I just got an email from Cahoot (Abbey National) with a contact number of 0844 9009092. No price indication given but it seems to be BT G12 charged a 4p/min at all times.

I got the same email last week but it was an 0870 contact number given.
Are they moving protect their revenue stream already?

saynonto0871 wrote on Mar 9^th, 2006 at 8:51am:

Are they moving protect their revenue stream already?

Thanks for pointing this one out.

I guess 0844 is better than 0870 (at present) but this is depressing reading.  I reckon you're spot on say its merely an attempt by Abbey National to continue scamming an income off phone calls!  It'd be interesting to see if this is part of a wider trend.

As a customer you could of course make these points direct to them - I wonder if they've heard of Ofcom's proposed '03' number range ?

gdh82 wrote on Mar 9^th, 2006 at 11:42am:

I guess 0844 is better than 0870 (at present) but this is depressing reading.

4p per minute instead of 1.5p per minute at the weekends for 0870 so I'm not sure that it is any better overall.

But at 4p/min it's not the highest 0844 number. Is this Ofcom's dream of competition between service providers coming true?

It does strike me that there must have been a decision by Abbey about which rate is the 'right one.' When will banks start charging for speaking to advisors in branches?

Dave wrote on Mar 9^th, 2006 at 12:18pm:

But at 4p/min it's not the highest 0844 number. Is this Ofcom's dream of competition between service providers coming true?

Its obviously based on the disgusting lies of some NEG or Windsor Telecom type salesman to Abbey National that 4p per minute is the BT Standard Local Rate.

But as we know only the tiny number of BT Light User scheme customers pay BT Standard call rates and even they only pay 1.5p per minute in the evening and 1p per minute at the weekend.

The frightening thing is these kind of decisions often don't get taken at board level but by some kind of dumb idiotic middle manager in the IT or procurement departments of companies.  Of course the later complaints about the numbers obviously do show up at board level on the monthly complaint stats - at least I hope so.

Of course I am sure that the use of 0870 by Sky and NatWest is a board level decision so it depends on the company as to how it initially gets implemented..

wrote on Mar 9^th, 2006 at 12:27pm:

Its obviously based on the disgusting lies of some NEG or Windsor Telecom type salesman to Abbey National that 4p per minute is the BT Standard Local Rate.

And, of course, this particular 0844 cannot be put on Friends and Family.  ::)

Only 0845s can be on Friends and Family, 0844, 0870 and 0871 cannot.

That's not strictly true. Most 0844s and 0871s are excluded from Friends and Family but there are some that can be included. IIRC this was discussed in Ofcom's consultations on this subject. Communications providers (the telcos who 'sell' these NGNs) can decide whether they want to allow such 'discounts'.

See BT's list of 08xx prefixes.  ;)

Either way the consumer (even me in this case) doesn't get to know the rules of the game and so won't make an informed decision.

For instance why is it that some 0845 phone calls on my BT bill are called "Local Rate" and others are called "Lo-Call" when they all seem to charge exactly the same call price and that is definitely not my LOCAL fixed line rate for 01/02 calls.

Again Ofcom allows confusion to reign and competition not to work.  Does anyone have a B Ark at the ready to send Ofcom away on along with all the Telephone Sanitisers! ;) ::)

wrote on Mar 9^th, 2006 at 12:51pm:

For instance why is it that some 0845 phone calls on my BT bill are called "Local Rate" and others are called "Lo-Call" when they all seem to charge exactly the same call price and that is definitely not my LOCAL fixed line rate for 01/02 calls.

I believe that LOWcal, LO-call and so on were marketing from Mercury and BT, but I can not remember which way round they were. It may be that BT bills still carry this extra bit of marketing info.

Shouldn't that be an extra bit of marketing Disinformation on BT bills Tanllan given that 0845 numbers all cost me the same high non standard non geographic price regardless of whether they are called "Lo-Call" or "Local Rate" by BT? :o

And how is BT Retail's Phone Bill presentation policy reconciled with the comments of its CEO, Ian Livingston to The Scotman newspaper? :-/

See http://business.scotsman.com/banking.cfm?id=764772005

wrote on Mar 9^th, 2006 at 12:00pm:

gdh82 wrote on Mar 9th, 2006 at 11:42am: I guess 0844 is better than 0870 (at present) but this is depressing reading. 4p per minute instead of 1.5p per minute at the weekends for 0870 so I'm not sure that it is any better overall.

Not that this is the main issue here (although I knew it'd get picked up) but isn't the charge comparison as follows

          peak    eve    w/e
0870   7.41     3.95    1.5
0844   3.95     3.95    3.95

So, yes, 0844 is more expensive at w/e but at peak times is cheaper.

In any case, I repeat, this isn't the main issue.  

Besides, didn't Ofcom during the NTS:The Way Forward consultation argue to leave 0844 untouched to protect the relatively few dial-up ISPs that use this number?  If so, Abbey National seem to be jumping straight into that loophole to continue scamming an income off phone calls!!  Shameless or what!

gdh82 wrote on Mar 9^th, 2006 at 4:33pm:

In any case, I repeat, this isn't the main issue.

Indeed! The main issue is that the price of a telephone call should be just that. The call charges cover the communications channel from A to B.

Ofcom doesn't appear to (want to) get it's head around the fact that any call which benefits the service provider (that's the party being called) is, by definition, premium rate. Thus, in such circumstances, it is effectively the service provider who sets the call rate and not the telco.

Dave wrote on Mar 9^th, 2006 at 8:25pm:

Indeed! The main issue is that the price of a telephone call should be just that. Ofcom doesn't appear to (want to) get it's head around the fact that any call which benefits the service provider (that's the party being called) is, by definition, premium rate.

Completely agree, Dave.

By the way, I now remember that Ofcom were proposing to leave 0845 (not 0844 as I suggested above) untouched for ISP dial-up reasons.  Sorry!

I've also wondered if Abbey National's choice of 0844 could be down to insider knowledge?  Perhaps they've been given the nod that the likely outcome of the current Telephone Numbering Plan consultation will be that  08x numbers will be price banded so 084 = 4ppm ?  I know - this all sounds a bit too conspiracy theory...

gdh82 wrote on Mar 9^th, 2006 at 4:33pm:

Besides, didn't Ofcom during the NTS:The Way Forward consultation argue to leave 0844 untouched to protect the relatively few dial-up ISPs that use this number?  If so, Abbey National seem to be jumping straight into that loophole to continue scamming an income off phone calls!!  Shameless or what!

No Ofcom argued to leave 0845 untouched to protect the dialup ISPs still ripping off their customers too lazy or ignorant to move to cheaper 0844 1p per minute at all times dialup or 0808 subscription dialup or broadband.  This despite the endless charity and government voice based help lines that are on 0845 precisely because it was originally meant to be the cheapest way to make a call at "local" call rates.

Ofcom's argument for leaving 0844 revenue share scamming totally untouched and outside ICSTIS control (so call costs still won't have to be actively disclosed) was that they thought that up to 5p per minute (up to £3.00 per hour) wasn't much to pay to make a phone call :o >:( >:( >:(

gdh82 wrote on Mar 9^th, 2006 at 10:18pm:

I know - this all sounds a bit too conspiracy theory...

Most conspiracy theories in fact turn out to be based in fact when it comes to the Machiavellian like internal workings of Ofcom.

Its hard not to be cynical after reading that Ofcom's CEO is considered "one of them" by the telecoms industry who like him for his "light-touch regulation"!   Further details can be found here...

http://www.saynoto0870.com/cgi-bin/forum/YaBB.cgi?num=1130791926/1#1

These make for interesting reading about Stephen Carter and Ofcom:-

http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,3604,1298555,00.html

and

http://www.newlabourscandals.co.uk/bodies.htm

Basically Ofcom is a way for New Labour to buy off various important mates who run the broadcasting industry and telecoms companies so that they only say nice things about them.

How does one account for New Labour passing laws that crack down severely on motorists, terrorists, immigrants etc while saying that in media and telecoms the terrorists can regulate themselves.  It just doesn't make any sense. :-/