to one of these numbers, they have to pay the terminating provider the same as what BT pays them. They also have to add on their cost for originating the call which may be more than what it would cost BT. So surely the reality is that there is really no competition with the retail prices of these numbers. This seems to be bourne out by the fact that prices are pretty much the same or slightly higher than BT's.


Redtreble wrote on Dec 13^th, 2005 at 6:10pm:

Quote: No, it's about covertly collected revenue. Pay as you go internet and dial-through services providing cheap overseas calls are two examples of where such revenue is obviously acceptable. My point still stands - the campaign name is misleading.

Yes it is, in a way. On looking at the title, people may not be aware that 0845 is an issue, to a lesser extent.


Redtreble wrote on Dec 13^th, 2005 at 6:10pm:

Quote: That would provide for a more transparent market. I pay my insurance company an annual fee. I shouldn't have to pay them extra just because I want some service! And, as I have stated above, my insurance company doesn't want to talk about any revenue it gets from its 0870 numbers. You will always pay for having to contact them, whichever way they choose to charge you.  And as for asking for revenue stats. on 0870 payments, did you really expect them to share that info. with you?

I do not expect to have to pay my insurance company on a per minute basis. That should be covered by the cost of my premium. As far as revenue goes, a straight-forward 'yes' or 'no' would be fine. Simply ignoring my question just emphasises that all of what you're talking about is covert and underhand.

Quote:

My point refers to the fact that consumers would be plainly aware that the calling party benefitted, rather then paying for a 'standard' UK geographical rate call.

Maybe, but would it make a blind bit of difference?  Would I be less inclined to call a £1 per minute PRS number because the end-user is receiving revenue as opposed to just the telco?  Wouldn't make a jot of difference to me personally, in fact it might even encourage me to call depending on who the number belonged to.  Besides, in this day and age of dial-in competitions, consumers are largely aware that telephone numbers are a revenue stream.  After all, how has Simon Cowell got so damn rich?


Quote:

It is my understanding that BT charges its local/national rate for 0845/0870 calls. It keeps a small amount to cover the cost of originating the call and passes the rest to the terminating provider. Where other providers originate a call to one of these numbers, they have to pay the terminating provider the same as what BT pays them. They also have to add on their cost for originating the call which may be more than what it would cost BT. So surely the reality is that there is really no competition with the retail prices of these numbers. This seems to be bourne out by the fact that prices are pretty much the same or slightly higher than BT's.

What makes it uncompetitive is that the outpayment to the end user and associated transit payments are regulated by Ofcom (at the moment anyway), therefore, there is a limit as to how much the originating charge to the consumer can be reduced to.  Nevertheless, some originating telcos take advantage of their monopoly positions in charging far more for these calls.  I'm referring to the mobile providers here*.  The real competition comes in the range of tariffs available more than anything.


Quote:

I do not expect to have to pay my insurance company on a per minute basis. That should be covered by the cost of my premium. As far as revenue goes, a straight-forward 'yes' or 'no' would be fine. Simply ignoring my question just emphasises that all of what you're talking about is covert and underhand.

Look, we all know that every major organisation that uses an 0870 number is getting a kick-back, so why try to be smart and get them to admit to it?  If you're so anxious to know about how much money they make from 0870, have you tried looking in their accounts at Companies House?  And again, I'll ask the question - what difference how you're charged?  If 0870 revenue is abolished and in the unlikely scenario the insurance company decides not to migrate to another tariff, you will pay for it in your premium, except your premium will be raised to cover the cost.  Personally, I like the idea that I'm not funding the cost of a call for somebody who continually makes vehicle changes on their policy or keeps adding new drivers or getting quotes for new vehicles.  Why should I pay for that?

* I asterisked this because I'd be interested to know what all of you complaining about 0870 charges feel about mobile providers.  If you haven't an opinion, try making a FREEPHONE call from your mobile phone and see how free it really is.  Or try calling a £1.50 PRS number and see how much you get charged.  My point is, that of all the pricing issues that the UK telecoms market has, 0870 is one of the lesser ones IMO.

Redtreble wrote on Dec 13^th, 2005 at 4:29pm:

I thought I'd check this website out and I honestly have not seen such a load of drivel in a long time.

If this site is such drivel, why are you wasting your time here ?  Perhaps it would be better spent developing your own SayNoToSayNoTo0870.Com  ;) ;) ;) ;) ;)

Redtreble wrote on Dec 13^th, 2005 at 7:13pm:

Quote: My point refers to the fact that consumers would be plainly aware that the calling party benefitted, rather then paying for a 'standard' UK geographical rate call. Maybe, but would it make a blind bit of difference?  Would I be less inclined to call a £1 per minute PRS number because the end-user is receiving revenue as opposed to just the telco? [...]

Of course you wouldn't. But the reason people come here is, in the first instance, because of the cost of the calls. It is only when one looks further and finds out why this is the case.



Redtreble wrote on Dec 13^th, 2005 at 7:13pm:

What makes it uncompetitive is that the outpayment to the end user and associated transit payments are regulated by Ofcom (at the moment anyway), therefore, there is a limit as to how much the originating charge to the consumer can be reduced to.  Nevertheless, some originating telcos take advantage of their monopoly positions in charging far more for these calls.  I'm referring to the mobile providers here*.  The real competition comes in the range of tariffs available more than anything. [...] * I asterisked this because I'd be interested to know what all of you complaining about 0870 charges feel about mobile providers.  If you haven't an opinion, try making a FREEPHONE call from your mobile phone and see how free it really is.  Or try calling a £1.50 PRS number and see how much you get charged.  My point is, that of all the pricing issues that the UK telecoms market has, 0870 is one of the lesser ones IMO.

But how could the market operate freely when it is BT that terminates most calls to 0845/0870 numbers? For those it doesn't terminate, it's quite likely that it is a transit operator for the call. The terminating provider wants to push up the amount it receives. Therefore, how can do you suggest that the cost of these calls can be driven down by market forces?

As far as the mobile providers go, I quite agree; it's disgusting that freephone numbers are chargable, and often at a higher rate than geographical calls (or not included in inclusive minutes). The regulator seems to sit idley by whilst all this goes off.

At the end of the day the market is distorted by freephone numbers being charged for. So too are the insurance markets (for example), where service providers generate per minute revenue, covertly.

The distortion also occurs in the landline provider market where telcos promote 'unlimited' packages that don't include all calls to geographical destinations, which NGNs typically route to. The telcos, as a whole, sell these packages to consumers whilst providing businesses with numbers exempt from such packages. If we all adopted such numbers we would be back to square one with us all paying (essentially) pre-competition rates.


Redtreble wrote on Dec 13^th, 2005 at 7:13pm:

Look, we all know that every major organisation that uses an 0870 number is getting a kick-back, so why try to be smart and get them to admit to it?  If you're so anxious to know about how much money they make from 0870, have you tried looking in their accounts at Companies House? [...]

I expect that in doing business with a company, it is clear what it will cost me in return for what is on offer (i.e. the service/product).


Redtreble wrote on Dec 13^th, 2005 at 7:13pm:

[...]And again, I'll ask the question - what difference how you're charged? [...]

Answer: None, to how I'm charged. The other answer to your question is that it matters alot to how much I'm charged. I've already said, the fact that revenue is/can be generated from 0870 (and other 084/087 NGNs) is not transparent. What's more, it is on a per minute basis, so the amount I pay them depends on the length of time I am connected to their telephone line.


Redtreble wrote on Dec 13^th, 2005 at 7:13pm:

[...] If 0870 revenue is abolished and in the unlikely scenario the insurance company decides not to migrate to another tariff, you will pay for it in your premium, except your premium will be raised to cover the cost. [...]

...except that they won't bill me on a per minute basis.


Redtreble wrote on Dec 13^th, 2005 at 7:13pm:

[...] Personally, I like the idea that I'm not funding the cost of a call for somebody who continually makes vehicle changes on their policy or keeps adding new drivers or getting quotes for new vehicles.  Why should I pay for that?

Which is fair enough and shows that there is room in the market for insurance companies to charge overtly for telephone calls to them, in much the same way as some companies charge for technical support and the like.

Greetings Redtreble,

I would like to deal with the points you raise one by one and explain why, on my view, in each case, either the point fails to hit its mark, or it is something upon which we can generally agree.

To begin with, you express surprise that anyone would make an issue of such a trivial matter. Why waste time on something so small when there are much bigger fish to fry. In return, I am surprised you would make an issue of something so trivial as people complaining about something so trivial. Whatever triviality is possessed by the content of the original complaint, i.e. 0870 numbers, must surely be possessed to the next order of magnitude by the complaint itself. What value beyond a mere microscopic smidgeon could then possibly remain in complaining about the already doubly trivial complaint, I cannot imagine. Still, you are entitled to complain, as are we. We may simply have to regard each other across a wide divide of mutual surprise and disbelief.

Your next point is that 0870 services may offer good value. Here I find common ground upon which we can readily agree. Any 0870 service may be good value. I’m not sure whether you understood the nature of the general objection to the use of these numbers. Let’s proceed.

Your next point is that the consumer surplus which pays for the 0870 numbers will, if returned to the consumer, have to be made up for by a rise in prices which will result in an aggregate revenue increase for the firms involved equal to the decrease in consumer surplus in the first place and thus, in the long run, the consumer surplus will remain unchanged. I hope that puts your point fairly, albeit in perhaps rather technical jargon. It is a pressing and, on the face of it, plausible claim. Let’s pause for a few moments to look at it more closely. Please bear with me. This will require some unavoidable, but I hope, very easy, economics.

Let’s suppose a farmer happens to rent very rich agricultural land? He will make what we call supernormal profit from that land. He might work no harder then his hill-farming colleague, but, for all that, his profits would be the greater in proportion as his land was richer. But you can see how, in the long run, the forces of the market would push up the price of renting such superior land. How much would the farmer be making then? Well, his profits would return to normal and what were his supernormal profits would now become rent. Our hardworking colleague farmers would wind up on a par.

Imagine now the scenario in which something happens to make farming the rich low-lying terrain less productive than it had previously been? Naturally, our lowland farmer will protest in horror. “This will drive me out of business”, he will complain. “I am already just about breaking even because of these huge rents I am paying on this superior land. Now I will have to lay-off hands, and may not be able to survive in the long run.”

But what will happen in fact is that the farmer, so long as he is efficient, equally with all the others, will remain in business. Rather, the rent will fall. It will fall because the diminished productivity of the low-lying agricultural land is reflected in the diminished demand, which, as anyone knows, will result in a falling price.

Nothing changes in our model if the farmer owns the land he farms, by the way. He can then simply be regarded as a two-headed beast, namely, an amalgum of landowner and farmer and indeed, if he is an inefficient farmer, he would be better to retire to landowning alone, but I digress.

In just the same way, the supernormal profit of those firms which provide services through 0870 numbers, is likely to already have been converted into the various forms of rent which apply in their respective industries. In short, the fixed assets of these firms will, now that they are marginally more productive, find themselves correspondingly increased in demand. And once again, by that iron law of economics, the fundamental one of supply and demand, an increased demand is an increased price. But likewise, if the opportunity to make these extra profits through 0870 services is removed, the demand for the fixed assets will diminish, and their rent will fall. Prices to consumers, however, will in the long run remain unchanged.

So I hope you can see, after that brief detour through the foothills of the terrain of economics, that removing charging on 0870 services need not result in price rises in the long run. Rather, it could well result in reduced rents for the various fixed assets in the industries involved. What will be the effect of the latter on the general welfare? As I see it, it may be none, overall, because the marginal cost to the owners of the fixed assets may be simply redistributed in the form of benefit to the consumer. It does not do to blithely assume that diminished profits will result in increased prices. Indeed, if the consumers are unaware that they are paying for these services, as is the contention, and its very core, then the price paid does not reflect consumer preference, but rather is sneaked in without the consumer’s realizing it, and, once removed, need not correspond to a genuine industry-wide demand increase which would support your proposed industry-wide price increase. It seems all the more likely to me, given the absence of a genuine consumer preference for these services at these prices, that rents would, instead, fall, and prices remain the same.

(continued from previous post)

Your next point is fairly easily dealt with. You assert that service providers will simply switch to 0871 numbers instead and we will end up paying even more. But by your own logic, the extra money we pay firms through 0871 numbers will result in reduced prices elsewhere. We need not concern ourselves further. Only if there was some flaw in your original case will I then have reason to worry about this switch you propose. Do let me know.

Your next and final move is to set up a trade-off between the cost of a call and the quality of the service provided. You suggest that, if we pay less, firms will be more encouraged to outsource to Bangalore, for instance, and the quality of the service will diminish. This trade-off does not exist and I can prove it to you. Take a look at the following link.

http://www.bankofamerica.com/deposits/checksave/index.cfm?template=contact_us

It contains the contact us page for the Bank of America for current accountholders. According to Forbes the Bank of America was the 6th largest company in the US in 2003. You will assume with me, I hope, that its call centres are much in demand. They are large. The high quality of service provided by this highly successful bank (and I can personally assure you that, in keeping with most US customer service it surpasses anything you will likely be used to in the UK --I lived there for ten years) will, by your logic only be capable of support by higher call charges. But all the numbers provided are 800 numbers, free to the caller in the US, with the single exception of a 206 dialling code, which is a non-revenue-sharing geographic number for Seattle. How do you explain that? Look around at your sister services being offered as we speak across the Atlantic in economies which do not collapse, but which in fact take the 800 numbers to be the very expression of the quality of service that is your concern, and you will see that there is no trade-off between good service and cheap calls, instead they are directly proportional. Indeed, it is not that paying more means better service; rather charging more constitutes worse service.

Of course, you might reply that I have missed your point. Your point, you might say, was that reducing charges will encourage outsourcing to foreign non-English speaking lands and you find talking to these folks less congenial than talking to native Britons. This may well be. I will concede for now, rather than argue the point, that native English speakers can provide better customer service than those foreign to both our language and our culture. But aren’t companies already outsourcing to Bangalore anyway? Does it follow that if they can continue to rip us off they won’t do so? If a firm has an opportunity to increase its profits through a reduction in the cost of one of its factors of production its choice is to reduce costs or, in the long run, go out of business. That is Hobson’s choice. That’s just the way the market works, i.e. the same market you claimed would push up prices. I regret you cannot have it both ways. Either the market is made up of rational self-seeking agents or it is not. If it is, the long run consequence of an opportunity to reduce costs is that the industry as a whole will take that opportunity. If it is not made up of such rational agents, then your case collapses, if it had not already done so under the force of my attack. Either way, the question of outsourcing is a separate one.

To recap, then, firstly, what is trivial for the goose is trivial for the gander and would by implication be trivial for the service providers to relinquish. Secondly, you will not find in this contributor anyone who objects to 0870 numbers because they are poor value. Good or bad value, the objection lies elsewhere. Your most penetrating point is that a reduction in call charges will result in increased prices elsewhere to recoup revenue losses. If I am right, however, it is more likely that rents will fall and prices remain the same. At the very least, we cannot rely on your assumption. Fourthly, switching to 0871 numbers is a joy to look forward to because, according to what you tell me, prices will fall elsewhere. And finally the supposed trade-off between quality of service and cheapness of price is a shibboleth clung to uniquely by the British consumer, so inured has he become to his role as vassal in the world of corporate controlled “democracy”. Oh, and outsourcing will happen anyway.

I find, in conclusion, and I have given your thoughts the benefit of careful attention, nothing remains to weaken the strength of my objection to the uniquely British practice of extorting unbeknownst to the consumer a price for a service under false terms, a service of the type available throughout most of the industrialized world for no marginal cost, and a practice made all the more egregious when it concerns public services already paid for by progressive taxation and now charged again, this time as a flat-tax unduly burdensome in many cases to the very sections of the public on the bottom of the social pyramid who stand in need of them the most.

Sorry for such a long post.  ::) Sometimes I get carried away.

longusername wrote on Dec 14^th, 2005 at 12:54am:

http://www.bankofamerica.com/deposits/checksave/index.cfm?template=contact_us It contains the contact us page for the Bank of America for current accountholders. According to Forbes the Bank of America was the 6th largest company in the US in 2003. You will assume with me, I hope, that its call centres are much in demand. They are large. The high quality of service provided by this highly successful bank (and I can personally assure you that, in keeping with most US customer service it surpasses anything you will likely be used to in the UK --I lived there for ten years) will, by your logic only be capable of support by higher call charges. But all the numbers provided are 800 numbers, free to the caller in the US, with the single exception of a 206 dialling code, which is a non-revenue-sharing geographic number for Seattle. How do you explain that? Look around at your sister services being offered as we speak across the Atlantic in economies which do not collapse, but which in fact take the 800 numbers to be the very expression of the quality of service that is your concern, and you will see that there is no trade-off between good service and cheap calls, instead they are directly proportional. Indeed, it is not that paying more means better service; rather charging more constitutes worse service.

You make some very good points, and, as a BOA customer, I totally agree - the customer service of this, and indeed almost any US bank is so far ahead of anything within the UK. Calls answered quickly, helpful staff and no premium number. Banks will simply not survive here if they offer lousy service as competition is so intensive.

On my way to work this morning, I drove past a truck operated by a small business selling produce (fruit and veg for UK readers). It had a 561 area code, which is Palm Beach County region, and, for those living within the north of the county, any call would generally be 'free' (bundled within the call plan). Nothing remarkable about that. However the van also advertised a toll-free 800 number, presumably for those outside north county and within the wider Miami/FT Lauderdale/West Palm Beach Metro area, and indeed anyone from the fifty states. This is a small business, presumably employing a handful of people. It knows the value of cutomer service. It knows how important it is. It actually pays a small amount to receive calls to its toll-free number. In the UK, there are large corporations plus HMG using numbers that cost the caller five quid per hour. Now who places more emphasis on customer service - is it the produce business, or is it someone like Sky, Dell or the Home Office?

Redtreble wrote on Dec 13^th, 2005 at 4:29pm:

Have you ever actually stopped to think that maybe 0870 is giving you good value as consumers?

Yes, I stopped and thought about it. I looked at the costs, and decided that any organization charging me, in my money, almost $8 per hour to make a customer service call, is not good value, especially when I could call New Zealand and dozens of other countries for significantly less. I suspect most of the UK public would agree that 0870 is certainly not good value! I then stopped thinking about it and concentrated my efforts into stopping the scam.

Bloody 'ell !............ Take That

Take That  !............ Bloody 'ell longusername is it a no brainer or are you a two brainer ?

Redtreble wrote on Dec 13^th, 2005 at 5:34pm:

I totally agree with your point about local and national rate as definitions.  There hasn't been a link for years, if ever, and in the response that I helped compile to the consulation, I made just this very point to Ofcom.  The use of the terms national rate and local rate is an anachronism in this day of flat rate calls and optic networks.  But that doesn't justify the abolition of revenue share though does it?  It screams to me that Ofcom need to sort out the issue of defining just what an 08 call is.   The point I was making before is valid here.  If Ofcom decide to abolish revenue share on 0870, then most companies are simply going to migrate to other tariffs anyway, so what on earth will be achieved?  Especially as we all know that the migration will be to higher tariffs

Let us be clear most people don't propose that NTS revenue share calls to call centres should be made completely illegal (although there is a view this should be the case where the supplier is a natural monopoly like a government department, local council or water company) but just that the disgraceful 084/7 "its just a ordinary local or just an ordinary national rate call sir" lie which cynical and double talking management types like you in all these big call centres either negligently (unlikely given the battery hen like methods used to control and monitor your staff) or far more likely deliberately and dishonestly allow all their customer service operatives to use this stock response to any customer who dares to complain about the use of 084/7 numbers"

This site is not just against 0870 it is against all 084/7 scams which rely on the false linkage to BT local and national rate (still perpetuated to this very day by none other than BT at its main website sellling 084/7 numbers to business customers and still perpetuated on every BT phone bill where the abusive terms Lo-Call and Local Rate are used for 0845 numbers and National Rate for 0870 numbers).

Have all the revenue share that you want but make sure its all on 09 prefixed numbers with clear call price announcements and clear announcements in all newspaper and radio and web advertising.  Then the market will operate and the customer will make an informed choice about whether to call and know how much he is paying.

We don't want the scam transferred across to 0871.  We want all revenue share activities on 08 abolished and all 08 revenue sharers to have to move to 09.  Although as a realist I can see that ICSTIS is an expensive regulator so I would allow the low price revenue share to be on 06 with no ICSTIS control up to 15p per minute but with full price publication disclosure requirements.  And I would move all the geographic 0845 and 0870 to 0345 and 0370 which are included in inclusive 01/02 calling plans.  Other members of this site are not so generous as me.  They say move all revenue share to 09 full stop.  No half measures.

Of course there are scams on credit cards but its a free market with no disgraceful big lie like 084/7 is local/national rate.  Although there is a fairly disgraceful scam called "foreign exchange rate levy" at 2.65% and cash withdrawal fees of 1.5% to 2% on top with a £2 minimum.  As a free market citizen though I now have a Nationwide Visa credit and debit card and use them for all my overseas currency transactions.

084/7 is a disgrace because it relies on conning the customers "that its just a local/national rate call sir" and most of the calls are actually often necessary due to the incompetence and cynicism of many big companies towards their customers and the lousy and inefficient billing and ordering systems they use.

So its all Just a small problem complained about by a few cranks is it (although 1,000 of these cranks have made a submission to Ofcom at the last count), we all have nothing better to do etc.  Just a few pence per minute is it?  No NTS is a £1.5 billion industry constituting 25%+ of uk calls.  It is a cancer against free market competition in the whole uk telephone network and a major structural impediment in the move to making calls via Voip.

You have been rumbled we know your game.  Please stop trying to patronise us or assume that we are imbeciles here.

By the way please provide a link to your response to NTS Way Forward.  I would be interested to read it and to know which bunch of 084/7 scam merchants you work for.

Redtreble wrote on Dec 13^th, 2005 at 5:40pm:

And I'll re-state my key message.  If the companies in question provided you with an 01 or an 02 number, do you still believe that they wouldn't find a way of making you as the customer, pay for funding the call centre?  A point people on here seem happy to ignore...

The other ways of charging the customer would be in a competitive marketplace not subject to a big lie.  And while we are on the subject yes I object to all those other big company scams like charging £20 for a late credit card payment that you then earn interest on.  This is not competition it is extortion because there has been a cartel amongst all the big companies to introduce such rip offs tigether. And the regulators in this country are weak and puny beings who generally opt for a quiet life instead of battling on the consumer's behalf.

Low cost NTS is hugely inefficient because out of 7.51p per minute the call centre gets no more than 4p (usually a lot less).  These numbers are mainly an anti competitive bean feast for the telecoms companies to try to stop the huge fall off in all their 01/02 geographic revenues.

You don't like taking calls or think it drives up prices to the customer?  Well fine be honest that you charge for all support but charge a flat rate like 50p or £1 per query however long the call. Then you won't have an incentive to employ Indians "who oh most speakka summa da Inglish sire" but with whom it is frequently impossible to hold an intelligible conversation.

And hang on what happened about running call centres up to 1997 before NTS then?  Didn't most companies still all manage to afford to run them.  Face up to it NTS is the unacceptable side of uk big business.

Redtreble wrote on Dec 13^th, 2005 at 7:13pm:

* I asterisked this because I'd be interested to know what all of you complaining about 0870 charges feel about mobile providers.  If you haven't an opinion, try making a FREEPHONE call from your mobile phone and see how free it really is.  Or try calling a £1.50 PRS number and see how much you get charged.  My point is, that of all the pricing issues that the UK telecoms market has, 0870 is one of the lesser ones IMO.

Premium Rate calling to 0800 on mobile phone is within the objectives of campaigners on this site.

It all happens because the incompetent regulator doesn't require clear pence per minute announcements of all non standard non 01 and 02 call prices and doesn't force these other higher rates to be presented as prominently in advertising.  Clear price disclosure is basic to the free market.  Imagine the outrage at the supermarket till if you only found out what things had cost after you had paid the bill at the checkout.  NTS is a gangster industry that relies on blatant lieing and deceipt.  Face the Facts.

Your argument seems to be that two wrongs make a right.  Face the facts Operations Director. ;)

As mentioned in previous posts, these numbers are conning most of the ordinary consumers and businesses because they are still thought of as local/national.  As you cleary admit this needs to be corrected but ofcom have spent over 2 years (i think) on this issue and it looks like its going to take another 6+ months.

You say that companies will move to 0871 then assuming ofcom put this number under ICSTIS remit then this wont be so bad (not ideal though) simply because call charging whilst in the queue for 20+ mins (as reported in the press by some companies/gov departments) would not cost us anything and only when we get to speak to a human will we be charged, plus they would have to advertise the cost of the numbers and possibly even remind people when they answer the phone to us just how much we are paying.

A lot of companies that make huge profits already but still continue to use 0870 and get away with it simply because many consumers are not aware of the fact that it is, despite how it is worded by ofcom, a stealth premium rate number.  Sky are one company that comes to mind.  Look up the word premium rate in the dictionary and it clearly states it anything charged extra on top of what it would/should normally be.  Therefore by the definition of the dictionary, 0845/0870 are premium rate numbers simply because they are charged far more (in some cases) than ordinary calls (ie geographical rates) and revenue sharing exists on them.

What about BA?  They have an 0870 for UK customers but for the US they operate a freephone number.  How can they operate a freephone number in the states but not in the UK, or at the very least, operate a normal geographical number?  Apart from it being a 'rip-off Britain' issue again, the main reason is that in the UK it has become common practice to charge us more than normal for a service they operate free or at normal rates in other countries.

I believe you are wrong when you say that many people wouldn't care less if it is a premium rate number or not a company is using.  Take this scenario:-

Two companies are in direct competition with each other and both sell their identical products at the same price to us consumers but one operates a 09x number that costs the exact same price as an 0870.  The other company operates just an 0870.

Now this would mean that going by call charges both charge exactly the same for their contact number but I'm sure you would agree that because most consumers aren't actually aware that 0870 is a (stealth) premium rate number (albeit small compared to some 09x numbers) so therefore they are more likely to ring the company operating the 0870 even though the other company operating the 09x number is the same price but is likely to be cheaper because call queuing isn't allowed.

This scenario could be used again but this time one company operates a normal geographical number and the other company operates the 09x number (but charged at exactly the same rates as an 0870).  Now which company is likely to get more business?  The company operating the normal geographical because many consumers are aware that 09x numbers are premium rate where the portions of the call charge is passed on to the end company.

Your view that ringing premium rate makes no difference because people ring competitions, etc is flawled simply because we may ring these competitions at the premium rate prices simply because there is no other choice but to ring them and pay the premium rate price.  If we were given a choice and could ring a premium rate number or a normal number to enter for a competition then do you think that people would still ring the premium rate number?

Redtreble wrote on Dec 13^th, 2005 at 5:34pm:

I'm not sure I understand your point about lack of competition.  There's loads of telcos out there, plenty of tariffs to choose from, lots of different companies in every industry that have call centres.....

That seems to be calls to 01, 02 and overseas numbers you are talking about.

For 084/7 there is almost no price competition for the uk consumer as the uncertainties to the call originator over how much he may have to pay over to the TCP are such that a discount carrier offering very low rates either wants to have no truck with NTS numbers or if they do connect to them they have to charge a massive call rate that ensures they always make a profit regardless.

Thus BT is the cheapest provider of any significance for 084 and 087 calls.  All its major competitors charge more.  Whereas quite the reverse is true for 01/02 calls.

Something wrong somewhere surely? :o

Maybe one of the few good leaves we can take out of the USA's book is that they generally have 1-800 toll free call centre access. The company pays for your contact. You have bought their product/paid for their service, why should you then have to pay above normal rates to talk to them?

saynonto0871 wrote on Dec 14^th, 2005 at 6:45pm:

Maybe one of the few good leaves we can take out of the USA's book is that they generally have 1-800 toll free call centre access. The company pays for your contact. You have bought their product/paid for their service, why should you then have to pay above normal rates to talk to them?

Talking to the customer provides another opportunity to sell the customer some other product and/or leave him generally more delighted with the company so that he renews his/her policy or whatever the next time.

The problem with the uk model is that they regard the post sales customer as some sort of hapless moron to be exploited in every which way and from whom they preferably don't ever want to hear again (deterrence against the customer calling again being another peculiarly negative British reason for having an 0870 number aside from bleeding dry the suckers who do still call).  There seems to be no acceptance in this country that customer retention through good post sales service and 0800 numbers is a cheaper model than constant customer churn caused by the "screw the existing customer" and get a new one British model.  That is why 0800 calls combined with far higher customer retention rates that means less very costly new sales activity is a more efficient business model.

And as for 0870 being so as to afford to keep British jobs and not outsource them to India well do me a favour but practically all the Indian call centres are actually on the 0870 numbers (because inevitably only the most cynical companies who treat their customers with utter contempt outsource the call centre to people who cannot often even communicate effectively with the customer).  Take HP (Hewlett Packard) who I have had to talk to for about two and a half hours on the phone in the last week in about 4 different calls about a failed notebook pc battery (that they still haven't delivered a replacement for 5 days after the problem was diagnosed in spite of them being readily buyable for cash on overnight delivery on internet PC spares sites).  Now as it happens it has only cost me about 21p of 3p calls calling their main switchboard number (allowing for various female operators in India who couldn't even manage to key a serial number into a PC terminal correctly and who I had to give up on) but if it had cost me £11 of phone calls too I would be even more livid with the company.  Also in a healthy marketplace the difference in phone call costs beween the cheapest and most expensive method of routing a call ought to be about 50% at most.   For it to be in the order of more like a 4000% price difference shows that the telecoms market is sick and that certain channels are making monopoly profits by exploiting captive customers.

If they really want to charge for after sales PC support then make us buy a support contract that charges per issue fixed (not by the time the call lasted which only gives the company an incentive to employ incompetent staff on low wages) and only charges when it is fixed with there being no charge if they fail to resolve the problem and/or financial penalties for failing to fix it.  And do all this on a normal geographic phone number where the market dictates the call price and not the call centre who is trying to charge me through the nose while hoping that I won't be aware of it.

What has happened to Redtreble.  Perhaps he has belatedly twigged that we aren't all the typical dumb saps who call his shiny big call centre and that unfortunately for him he can't pull the wool over our eyes.

Still I'm sure it would be interesting to read his company's submission to Ofcom, if only he would provide us with the link. ;)

Quote:

What has happened to Redtreble.

Maybe he just thought is was all a load of nonsense.  :(

longusername wrote on Dec 15^th, 2005 at 6:45pm:

Quote: What has happened to Redtreble. Maybe he just thought is was all a load of nonsense.  :(

May be he suddenly realised that he had been rumbled and that we weren't as easy to fool as the dumb saps who call up him and his colleagues on 0870 all day long.  Now do you suppose that Redtreble and Tripleeight may in fact by any chance perhaps be related? ;)

saynonto0871 wrote on Dec 14^th, 2005 at 6:45pm:

Maybe one of the few good leaves we can take out of the USA's book is that they generally have 1-800 toll free call centre access. The company pays for your contact. You have bought their product/paid for their service, why should you then have to pay above normal rates to talk to them?

MBNA credit cards use 0800 numbers in the UK, obviously as they are an American company they hadn't twigged that they should have a shiney 0870 number to abuse their customers.

They also provide a geographic number for you to reverse the call charge to them if you are ringing them from abroad, now that is impressive!

I of course ring them on their geographic number from the UK so they don't have to pay for my 0800 call.

Cheers, Des.

The argument that prices will go up and services will get worse if 0870 is abolished, and that the big companies need to pay for their large expensive call centres is flawed.

There was once a time when these companies would have lots of local branches, or offices in every high street maintained by staff.  There was only 1 or 2 lines to each unit, and obviously didn't need complicated call routing software to take calls.

However companies decided that closing these offices, and making staff redundant, and saving on the rent by opening a central contact centre will reduce costs, and make it more efficient for us, the customer.

But now the arguement is that they need to pay for the call routing software, and staff to maintain the call centre, and this must be provided from 0870 revenue.

But money has already been saved by closing the offices, and shedding jobs, so just because the telephony equipment is more expensive, they are saving money overall.

Also, I did have to call an 0870 number the other week, but only because they insisted via e-mail that it was the only way to deal with my enquiry, which was pointing out a fault on their part.  The call was certainly not handled efficiently, but what the company have done efficiently is stop people using the London number!!

I do however agree, there are lots more pressing issues to moan about, such as the cost of petrol, taxes etc, however this site is dedicated to the topic of rip off 0870 numbers.  I'm sure there's compaign sites to raise issues on the other subjects you mention, and I'm pretty sure people actively post on them.  Just because we don't like 0870 prices doesn't mean we accept the other rip offs.  This is after all Rip off Britain, and any sort of rip off and ways to avoid it deserve publicity!!

I have temped at a Virgin Mobile during my summer vacations from university for 3 years and I would like you to consider the merits or demerits of their charges, which I feel represent both sides of the coin here.

To call the call centre from a Virgin mobile costs 10p per call flat rate, however long the call lasts. The customer is not charged until the call connects to an operator at the call centre, so even though holding for half an hour on your mobile is extremely frustrating, it doesn't costs the customer a penny. We were told last summer that each call costs the company £2.20 to receive in terms of electricty, wages etc etc. We (the return temping staff) were encouraged to have an average call time of a certain amount (I have thought for a while about this and can't remember the exact time figure) and an average time spent between calls writing up notes of under 30 seconds. We were severely marked down in our fortnightly assessments if we did not reach these and other targets, and our employment terminated at a weeks notice if our performance was deemed to be "contrary to the customer good". Similar assesments were regularly carried out on full time staff. So far from I would assert that this is an extremely positive approach to customer service.

The downside is that calling the call centre from a landline can only be done via an 0845 number - unless you phoned Reception on a geographical number and ask to be transferred - which is, of course, more expensive per se and charges the caller as soon as you dial. However, the reality is that is very rarely happens because the only reason why you would do it is when your phone is not working at all. In turn, there are few reasons why a mobile phone would stop working.

Is that, in total, a fair method of charging the consumer? One possible way of looking at it is, why should I pay more for my calls and my phone in the first place when it is other people's phones who go wrong, and I have no problem with it at all? Not that that helps the person who has the misfortune to have the phone that goes wrong!


Rob

Please forgive the hasty reply, but I have to collect my wife from a Christmas party.

One of the problems with holding is exactly that, holding and paying for it. Listening to Ring No Answer would be acceptable, but BT System X etc cuts one off after six minutes twenty seconds and most mobiles after less than a minute.

And, again, it is the covert nature of the revenue share. One could offer PRS and be open or adopt the US method of TollFree for service - OK a cost to all, but presumably cost-effective in the US?

Redtreble wrote on Dec 13^th, 2005 at 4:29pm:

To be honest, as a consumer, what narks me far more than the per minute charge is the overall value of a call.  I'd far rather use an 0870 number to get through to a British call centre than pay nothing to spend ages spelling every single word to an operative in an off-shore call centre, but that's just me I suppose.

Sadly, many of those 0870 calls we pay for, are sent to an outsourced call centre.  So not only do we pay three times more for the call (or in my case, 35p per min during the day on my mobile) but we also are on the phone for three times as long, spelling out unusual words like "Birmingham".  ::)

Redtreble wrote on Dec 13^th, 2005 at 6:10pm:

Dave wrote on Dec 13th, 2005 at 5:56pm: These numbers have been 'sold' as such, and that is where alot of the issues lie. If they had been promoted as a premium paying type, then would businesses have been so quick to sign up? This would have been decided, ultimately, by consumers who would choose whether to do business with such a company. Er...yes, they would.  Businessmen aren't stupid enough to be fooled by semantics.  It's a revenue stream to them, whatever you choose to call it.

That says it all . . . Does this mean "business women ARE sufficiently stupid"?  Sort your own semantics before (vainly) trying to fool the worthy members of this site.  Is s/he trying to tell us that all persons in business are honest, open and reliable?  - not to mention educated and intelligent!  HAH!  ::)

~ Link info adjusted # DaveM