I was interested to come across the website www.0870advice.com which is advertised at the bottom of some pages on this website.

As a website aimed at providing advice to businesses who have 0870 numbers and how to deal with the introduction of the new regulations over the coming year, it's not surprising that they highlight disadvantages of the new 0370 number range.

But are they correct when they say on this page www.0870advice.com/moving-0370.html that the "called party pays to receive calls" and that 0370 numbers "Can not be called from outside UK"?

AJR wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2006 at 12:24pm:

But are they correct when they say on this page [url=www.0870advice.com/moving-0370.html[/url]]www.0870advice.com/moving-0370.html[/url] that the "called party pays to receive calls" and that 0370 numbers "Can not be called from outside UK"?

Yes they will pay to receive the calls due to the alleged enhanced call routing functionality involved with all NGN numbers.  They just won't pay as much as you have to pay to receive a call on an 0800 number where you are also paying all of the standard network cost of conveying a phone call to you.  So if Call08 charge 2p per minute for 0800 hopefully it will only be 1p per minute or 0.5p per minute for 0370.  The point is that the operational convenience of having these facilities compared to using 01/02 should be such that it is worth all businesses who need to have them but who do not want to surcharge customers for calling them to have an 0370 number.

As to not being allowed to be called from outside the UK the cretinous Lord Currie and his Ofcom cronies have daftly once again allowed the market to decide this on a carrier by carrier basis.  However as the cost of routing the call to an 0370 number should be the same for the OCP as an 01/02 number I can see no reason for this and in my view Ofcom should be able to guarantee overseas routing to all 0370 carriers by all telecoms providers.  As ever Ofcom avoids making compulsory essential facilities like this in favour of politically correct crusades like banning so called junk food advertising on children's television.  So Ofcom can make things compulsory regardless of market forces, but it just chooses not to do so in this case. ;) :o :'(

NGMsGhost wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2006 at 2:17pm:

As to not being allowed to be called from outside the UK the cretinous Lord Currie and his Ofcom cronies have daftly once again allowed the market to decide this on a carrier by carrier basis.  However as the cost of routing the call to an 0370 number should be the same for the OCP as an 01/02 number I can see no reason for this and in my view Ofcom should be able to guarantee overseas routing to all 0370 carriers by all telecoms providers.  As ever Ofcom avoids making compulsory essential facilities like this in favour of politically correct crusades like banning so called junk food advertising on children's television.  So Ofcom can make things compulsory regardless of market forces, but it just chooses not to do so in this case. ;) :o :'(

This continues the discussion here by 0870advice.com who is an NGN provider.

By allowing NGN providers to charge per minute, does this put us (in a round about fashion) back to square one?

03xx numbers should cost the same to terminate as 01/02 calls do, but they apparently will not. I can think of three options that originating providers will have:

1. Carry these calls at the same rate as geographical calls. This may have the tendancy to push up prices for these calls above what it actually costs for geographical calls and will surely be an issue for 'inclusive' packages where, presumably, the monthly charge is set at such a rate as to cover the cost of terminating all the geographical calls.
2. Carry these calls at a higher rate than geographical numbers (with a recorded announcement), thereby just continuing the current issues with these numbers.
3. Do not carry these numbers. This is obviously quite impractical, but nevertheless Ofcon allows such a 'choice' for anyone other than BT.

If 03 numbers cost a customer making the call to them more than an 01 or 02 number from anywhere and/or cannot be accessed from anywhere in the world than an 01/02 number can be accessed then the useless Ofcom should be closed down for its total and utter shambolic incompetence and ineptitude.

NGMsGhost wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2006 at 2:53pm:

If 03 numbers cost a customer making the call to them more than an 01 or 02 number from anywhere and/or cannot be accessed from anywhere in the world than an 01/02 number can be accessed then the useless Ofcom should be closed down for its total and utter shambolic incompetence and ineptitude.

This is very bad news and seems to contradict Ofcom's news release in July 'Ofcom plans future of UK Telephone Numbering' http://www.ofcom.org.uk/media/news/2006/07/nr_20060727:

2. New UK-wide 03 number range

Ofcom will introduce new UK-wide 03 numbers from early next year. Calls to 03 numbers will cost the same as calls to geographic numbers, and be included as part of any inclusive call minutes or discount schemes for geographic calls. This will apply to calls from any line. No revenue sharing will be permitted on calls to 03 numbers.

The introduction of 03 numbers will enable organisations to offer consumers a single national point of contact without making additional charges for the service. This should give consumers confidence about calling 03 and Ofcom expects public services and many others to view 03 numbers as more appropriate than chargeable 08 numbers.

If 03 numbers are to be included in call allowances - how can a supplement be charged?

The 0870advice.com website is definitely NOT impartial as they've got their own goldnumbers website for which they actually charge businesses, etc using their 0845 an incoming charge per minute unlike a lot of other 0845 providers that actually don't charge and some even give a revenue back to the business.

The range isn't just 0370 neither.

I believe that, as Ofcom have stated, calls to 03x numbers for us end consumers won't cost anymore than a geographical call.  However, it is entirely possible that businesses/gov depts may have to pay a per minute charge for calls received from us end consumers/public.

The reason is that different providers may be involved in the call in which case they all take their 'cut'.

I agree with NGNsGhost in that it should be no more than 2p/min for basic diversion to a landline or multiple landlines simply because you can have an 0808/0800 number for a business that only costs 2p/min for calls received to it.

I suppose it may be possible that an OCP (Original Communications Provider - like BT, NTL/Telewest) offering an 03x number in theory should be cheaper than an ordinary CP (Communication Provider) like Call08, goldnumbers (whom appear expensive) and the rest.

This is why there is likely to be no incentive to migrate from existing 08x numbers to the new 03x numbers as it WILL cost companies/gov departments, etc more money than it does now.

bbb_uk wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2006 at 4:09pm:

This is why there is likely to be no incentive to migrate from existing 08x numbers to the new 03x numbers as it WILL cost companies/gov departments, etc more money than it does now.

Public and parliamentary pressure that will arise due to the cretinous failure of OfCoN to return 0845 to geographic rates on 1st Feb 2008 will mean most government departments, charities and Police forces who run 0845 numbers will have to get an equivalent 0370 number alternative.  I'm just about to send a major FOI request to Surrey County Council and Surrey Police (copying in all county councillors) with achieving that very end in mind.

As to 0870Advice ultimately his lot are just another of the scammers but at least he was an intelligent one prepared to demonstrate how it was all mainly the fault of Ofcom's and OFTEL's lousy regulatory regime that had allowed the whole sordid industry to develop in the first place.

bbb_uk wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2006 at 4:09pm:

This is why there is likely to be no incentive to migrate from existing 08x numbers to the new 03x numbers as it WILL cost companies/gov departments, etc more money than it does now.

But if 0870 is to be brought inline with geographical calls, it will, presumably, be charged the same as 0370. So what's the real incentive for a company to move from 0870 to 0370? If there's relatively few 03xx numbers about, consumers won't recoginise them as being geographically charged ones.

Dave wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2006 at 4:31pm:

bbb_uk wrote on Nov 22nd, 2006 at 4:09pm: This is why there is likely to be no incentive to migrate from existing 08x numbers to the new 03x numbers as it WILL cost companies/gov departments, etc more money than it does now. So what's the real incentive for a company to move from 0870 to 0370?

Not sure.  Perhaps Ofcom can explain why they are now to allow 08 to contain FreePhone, geographic national rate and premium rate services and how the public at large is meant to understand this.

NGMsGhost wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2006 at 5:13pm:

Dave wrote on Nov 22nd, 2006 at 4:31pm: bbb_uk wrote on Nov 22nd, 2006 at 4:09pm: This is why there is likely to be no incentive to migrate from existing 08x numbers to the new 03x numbers as it WILL cost companies/gov departments, etc more money than it does now. So what's the real incentive for a company to move from 0870 to 0370? Not sure.  Perhaps Ofcom can explain why they are now to allow 08 to contain FreePhone, geographic national rate and premium rate services and how the public at large is meant to understand this.

It's worth perusing this Ofcom document - particularly the research conclusions from page 10 onwards:
http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/numberingreview/statement/futuresight/futuresight.pdf.

As I read it, Ofcom asked consumers about their perceptions of 08x numbers. Apart from what Ofcom calls '080x' numbers which are perceived as free to the caller, few consumers understood that 084x and 087x are currently revenue sharing.

Ofcom then appears to compound their  error by referring to future 03x number ranges (p12) as 'equivalent to standard local & national call retail price'!

NGMsGhost wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2006 at 5:13pm:

Perhaps Ofcom can explain why they are now to allow 08 to contain FreePhone, geographic national rate and premium rate services and how the public at large is meant to understand this.

That is obviously very confusing for the public I agree.  Ofcon obviously have no intention to force migration from 084x/087x as it would cost companies too much money (again it's always the companies that come first and not consumers) so the best we can hope for is that Ofcon stop the widespread use of the terms local/national rate to describe 084x/087x just like the non-broadcast side of the ASA are trying to do and use other terms like "Business rate number" (ofcom's idea - not mine) instead.  Ofcon should then ensure us public know that these so-called "Business rate numbers" are in fact premium rate numbers albeit smaller than existing 09x numbers.  As I've said before, "full disclosure."

Realistically speaking there was no way Ofcon was/is going to force companies/gov depts, etc from 084x/087x to 09x.  I also believe that when 0845 is looked at again in the future - nothing will be done.

It appears that at least one CP is already thinking of challenging Ofcom's decision on 0870 numbers which obviously means Ofcom wont dare do anything to existing number ranges now.

I agree with NGNGhost that pressure may force gov depts to migrate to the 03x range despite it will cost them more to run but I think that it would be a lot of pressure needed for some gov depts at least.

Even as a consumer who hates these numbers, I do believe it's unfair for any gov dept/company, etc to actually pay x amount per minute for calls to them especially in this day and age.  This happened in the very old days but since then the cost of geographical calls have dropped a lot.  However, I do think that apart from basic diversion to one number, any other features like advanced call diversion, IVR's, etc should be paid for as a feature just like we pay for call diversion and the other features available on landlines.  If companies/gov departments want these 'network features' they should pay for them just like us consumers have to pay for any features we may want.

Call08.com are able to do freephone numbers that only cost companies 2p/min for every call they receive plus they get 500mins (I think) included for only £5 per month.  This is good value and so I hope that Call08.com could do something similar for the new 03x range except (and ideally) not charge companies x amount per minute for calls they receive - instead just charging them a monthly linerental where they pay for any network features required as a small monthly fee.

If the above was possible, then I would like to believe there would be very little resistance in migrating from 084x/087x to the new 03x range.  I guess we wont know now until next year whether this is at all possible.

Telecom providers that gain revenue from 084x and 087x telephone numbers will put out disinformation about any new proposals that potentially reduces their income.

bbb_uk wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2006 at 11:04am:

so the best we can hope for is that Ofcon stop the widespread use of the terms local/national rate to describe 084x/087x just like the non-broadcast side of the ASA are trying to do and use other terms like "Business rate number" (ofcom's idea - not mine) instead.  Ofcon should then ensure us public know that these so-called "Business rate numbers" are in fact premium rate numbers albeit smaller than existing 09x numbers.  As I've said before, "full disclosure."

I don't think the suggestion of the term Business Rate by OfCoN is the least but helpful and is basically designed as a Trojan Horse so that the use of 0871 numbers by business is given the Green Light by Ofcom and ICSTIS to become the norm for business.  It is a vile and deceitful suggestion that shows how deeply the incompetent, criticism allergic and overpaid cynics who work at senior levels in Ofcom are in bed with the profit making call centre industry.

I am contemplating some interesting FOI question to OfCoN on the total value of calls over several years on uk residential fixed line quarterly phone bills and the cost of calls on those fixed lines that arise due to 01/02, 084/7, 09 and 118 numbers as separate subtotals over several years.  I think those figures would make for some extremely interesting and illuminating reading.

NGMsGhost wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2006 at 4:19pm:

I don't think the suggestion of the term Business Rate by OfCoN is the least but helpful and is basically designed as a Trojan Horse so that the use of 0871 numbers by business is given the Green Light by Ofcom and ICSTIS to become the norm for business.

Can you think of a better description but remember that Ofcom don't like to admit they are premium rate so anything with "premium" in it will probably be a no no.

To a certain degree I don't mind what they're called so long as it doesn't make reference to local/national and that in some way or another, us end consumers are aware that they are premium rate albeit smaller than 09x and not regulated by ICSTIS.

I do believe that if all consumers were fully aware that when they ring their banks/GP, etc on these numbers that in most cases these end companies are getting money then it would be an outrage and these companies would probably have to use alternative numbers (ie 03x) instead.

bbb_uk wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2006 at 4:36pm:

Can you think of a better description but remember that Ofcom don't like to admit they are premium rate so anything with "premium" in it will probably be a no no.

Remember Matt Peacock's statement on BBC Radio 4's You and Yours programme where he agreed that these numbers are "premium rate numbers but by another name".

bbb_uk wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2006 at 4:36pm:

Can you think of a better description but remember that Ofcom don't like to admit they are premium rate so anything with "premium" in it will probably be a no no. To a certain degree I don't mind what they're called so long as it doesn't make reference to local/national and that in some way or another, us end consumers are aware that they are premium rate albeit smaller than 09x and not regulated by ICSTIS. I do believe that if all consumers were fully aware that when they ring their banks/GP, etc on these numbers that in most cases these end companies are getting money then it would be an outrage and these companies would probably have to use alternative numbers (ie 03x) instead.

How about "Micro-payment mechanism rate"?  In fact I believe that originally was how OfCoN itself referred to these numbers.

I will only settle for a positive call price announcement of the cost of making such calls with a clear statement that part of the value of the call you are making is being transferred to the company you are calling or their telephone services provider.

Dave wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2006 at 4:44pm:

Remember Matt Peacock's statement on BBC Radio 4's You and Yours programme where he agreed that these numbers are "premium rate numbers but by another name".

Don't talk to me about slithery ex BBC news reporter Peacock who has recently told me that he refuses to reply to any further emails from me on the basis that he took as a personal insult my suggestion that he only stayed on at Ofcom to draw the large salary and pension rights despite Ofcom's spectacular failure to serve the interests of UK citizen consumers surely going against most of his own instincts as a former BBC reporter and war zone correspondent.

One can only assume that Mr Peacock has been informed by former senior New Labour person and now Ofcom CEO Ed Richards that he does not wish to see the end of ripoff revenue sharing numbers and thus all efforts by the public to remind Mr Peacock of his former commitements over 084/7 numbers on BBC Radio 4 You and Yours are to be conveniently sidestepped and ignored.  No doubt this is the real reason why Matt Peacock is now unwilling to respond to any further correspondence from me.  In the good old days someone placed in this kind of difficult position regarding public commitments they have given not being honoured would have simply resigned.  But that was before the era of New Labour.............................................

NGMsGhost wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2006 at 4:49pm:

How about "Micro-payment mechanism rate"?  In fact I believe that originally was how OfCoN itself referred to these numbers.

I thought micro-payment was only referred to when talking about the payment that end businesses and CP/OCPs get - we generally refer to this as "revenue" but Ofcon uses the word "micro-payment" probably because it doesn't sound as bad as revenue.  I wasn't aware that Ofcon was going to refer to these number ranges as "micro-payment mechanism rate"


Quote:

I will only settle for a positive call price announcement of the cost of making such calls with a clear statement that part of the value of the call you are making is being transferred to the company you are calling or their telephone services provider.

I agree with that but realistically Ofcon would never go for that because (yet again) it's too expensive for OCP's so us consumers (yet again) don't get a luck in and continue to be totally confused over the actual cost of these number ranges.

bbb_uk wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2006 at 5:37pm:

I agree with that but realistically Ofcon would never go for that because (yet again) it's too expensive for OCP's so us consumers (yet again) don't get a luck in and continue to be totally confused over the actual cost of these number ranges.

That is because Ofcom are an incompetent regulator who are failing in their duties under the Communications Act 2003 to consider the inerests of uk citizens and uk consumers as being their principle duty.

Unfortunately as far as I can seem most senior staff at Ofcom in fact only consider their next promotion and next knighthood or peerage from New Labour as being their principle duty.  Anyone with an ounce of pro consumer zeal on their CV who applies to Ofcom for a job almost certainly never even appears to get a first interview.