www.ofcom.org.uk/media/news/2007/02/nr_20070213b

03 numbers are being introduced as an alternative to chargeable 08 numbers like 0870. Calls to 03 numbers will cost the same as calls to geographic numbers (starting 01 or 02), and be included as part of any inclusive call minutes or discount schemes in the same way as geographic calls.

Revenue sharing – where the dialled party can receive a share of what the consumer pays to make a call – will not be permitted on calls to 03 numbers.

Ofcom intends these requirements to apply to calls from all types of line, including mobiles and payphones, and is seeking to confirm this by a change to General Condition 17, on which there will now be a short consultation.

Organisations using 03 numbers will offer consumers a single national point of contact without involving additional charges for the service, over and above the cost of calls to geographic numbers.

Ofcom Chief Executive, Ed Richards said: “Consumers will be able to dial 03 numbers with confidence about the cost of their call. We expect public services and many others to view 03 numbers as a real alternative to higher cost 08 numbers.”

Ofcom will start allocating 03 numbers to communication providers during March 2007 and today sets out how these numbers will be made available to promote early adoption of 03. For example:

   * Numbers starting 030 will be designated for use only by public bodies and not-for-profit services;
   * Some 03 numbers are reserved so that service providers on existing 08 numbers can transfer to 03 by simply changing the '8' digit in the number to a '3';
   * Memorable numbers such as those starting with '0300' and '0333' will be made available. Ofcom will manage the allocation process for such numbers to ensure that they are distributed fairly between the communications providers who apply.

So now Ed Richards describes all 08 numbers as being "higher rate" and to be avoided.

So while it is good to finally have such a statement from the CEO of Ofcom that 084/7 numbers are to be avoided by consumers how does he explain the fact that the 08 code also contains 0800 and 0800 numbers which are free of charge and that 0870 numbers will be converted to costing only the geographic rate like the 03 range but 0845 numbers will still be charged at a higher hidden premium rate even though they are stil marketed by many as local rate.  And what about 0871 numbers which are now to be ICSTIS controlled but sound just like 0870 numbers which will now be charged at geographic call prices.

Congratulations Ofcom for allowing the Police, Inland Revenue and many others to go on using 0845 by default due to the contractual agreements they have become locked into and for forcing all these organisations to get a new number if they want to do the right thing.

The National Telephone Number Plan on the 08 range is now completely bankrupt and utterly incomprehensible thanks to the total and utter ineptitude of OfCoN  Also 03 numbers will not be effective due to companies having to make the effort to change over to them.  03 would only have worked if all revenue sharing numbers on 03 had been made illegal and withdrawn from service and the companies concerned made to get 03 numbers instead.

There is now another consultation which was published today: Raising Confidence in Telephone Numbers

The deadline is 14 March, so that's 1 month!  :o

Mind you the full length PDF is below 100 pages.

Dave wrote on Feb 13^th, 2007 at 1:49pm:

Mind you the full length PDF is below 100 pages.

Unfortunately Ofcom seems to believe that lengthiness usually equates to thoroughness, whereas all it actually does is to make responding to their consultations inaccessible to the ordinary citizen consumer and only possible for bodies will full time paid members of staff to trawl through these impenetrable and excessively wordy documents.

I suggest that everyone here responds using it as an opportunity to make the point that it is not acceptable for companies using 0845 numbers to be forced to change them over to a new 03 number and that Ofcom must act to make 0845 calls charged at geographic rates on 1st Feb 2008 in the same way as 0870.  Also Ofcom must not allow any new 0845 or 0870 numbers to be issued so that in time everything will head towards 03.

We also need to comment that it is not acceptable for 0844 numbers to not be subjected to any rules on price disclosure and that these numbers must be brought under the same ICSTIS control regime as 0871, even if it is a somewhat lighter touch control ICSTIS regime than hitherto.  There is still time to force the inclusion of 0844 numbers as ICSTIS has not even publised its proposals on 0871, yet which suggests a lot of internal arguments going on between ICSTIS, Ofcom and the NTS call centre industry.

NGMsGhost wrote on Feb 13^th, 2007 at 1:06pm:

So now Ed Richards describes all 08 numbers as being "higher rate" and to be avoided [...] how does he explain the fact that the 08 code also contains 0800 and 0800 numbers are free of charge [snip]

(I did a few deep cuts there!) Sadly enough peeps are paying premium rates to 0800 so it's worth ditching that too. The whole 08/09 space could do with clearning out and bringing in rules so that calls labelled "freephone" don't cost more than geographical. It's a true mess. Even dear old BT is no longer obliged to offer 0800 free to caller.

=CM= wrote on Feb 13^th, 2007 at 2:05pm:

(I did a few deep cuts there!) Sadly enough peeps are paying premium rates to 0800 so it's worth ditching that too. The whole 08/09 space could do with clearning out and bringing in rules so that calls labelled "freephone" don't cost more than geographical. It's a true mess. Even dear old BT is no longer obliged to offer 0800 free to caller.

Ah yes a very good point.

Any responses to the Ofcom consultation must demand that 0800 numbers also cannot be charged at above geograpic 01, 02 rates for calls from mobiles.  Otherwise we will be left with crazy situation of 0800 numbers costing far more from a mobile than geographically priced 03 prefixed calls.

NGMsGhost wrote on Feb 13^th, 2007 at 2:01pm:

We also need to comment that it is not acceptable for 0844 numbers to not be subjected to any rules on price disclosure ...

Interestingly, the summary says:

Quote:

1.6 We are also making changes to increase consumer protection from abuses on some existing 070 personal numbering services. For these numbers - which are often confused with mobile numbers - we are making it a requirement that customers get a free announcement about the cost of a call before the call begins, in any case where a call will cost more than 20p (per minute or per call).

So if it's possible to have a free announcement on price, why not have this for all numbers above 20p, or even better, all numbers above geographical. The latter could be an optional facility. But I thought that they ruled this out because telcos said it would be too expensive. Too expensive in lost revenue maybe from people who don't want to go through with the call when they find out how much it costs and another few seconds to many calls which will take up network capacity without generating revenue.

I am also pleased to see that they won't be making any significant changes to geographical numbers. The last consultation on Telephone Numbering proposed several solutions including giving some areas a second area code and having wide area codes, like 028 in Northern Ireland.

Dave wrote on Feb 13^th, 2007 at 2:11pm:

Too expensive in lost revenue maybe from people who don't want to go through with the call when they find out how much it costs and another few seconds to many calls which will take up network capacity without generating revenue.

Yes precisely.  The fact that more people will learn they are being ripped off over 084/7 calls was obviously the only respect in which the cost of it was too expensive for the telecoms companies.  The fact that a low margin company like www.18185.co.uk can already provide this service surely tells us that there is no cost in actually providing the free call price announcement.

I would have the announcement of the price per minute and for connection compulsorily turned on for all lines unless people decided to turn it off for any reason (i.e they would have to opt out).

I suspect Ed Richards realises that Stephen Carter run Ofcom made a huge mistake on this issue so I wonder if there is any we can persuade Ofcom to force 0845 numbers to be changed to geographic pricing on 1st Feb 2008.  There is still time for this in my opinion.

NGMsGhost wrote on Feb 13^th, 2007 at 2:23pm:

I suspect Ed Richards realises that Stephen Carter run Ofcom made a huge mistake on this issue so I wonder if there is any we can persuade Ofcom to force 0845 numbers to be changed to geographic pricing on 1st Feb 2008.  There is still time for this in my opinion.

I agree, although having 0870 (and possibly 0845) charged at 01/02 rates mixed in with 0844/0871 is completely confusing. Either all 084/087 revenue sharing should be moved to 09 (or failing that, another clear prefix), or 084/087 should be left as is. Although in no way ideal, the latter would at least mean that revenue sharing and non-revenue sharing wouldn't be mixed. Clear pricing information should be introduced.

Dave wrote on Feb 13^th, 2007 at 2:43pm:

I agree, although having 0870 (and possibly 0845) charged at 01/02 rates mixed in with 0844/0871 is completely confusing. Either all 084/087 revenue sharing should be moved to 09 (or failing that, another clear prefix), or 084/087 should be left as is. Although in no way ideal, the latter would at least mean that revenue sharing and non-revenue sharing wouldn't be mixed. Clear pricing information should be introduced.

Pragmatically I believe the most practically acceptable and yet also ethically sound solution would be as follows:-

1. No new 084 or 087 numbers issued after 1st Feb 2008

2. All 0845 and 0870 move to geographic rate on 1st Feb 2008.  One year transition period after which their number must be changed to one in the 03 number range allowing time for adequate publicity and new leaflet printing.

3. 0844 and 0871 placed under ICSTIS control on 1st Feb 2008.  One year transition period after which their number must be changed to 09 and full ICSTIS rules applied.  Call queues should be limited to no more than 3 minutes on 09 numbers costing under 15p per minute.  Call queues should be limited to no more than 15 seconds on 09 numbers costing 15p per minute or above.

Therefore after 1st Feb 2009 all numbers charged at geographic rates would be on 01, 02 or 03.  All numbers charged at premium rate on 09 and all Freephone numbers on 08.  Simple and comprehensible and stopping all scamming.

Also mobile phones should be forced to connect numbers to agreed legitimate 0800 numbers from government information services, breakdown services etc free of charge.  Other 0800 numbers should be able to be charged at the current over minutes charge for bundled minutes packages but the standard geographic 01/02 charge on Pay As You Go mobiles.  If an 0800 number wants people to call it for free they must sign a declaration they are not a call routing service and be liable for the loss of revenue to mobile companies if they are proven to be such a service subsequently.  This would allow 0800 to be free of charge on a mobile for legitimate 0800 uses.  There are underlying business reasons why expecting mobile customers to be able to route all their calls via other call routing services using an 0800 number is not realistic.

I agree with NGM's comments in latest post.  Is there any realistic hope that OFCOM will listen to him at last?   Until I discovered this site, I used to wonder why my breakdown co had a geo no for mobiles.   Also, if all nos charged at above geo rates moved to 09 as suggested, I could legitimately argue that they were barred from my phone.    As many people, particularly with families, have call barring, this might concentrate the minds of those using premium rate as it would mean swathes of people could not be their customers (I know this would be a problem in terms of after sales service but I thik people would be aware of this by then before they bought)!

Barbara,

I'm glad to hear you agree with my suggestions, although I fear that telco friendly Ofcom will of course not do this because although what I have suggested is logical it is not profitable for their telco chums.

Taking the 09 calls access issue I certainly take the view that these calls should be barred by default on every single phone line and require a PIN number to access them each time.  And then in multi person housholds there could be a PIN number for each person that would identify that caller on the phone bill.  I t would be up the line subscriber to decide if they wanted to have more PIN numbers issued giving 09 access to other household members.  The current situation where anyone in the house can call numbers costing up to £1.50 per minute is like a form of blank cheque with no control by the account holder.

Unfortunately I fear this will not happen as Ofcom know that in the long run all phone calls will be made by voip using a computer like devices.  However one upside of voip telephony is that as all regular calls will be covered in your monthly broadband subscription every voip call that does not should require to make a separate payment for it by credit card or PayPal etc.  However I have fear that the forces of commercial banditry may still allow voip connections to exist which do involve a payment to the end user but where the fee for that call does not have to be paid separately each time but is simply added on to the monthly bill to your ISP.  So once again a hidden charge although what the excuse would be for not having technology to clearly agree to the extra charge each time beforehand i cannot begin to imagine.

I agree with NGM Ghost as well, although I'm not happy with 0844 and 0871 numbers staying for a year as I believe the general public will believe the 0844 is 'local rate' and the 0871 is 'national rate' (Whatever local and national rate are or are not!!!!!!). However it may be the best compromise.

Keith wrote on Feb 13^th, 2007 at 4:26pm:

I agree with NGM Ghost as well, although I'm not happy with 0844 and 0871 numbers staying for a year as I believe the general public will believe the 0844 is 'local rate' and the 0871 is 'national rate' (Whatever local and national rate are or are not!!!!!!). However it may be the best compromise.

Well if we had  my way I would have just banned all 084/7 numbers on 2 months notice about 8 years ago  before they ever became a problem but I was trying to propose something that Ofcom with its, "we must not intervene or regulate in a manner that is disproprotionate to business profitability" would go for.

NGMsGhost wrote on Feb 13^th, 2007 at 4:34pm:

Well if we had  my way I would have just banned all 084/7 numbers on 2 months notice about 8 years ago ...

Well you may be suited to Ofcom's Director of Telephone Numbering judging by your above response which has a numbered list with two number 1s! lol  ;D


NGMsGhost wrote on Feb 13^th, 2007 at 3:30pm:

Pragmatically I believe the most practically acceptable and yet also ethically sound solution would be as follows:- 1. No new 084 or 087 numbers issued after 1st Feb 2008 1. All 0845 and 0870 move to geographic rate on 1st Feb 2008. [...] 2. 0844 and 0871 placed under ICSTIS control on 1st Feb 2008. ...

Quote:

Well if we had  my way I would have just banned all 084/7 numbers on 2 months notice about 8 years ago  before they ever became a problem but I was trying to propose something that Ofcom with its, "we must not intervene or regulate in a manner that is disproprotionate to business profitability" would go for.

Agree.

Dave wrote on Feb 13^th, 2007 at 4:43pm:

Well you may be suited to Ofcom's Director of Telephone Numbering judging by your above response which has a numbered list with two number 1s! lol  ;D

Well I'm quite good on the 100 page report front too so perhaps I should apply for one of their 200 k per annum director roles. ::)

Of course I suspect that they would find my relentless enthusiasm for fulfilling their stated primary duty to be an imerdiment to their own enthusiasm for recruiting me. ;) >:( :'(

Just started to get around to reading this consultation. I'm only reading parts of it every now and then.

On page 12 of the pdf (PDF page 15), I noticed that a few mobile networks expressed concern over the fact that Ofcom was making sure that 03x was charged at geographical rates and included in any inclusive allowances.

These mobile networks tried to argue that Ofcom was in fact imposing a retail price control on OCPs that may not have had SMP (Significant Market Power)!

I think what they mean is that the mobile networks dont want to make these numbers the same price as geographical and included in inclusive minutes due to loss of revenue compared to current 08x pricing where they must make a lot of money without many of their customers realising what they're actually paying for calls to 08x

bbb_uk wrote on Feb 24^th, 2007 at 2:54pm:

These mobile networks tried to argue that Ofcom was in fact imposing a retail price control on OCPs that may not have had SMP (Significant Market Power)! I think what they mean is that the mobile networks dont want to make these numbers the same price as geographical and included in inclusive minutes due to loss of revenue compared to current 08x pricing where they must make a lot of money without many of their customers realising what they're actually paying for calls to 08x

I think you have it in one bbb.  The excuses given by the mobile phone industry for not charging all 03 calls at geographic rates because they don't have SMP are obviously just the usual lies designed to perpetuate the whole gigantic con.

In reality the only rule Ofcom is making is that calls to an 03 nunber from a mobile must be charged at that mobile phone provider's geographic rate.  But Ofcom don't say what the geographic call rate should be or how many bundled minutes you have for geographic numbers, which can be as low or as high as your mobile company wants it to be.  Therefore Ofcom is not distorting competition by requiring calls to all 03 numbers to be charged at geographic rates.  Any additional call routing features on an 03 NGN being paid for by the call recipient.

But don't forget about Ofcom having allowed calls to 0870 to go on being charged extra after 1st Feb as long as the OCP makes an announcement.  Now as there is no revenue share to the recipient on 0870 after 1st Feb 2008 who do you think that little rule is intended to benefit?  Why the mobile phone industry which will now make far bigger profits on 0870 numbers than it ever did before if it continues to charge 0870 numbers at the same Premium Rate as for instance TMobile currently do on their Everyday tariff.  Now they will go on getting the same call rate as before without part of the call cost being transferred to the TCP and their call centre client. :o [smiley=thumbdown.gif]

bbb_uk wrote on Feb 24^th, 2007 at 2:54pm:

On page 12 of the pdf (PDF page 15), I noticed that a few mobile networks expressed concern over the fact that Ofcom was making sure that 03x was charged at geographical rates and included in any inclusive allowances. These mobile networks tried to argue that Ofcom was in fact imposing a retail price control on OCPs that may not have had SMP (Significant Market Power)!

But if they make an announcement then they can charge as much as they like. Problem solved (from their point of view). It's only the same as they do now with so-called freephone numbers. But that would mean the consumer being aware of the price they're paying...

This really opens up wider issues. Call tariffs are usually promoted on the rates it costs to geographical numbers (and with mobile tariffs, mobile numbers as well). The telephone industry has invented a get-out where they can keep secret and lie about cost of calling 08xx numbers.

A point that has been made elsewhere is that the cost of terminating 03 numbers will probably be more than that of geographical numbers. Therefore, under these conditions, it is to be expected that the price of a call to 01  and 02 numbers be pushed up.

Dave wrote on Feb 24^th, 2007 at 4:42pm:

A point that has been made elsewhere is that the cost of terminating 03 numbers will probably be more than that of geographical numbers. Therefore, under these conditions, it is to be expected that the price of a call to 01  and 02 numbers be pushed up.

Surely the 03 number owner pays that additional termination cost and not the party calling the 03 number? :-/

Otherwise these calls will still be treated as non standard from outside the UK and barred for call routing from abroad with most carriers, just as 0845 numbers already are.  Then Ofcom's whole creation of 03 numbers would have been largely a waste of time?

NGMsGhost wrote on Feb 24^th, 2007 at 5:21pm:

Surely the 03 number owner pays that additional termination cost and not the party calling the 03 number? :-/ Otherwise these calls will still be treated as non standard from outside the UK and barred for call routing from abroad with most carriers, just as 0845 numbers already are.  Then Ofcom's whole creation of 03 numbers would have been largely a waste of time?

But how is the termination fee decided? Market forces or Ofcom setting down the price? Do different telcos (BT, Virgin etc) charge different termination fees for geographical calls?

I imagine that those telcos who provide NTS to businesses have an interest to get as much as possible so that they can make more profit/charge the business less. They don't have a direct relationship with the caller.

However, many geographical calls are originated and terminated by the same companies. It's in their interest to reduce prices to these numbers. Also bear in mind that a geographical number usually goes through to a landline where the subscriber pays line rental anyway.

bunking_off has just made an interesting post over on MSE here. It touches on what I said about NTS providers wanting higher termination fees:

Quote:

Obviously CPs with mainly originating traffic (e.g. BT, 1899 etc) will be pushing for the termination rate to be low, while the providers of 03/08 numbers will be pushing for it to be high. Termination accounting for geographic calls currently has 3 basic levels - LES is where the call is delivered to the correct exchange, Single Tandem is where the call is delivered to its parent tandem, and Double Tandam is where the call is delivered to any old tandem switch (so the call goes through the tandem to which it's delivered, the tandem that parents the destination exchange, and the destination exchange...this level is also sub-divided by the distance the call's carried as well). For normal geographic calls, CPs carry the call as far as they can to minimise how much they pay for delivery (called "far end handover"). For these 03 numbers however, there'll be no geographic significance so the only thing originating CPs can do is hand over to the terminating CP as quickly as they can (called "near end handover"). Some of the calls will co-incidentally hit the terminating CP at the correct location, others will go through two switching stages, but on average it may be more. But there can be only one rate for delivering the calls because the originator can have no idea where the end customer's located. So, the million dollar question (well in reality the market's worth tens of millions of pounds per year) is whether the termination rates for 03 will be similar to ST or DT. If the rates are similar to DT, there's scope to deliver the call without requiring a contribution from the 03 number holder. If it's more like ST, then chances are they'll have to pay. Of course, the reality is very few of these numbers will ever be used to deliver calls directly. Most involve "intelligent network" call routing, which also costs (NB even the most basic 0870 number does this, to translate the 0870 to the geo delivery number). So, chances are 03 will involve the number holder paying for inbound calls. But until the rates are agreed, who knows?

Quote:

[url=http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?p=4428587#post4428587]So, chances are 03 will involve the number holder paying for inbound calls. But until the rates are agreed, who knows?

If Ofcom don't manage to organise it this way they will have an awful lot of explaining to do and an awful lot of egg on their face.

The problem is that Ofcom haven't tackled the basic underlying problem of the whole NTS call conveyance system where call conveyance costs are ludicrously overpriced and seem deliberately designed to keep NGN number selling businesses and call centres profitable and the telecoms consumer (who is supposed to be Ofcom's principal duty) in the poor house.

NGMsGhost wrote on Feb 24^th, 2007 at 6:11pm:

The problem is that Ofcom haven't tackled the basic underlying problem of the whole NTS call conveyance system where call conveyance costs are ludicrously overpriced ...

The telephone network as a whole operates differently to other industries and utilities. With gas and electricity the provider you are with buys your gas/electricity and puts it into the same network as all other companies. The customer still uses the same pipe/cable (and therefore the same gas/electric) as their neighbour who may be with another supplier. The supplier has the same amount of gas/electric put in as its customers use, thus they balance out. With telecoms, it's different. Every subscriber has their own line back to the exchange, there is no 'buzzbar' like with electricity.

For consumers, there is a need to link the retail prices between different types of numbers, regardless of how much they cost the originating telco. I think it's reasonable to assume that a call that involves one or more other networks will cost it more. Imagine two different products that may cost the retailer different amounts, but where the regulator says they must sell them to consumers for the same price.

Typically we regard "standard" rate as being the cost of a call to a landline (and mobiles when calling from a mobile). So it's right to expect that a call to a fixed location is charged at the same rate regardless of the type of number on any particular package. So this should include the forthcoming 03 NTS which will, generally speaking, terminate on landlines. The necessity to align charges between 01/02 and 03 must overule any 'market forces' that would otherwise define the price.

Dave wrote on Feb 24^th, 2007 at 9:09pm:

For consumers, there is a need to link the retail prices between different types of numbers, regardless of how much they cost the originating telco. I think it's reasonable to assume that a call that involves one or more other networks will cost it more. Imagine two different products that may cost the retailer different amounts, but where the regulator says they must sell them to consumers for the same price. Typically we regard "standard" rate as being the cost of a call to a landline (and mobiles when calling from a mobile). So it's right to expect that a call to a fixed location is charged at the same rate regardless of the type of number on any particular package. So this should include the forthcoming 03 NTS which will, generally speaking, terminate on landlines. The necessity to align charges between 01/02 and 03 must overule any 'market forces' that would otherwise define the price.

This can all be catered for by making the companies/organisations who have the new 03 numbers pay any extra costs associated with terminating calls on them that they clearly benefit from due to the call logging stats and intelligent call routing facilities.  What is not acceptable is to continue to make the UK citizen consumer pay these additional costs as has happened under 084/7.  I think you are trying to introduce an extra complication here Dave when the complication arises only for the organisations who make a voluntary choice to have an 03 number and not for the citizen consumer who needs to call the new number code.

NGMsGhost wrote on Feb 24^th, 2007 at 9:34pm:

This can all be catered for by making the companies/organisations who have the new 03 numbers pay any extra costs associated with terminating calls on them that they clearly benefit from due to the call logging stats and intelligent call routing facilities.  What is not acceptable is to continue to make the UK citizen consumer pay these additional costs as has happened under 084/7. ...

bunking_off has made another interesting post. He talks about the fact that the termination rates that mobile providers charge have to be regulated as they obviously have little interest in keeping them down. Similarly, BT's termination rates for geographical numbers are regulated, but others are not. But in reality they charge (about) the same as BT does.

Ofcom must set terminating rates for them at the same price as that for geographical calls. Then it will be up to the telco providing the 03 numbers to charge accordingly for their services.

Dave wrote on Feb 24^th, 2007 at 4:42pm:

But if they make an announcement then they can charge as much as they like. Problem solved (from their point of view). It's only the same as they do now with so-called freephone numbers. But that would mean the consumer being aware of the price they're paying...

Do all the networks state the cost of the calls to freephone numbers?  I know o2 just state that calls are charged at "standard rate" with no mention of what their standard rate is.  It could easily be interpreted as meaning geographical rates but this isn't so for PAYG customers at least (not sure about contract customers).  I believe in fact calls to freephone are charged the same as most 08x numbers and last I checked it was 15p/min (only 0871 was charged more).

Dave wrote on Feb 24^th, 2007 at 10:53pm:

bunking_off has made another interesting post. He talks about the fact that the termination rates that mobile providers charge have to be regulated as they obviously have little interest in keeping them down. Similarly, BT's termination rates for geographical numbers are regulated, but others are not. But in reality they charge (about) the same as BT does. Ofcom must set terminating rates for them at the same price as that for geographical calls. Then it will be up to the telco providing the 03 numbers to charge accordingly for their services.

As we know Ofcom don't like introducing anything regulatory and get moaned at by CPs when they do.  Therefore, I can see that at first they'll leave it to negotiation to set terminating rates and after about 1year if this isn't working then they may consider setting rates to give some CPs a fair chance of competing but like I mentioned this wont be welcome by the big CPs at least.

bbb_uk wrote on Feb 25^th, 2007 at 7:58pm:

As we know Ofcom don't like introducing anything regulatory and get moaned at by CPs when they do.  Therefore, I can see that at first they'll leave it to negotiation to set terminating rates and after about 1year if this isn't working then they may consider setting rates to give some CPs a fair chance of competing but like I mentioned this wont be welcome by the big CPs at least.

But termination fees are generally highly regulated anyway, so there would apparently be no difference here whereby Ofcom would have to set a price for 03 calls. As bbb_uk says, it's got more to do with CPs dragging their feet, mainly because these will be 'mainstream' numbers where they are "standard" rates rather than obscure rates which are often hidden deep in pricing material.

How will Ofcom allocate numbers to communication providers if it hasn't decided how the charging arrangements will work?

Dave wrote on Feb 27^th, 2007 at 11:41pm:

How will Ofcom allocate numbers to communication providers if it hasn't decided how the charging arrangements will work?

Having read upto page 47 (page 50 on the actual pdf) of the consultation, numbers are to be allocated to CP on a first come, first served basis basically with only a certain amount of numbers at a time to save some CP getting huge numbers to give them an edge of any competition.  Ofcom are not doing anything with charging arrangement and leaving that to each CP, etc to work out that for themselves.  If a CP can't come to an arrangement, then they'll have to step in and investigate which normally takes 6months+.

One interesting thing I found is that it was mostly mobile networks that did the most moaning about free pre-call price announcements for 070 personal numbers (over 20ppm or 20ppc) and 03x being included in any inclusive minutes and charged the same as geographical calls.

And to be even more specific, it was Vodafone, I think that did the most moaning.

I would love to know the profits they make from calls to 08x and 070 because they're going out their way to try to avoid anything that is in the interests of us consumers - ie clearer price announcements or in the case of 03x numbers, the ability to know that regardless of provider (landline, payphone or mobile) that a call to 03x will be the same as a geographical.

Dave states (http://www.saynoto0870.com/cgi-bin/forum/YaBB.cgi?num=1173396748):


Quote:

New 03 Numbers Telephone numbers starting 03 will soon be available and they will be charged at the same rate as geographical calls, but they won't relate to a specific location. They will provide companies with the same benefits as 08xx numbers such as routing calls to different places depending on location and/or time and so on. Changes to 0870 It has been proposed that on 1 February 2008 there will be significant changes with regards 0870 telephone numbers. Companies will not be able to earn revenue from them and they will be reduced in cost to the same rate as calling a normal geographical (01/02) number.

If that is correct, what is the point in introducing 03 numbers - they'll cost the same as 0870 numbers?!

So am I right in understanding that 03X will be bundled in all land and mobile packages and 087X will not?

Heinz wrote on Mar 9^th, 2007 at 9:15am:

If that is correct, what is the point in introducing 03 numbers - they'll cost the same as 0870 numbers?!

The point of 03 numbers my Dear Watson is to provide a way for organisations that use 0845 numbers (eg Police, Inland Revenue and many charities and helplines) to find a replacement number that is only charged at geographic 01/02 rates as that won't be happening to 0845 numbers themselves for several more years (at least two) after 1st Feb 2008 if Ofcom has its way.

Now what should have happened is that 0845 and 0870 were changed to geographic rates on only two months notice in mid 2006 (notice how Ofcom with the avowedly pro money making scams favouring Stephen Carter out of the way finally did pluck up the courage to stop the no broadband ISP MAC code scam on just 2 months notice) and then after a couple of years all remaining 0845 and 0870 numbers would have had to migrate to the 03 range.  Meanwhile all new NGN  numbers charged at 01/02 rates would only be issued on 03 after mid 2006 in my ideal view of the world.

At the same time on just 2 months notice Ofcom should have changed 0871 and 0844 numbers to 01/02 rates and required any company that wanted to go on charging extra to get an 09 number at the same rate.  After 2 years these 0871 and 0844 numbers would have to moved to 09.

As a result of my above proposals all NGNs charged at geographic rates would have then been on 03, all 08 numbers would have been Freephone and all premium rate lines on 09.

But no Ofcom allows 0844 and 0871 to remain as a revenue charge Mecca, without even any disclosure of additional call costs on 0844 and only a token vastly weakened premium rate regime under ICSTIS on 0871. Meanwhile allowing 0870 to remain but now geographically priced (and yet with an opt out that mobile phone companies for instance can if they want still charge extra to call 0870 provide there is a call price announcement) ensures that no ordinary member of the public has a clue what is going on and so the scams can continue totally unbridled as before.  Fudge, Fudge, Fudge all the way so that most of the scammers profits are preserved.  That's typical Ofcom for you.  Not one grain of principle in its corporate body.

It is this same regulatory uselessness of not acting quickly to close down blatant scams that has led to the latest scandals about tv quiz lines on channels 1 to 5 not even paying out the prizes they promise.  No doubt if the tough FSA (FInancial Services Authority) was regulating this area then these companies would be fined £10 million or even £50 million (if Nationwide building society can be fined £1 million for a genuine security error with no actual mal intent) but with seedy and useless pro scammer ICSTIS at the helm perhaps £5,000 and a polite letter may well cover it.  By contrast you will recall how the poor Major on Who Wants To Be  A Millionaire was criminally convicted for simply trying to increase his odds of winning (without any certainty his scheme would work) even though Who Wants To Be A Millionaire can knock you out of its show, if it doesn't like the look of you, with an impossibly hard lower prize value question at any time it likes if it wants to.  But I don't suppose we will see the directors of any companies running 09 tv quiz show scams that don't even pay out the promised prizes sent to jail will we. ;) ::) >:(

Tanllan wrote on Mar 9^th, 2007 at 9:44am:

So am I right in understanding that 03X will be bundled in all land and mobile packages and 087X will not?

I hadn't picked up on that Tanllan but of course that may well be an unstated part of Ofcom's and their telco cronies (those who attend the NTS Focus Group meetings) devious and truly machiavellian scheme. :o >:(

All we currently know is that 03 numbers definitely must be included in fixed price calling plans but when you think about the fact that no such pronouncement had been made by Ofcom that this will happen on 0870 and also of the other pronouncement that higher rates to 0870 can still be charged if a preceding call price announcement is made then it all begins to look horribly likely.

The thing is what do we have to do to get the media to start covering this in the same aggressive way as with 08 prizeline scams.

In my view we have to talk about the £100 to £500 extra that every household in the land is paying on calls that the useless regulator still doesn't properly prevent being called local and national rate.  In other words a huge amount of money involved and a blatant scam of 09 tv quizline proportions.

Complaining its just 7p versus 3p per minute as Daniel the owner of the forum always does simply doesn't cut it as that only makes it sound like its a trivial problem worth only a few pence to each UK household.

Tanllan wrote on Mar 9^th, 2007 at 9:44am:

So am I right in understanding that 03X will be bundled in all land and mobile packages and 087X will not?

It's my understanding that 03x will be bundled in all landline and mobile package and charged at that operators geographical rate for calls outside any inclusive minutes.  In other words, as far as us consumers are concerned, they will be another range of geographical numbers.  Obviously behind the scenes then things are different.

0870 will also be charged at geographical rate and included in any bundled minutes from landline or mobile UNLESS your telco chooses to charge extra for the calls in which case a free call announcement would need to be made.

As NGMGhost has mentioned, it's possible those less ethical mobile networks may choose this route however the last thing they, the mobile networks want, is to tell their customers the price of the call beforehand but never the less I can still see some mobile networks choosing this route.

So basically the only difference will be between 03x and 0870 is that some telco networks may want to charge higher for than geographical rate for calls to 0870 and if they choose this route they have to warn customers beforehand.

Funny thing is that going by the 03x consultation, some mobile networks (Voda specifically) want to charge extra for 03x calls claiming how it will put unfair cost increase on their behalf which Ofcom has rejected.

The Mobile networks even said they would put a free call announcement beforehand on calls to 03x so they could charge extra for the calls than their geographical rate which is really strange considering in the past, the networks stated (as did Ofcom) the cost of free call announcement would be too much for them and so was rejected!!!  :-?   :-/

bbb_uk wrote on Mar 9^th, 2007 at 7:33pm:

0870 will also be charged at geographical rate and included in any bundled minutes from landline or mobile UNLESS your telco chooses to charge extra for the calls in which case a free call announcement would need to be made. As NGMGhost has mentioned, it's possible those less ethical mobile networks may choose this route however the last thing they, the mobile networks want, is to tell their customers the price of the call beforehand but never the less I can still see some mobile networks choosing this route.

But is this not what they do for freephones now anyway? But people don't tend to call freephone numbers as much as 0845/0870, so it would make it more apparent to consumers that these services cost extra for those on 0870 or if they migrated to 03 and the particular mobile provider charged above the price of a geographical call.

What's more, if a call to an 0870 number is higher than a geographical, an announcement will be made. But calling an 0845 or 0844/0871, it will not!!!

Dave wrote on Mar 10^th, 2007 at 12:15pm:

But is this not what they do for freephones now anyway? But people don't tend to call freephone numbers as much as 0845/0870, so it would make it more apparent to consumers that these services cost extra for those on 0870 or if they migrated to 03 and the particular mobile provider charged above the price of a geographical call.

I agree which is why I dont believe any teleco (except maybe some mobile networks) will charge extra than geographical rate for calls to 0870 numbers.  The last thing the teleco's want to do is highlight to their customers that calls are charged extra.

No one can be certain what the OCPs plan on doing with regards to 0870 costs but according to this consultation, some mobile networks offered to introduce free call announcements for any calls made to 03x so that they could charge extra than geographical rate for the call.  Now I've assumed that because they offered to do this for 03x numbers then it's likely that they plan on doing this for 0870 numbers as well come Feb 2008 (possibly later if Ofcom decide to postpone it again).


Quote:

What's more, if a call to an 0870 number is higher than a geographical, an announcement will be made. But calling an 0845 or 0844/0871, it will not!!!

Totally mad isn't?

I'd like to re-iterate something I mentioned in my last post:

Quote:

The Mobile networks even said they would put a free call announcement beforehand on calls to 03x so they could charge extra for the calls than their geographical rate which is really strange considering in the past, the networks stated (as did Ofcom) the cost of free call announcement would be too much for them and so was rejected!!!  :-?   :-/

So it seems despite what the OCPs and Ofcom said about how this type of thing would be really expensive to introduce and so wasn't considered, that in reality it can't be that expensive otherwise why would some OCPs volunteer to introduce it for calls to 03x just so they could charge more than the geographical rate?

I am reading through the consultation document and I have made comments about various parts of it. Feel free to use them as a basis for your response.

The consultation only talks about 03 numbers and 070 numbers. It is concerned with amendment of General Condition 17 (GC17) so that the changes will be enforceable on all CPs. I assumed (perhaps I'm being naive) that come 1 February, 0870 would be on an equal footing to 03.

It is intended that these numbers will be charged at the OCP’s national rate, where it distinguishes between the two. I hope that this will not set a president for them to be described as national rate, thereby fueling the confusion that it is usually cheaper to call a local number. Then again, any promotional material stating that the number is local rate would therefore be misleading. Then again, it has not stopped them doing it now.  ::)

Suggestion that this is a Retail Price Control (RPC)
Part of paragraph 3.13 is:

Quote:

There was, by contrast, only one reference to the prohibition of revenue-sharing on 03 numbers, which was from Vodafone, in support of a dedicated non-revenue-sharing non-geographic range.

But, as bbb_uk says above, Vodafone has expressed objection to being told that it must charge 03 inline with 01/02 rates. :-/

Or is it that it wants a non-revenue sharing range so that it has to pay as little to the terminating CP as possible whilst charging more than it does to 01/02? Thus it can make a nice profit on calls to these numbers.


Quote:

3.18 […] The Mobile Broadband Group, T-Mobile and Vodafone between them expressed concerns about linking the price of 03 calls to the price of 01 and 02 calls, about requiring 03 calls to be in bundles and about the 03 termination arrangements. These respondents also argued that Ofcom was proposing a retail price control on CPs that do not have Significant Market Power (‘SMP’) in call origination. Vodafone suggested that it may be more proportionate to allow prices to exceed geographic rates where an in-call announcement is given (but thought this option would need further analysis). Some respondents asked what specific legal powers Ofcom was using to introduce this regulation.

Pre-call Announcements

Quote:

3.25 Ofcom’s consumer research shows that consumers appreciate the giving of broad pricing messages about numbers, as provided for by the Plan. […] In addition, other research suggests that a large proportion of consumers (42 per cent) would find routine pre-call announcements annoying.

I am sceptical to the relevance of this. What does ‘routine’ mean? I would find an announcement on all calls annoying. But I would welcome announcements on those number ranges that have different charging rates, such as 084, 087 and 090.


Quote:

3.26 […] Ofcom’s discussions with representatives of both public and voluntary sector SPs emphasise that, to a very significant degree, SPs would not see a value in migrating to 03 if the distinction with 08 pricing were diluted by allowing for 03 pre-call announcements and price variations that removed certainty and led to price complexity and confusion.

Why question only public and voluntary SPs? What about private sector SPs? Did they not want to discuss these things?

Technical Definition of 03

Quote:

3.14 There were more comments on the technical definition of 03. One confidential respondent proposed that the service definition of UK-wide Numbers - 03 numbers - should be amended to remove the proposed requirement for geographic number translation and the proposed prohibition of use for mobile services. This was based on the respondent’s understanding that calls could be originated as well as terminated using 03 numbers. […] Ofcom has therefore decided to remove these additional parts of the service description for 03 calls from the Plan.

Presumably this will allow mobile providers to give subscribers an incoming non-geographical number charged at geographical rates. They will presumably charge for incoming calls to make up for the lower call rate. But this will be useful for businesses where they wish to provide a geographically-charged mobile contact number. For example, a sole trader such as a plumber who is often out and about and wishes to avoid forcing callers to pay mobile rates. I am unsure whether or not this would ever come about, but still, it will mean it will be possible.

The Importance of the link with Geographical Call Rates

Quote:

3.28 Many organisations (including not-for-profit bodies whose functions are often closely associated with equity issues) would therefore be deterred from migration by the prospect of different OCPs taking different approaches to whether their 03 prices should match 01 and 02 prices. Whilst SPs could, in theory, enable the public to call them on different types of numbers (eg 03 or 0800) according to the OCP involved, this is a significantly worse option and a formidable marketing challenge.

This has been the case with freephone numbers being chargeable (often above geographical rates) from mobiles. We may end up with 03 numbers being cheaper to call from mobiles than 0800s! I note that no provision has been made for migration (or for a ‘tandem’ approach where SPs would be contactable on both) from 0800 and 0808 to 0300 and 0308, respectively. Of course, having both available is just plain confusing to the general consumer.

Therefore rules must be brought in to ensure that 0800 is not charged above 03 rates from mobiles. This will be especially necessary if Ofcom forces 03 to be charged inline with 01/02 with no possibility of higher rates with a pre-call announcement.

At present, the Plan puts obligations on the TCPs on how they use their allocated numbers. Ofcom will look at ways of bringing in rules that apply to all OCPs. If many OCPs charge more their respective 01/02 rate for 03 numbers, then it will undermine the Plan. I think the same thing is true with freephone numbers from mobiles and I hope that something will be done about this.

In paragraph 3.56 Ofcom considers it necessary to make a formal obligation on all OCPs in respect of the designations of 03 (and 070) in the Plan. 3.58 goes on to say that there will be another consultation on extending this to other number ranges.

Waterbed Effect

Quote:

3.34 Separately, some stakeholders have argued that the ‘waterbed effect’ – through which limiting one set of prices may be compensated for by a change in other retail prices – is very strong. To the extent that this effect applies, it would suggest that OCPs would tend not to lose out financially from SPs migrating from 08 to 03 numbers. Also, the volume of migrating 08 traffic would be much lower than the volume of 01 and 02 traffic, and this limits the degree to which 01 and 02 prices may have to change to offset any first-order financial impact on OCPs. The first-order impact will also be limited in the early stages of 03 - and therefore easier to adjust for - because migration from 08 numbers will not all happen overnight. The absence of existing interconnection contracts for 03 also avoids initial inflexibility in setting 03 retail prices.

At the end of the day, telcos entice subscribers by promoting their geographical rates. The lack of enforcement of rules that require price disclosure of 084 and 087 NGNs only compounds the issue.

The nation’s telephone consumers are being over-charged for calls to companies anyway. And it’s all covert, so what some argue as the ‘waterbed effect’ is in fact the removal of the market distortion that exists at the moment.

SPs’ views on Pre-call Announcements

Quote:

3.38 The ability to provide a pre-call announcement has been argued to be a more proportionate way to meet Ofcom’s objectives. However, it is apparent to Ofcom from consumers’ and SPs’ feedback that a pre-announcement would not deliver the certainty that consumers want nor the confidence in, and SP migration to, the 03 range. This is particularly the case were a pre-call announcement to be generic in nature, as one OCP has suggested to Ofcom as a possibility, rather than giving the specific price for each 03 call.

But pre-call announcements will promote openness. I wonder whether those consumers who were questioned were, in general, under impression that 0845 and 0870 numbers were ‘good’ because many businesses used them and that charges were ‘reasonable’. With that in mind, such consumers would not have had time to consider the implications, i.e. that is not “just a few pence extra”. Thus, by introducing pricing announcements it may make people think (perceive) that prices are high and unreasonable because they inherently believe that they are fair now.

It’s almost like they believe that the introduction of pricing announcements is giving the green light to price rises. It’s the old chestnut that the 0845 ‘local rate’ lie has been told that many times that people cannot think in terms of this not being the case.

Legal Issues
Paragraphs 3.41 through to 3.47 discuss some potential legal issues which some CPs, including Vodafone and T-Mobile, raised. They suggest that Ofcom cannot include price designations in the National Telephone Numbering Plan. Ofcom rejects this and says:

Quote:

3.42 […] Where it appears to Ofcom that any of its duties conflict with each other in a particular case (both in relation to its duties to fulfil the Community obligations and Ofcom’s general duties), Ofcom is required to secure that the conflict is resolved in the manner it considers most appropriate in the circumstances. In the event there is a conflict between fulfilling the Community duties and Ofcom’s general duties, the Community duties prevail.

03 Not-for-profit numbers

Quote:

3.61 […] Ofcom recently has learned that some large public bodies intend to apply for significant volumes of 03 numbers, with demand exceeding 100,000 numbers in at least two or three cases. … 3.63 The ‘0306’ sub-range will also be made available - on a first come, first served basis - at the earliest stage. This responds to a specific urgency issue with obtaining particular 03 numbers that relates to their use by a very large public body. …

So which public bodies have shown interest in 03 numbers? :-?

Hopefully, if public organisations adopt them, they will become more recognisable to consumers and private companies will follow suit.

It is also stated that 030 numbers will be not-for-profit services and 033 will be all other services. This is instead of 0300, for example, thereby allowing a ten-fold increase in the number of numbers available.

Call pre-announcements to 070 Numbers

Quote:

4.12 […] Some stakeholders have questioned the ability of all OCPs to provide a pre-call message that states the maximum cost that the customer might pay to call a personal number. In particular, this problem was said to be due to the fact that some CPs provide network services to others. Examples are BT providing services to Wholesale Line Rental (WLR) providers, and T-Mobile providing services to Mobile Virtual Network Operators (MVNOs). Any requirement to provide a message stating a maximum call cost would require network originators to know at all times the maximum call cost to make a 070 call from each of the reseller CPs using their network. This could be disproportionately complex to implement, as originators would have to keep track of reseller CPs’ retail prices to call 070 numbers. Additionally, the content of pre-call announcements would have to vary according to the maximum price charged by each CP. […] 4.16 Ofcom’s conclusion is that the pre-call announcement should at least tell callers the maximum call charge levied by the network originator to its own customers for a call. […] Partly in recognition of this simplification of the pre-call announcement message, Ofcom has decided […] to include a date of 1 September 2007 in the Plan as the point at which the price trigger designation will take effect. …

This will presumably be an issue with 03 numbers as well. It will also mean that those resellers that price calls above the threshold where their network operator prices below will not be able to fulfil their obligation of a pricing announcement. And vice versa, for customers of those resellers who price numbers below the threshold where their network operator prices them above will hear the announcement.

A reseller OCP has an obligation to see that these announcements are made. It is thus required to promote the retail price its network operator charges. Apart from being completely idiosyncratic, is this not misleading within Part III of the Consumer Protection Act 1987?

I'm confused.

An OCP should always know how much they are charging for calls because OCPs are already under an obligation to ensure that on their website they have upto date pricing for all numbers with a few exceptions and none of them would apply in this case.

This would even apply to say Tesco Mobile who are an MVNO using o2's network.  Tesco mobile in this example are under an obligation to inform its customers of the prices to 070 (as well as the rest of the number ranges).

So if Tesco Mobile (again only an example) can display on their website the cost of calls to 070 then surely then can implement call announcement accordingly based on information on their website.

I realise that nearly all OCPs don't display the cost of the calls to a lot of the number ranges that they are obliged to which is another thing completely.

The bigger picture here is if some OCPs are unable to have accurate pre-call announcements because they apparently don't know the cost of the call then surely they are also breaking existing regulation concerning the requirement for them to publish the cost of their calls on their website and when required to do so upon request from customers?

[smiley=undecided.gif]

bbb_uk wrote on Mar 15^th, 2007 at 8:28am:

The bigger picture here is if some OCPs are unable to have accurate pre-call announcements because they apparently don't know the cost of the call then surely they are also breaking existing regulation concerning the requirement for them to publish the cost of their calls on their website and when required to do so upon request from customers?

I have pointed this out in my response. Specifically that they may be misleading their customers under Part III of the Consumer Protection Act 1987.

And how will it look in bad customer service? There will be loads of people asking why, when they call via their reseller CP, they receive a message giving a price that may not be correct. It could mean people change CP because of it.

It also means that there is no incentive for prices to be driven down with reseller CPs as they can get away with charging higher prices because their customers are unaware/mislead.

I think that 0870 should be left as it is until 03 has been available for a while. See how the uptake of 03 goes.

Changing 0870 to geographical rates will leave it as an anomoly in the 08 range. OK, so the numbering system is riddled with anomolies anyway...  ::)

But if sufficient companies migrate to make an impact with consumers, then perhaps it will make it clearer. Also, I can't see companies migrating from 0870 to 03 if it were to be charged at geographical rates.

I am braced for an onslaught from other members......

Dave wrote on Mar 17^th, 2007 at 8:26pm:

I am braced for an onslaught from other members......

... Well let me start then....

Seriously though, I can't see what difference it makes whether 0870 is left as it is longer or in February 2008 as planned.

If 0870 stayed as it is then there is less of an incentive for anyone to move to 03x.

I realise that 03x isn't going to be popular with companies/gov departments because they will probably have to contribute to incoming calls.

bbb_uk wrote on Mar 18^th, 2007 at 10:43am:

Dave wrote on Mar 17th, 2007 at 8:26pm: I am braced for an onslaught from other members...... ... I realise that 03x isn't going to be popular with companies/gov departments because they will probably have to contribute to incoming calls.

Then they should migrate to an 01 number! problem solved.

derrick wrote on Mar 18^th, 2007 at 12:16pm:

Then they should migrate to an 01 number! problem solved.

A lot of smaller companies could easily do this.  However, those utilising several call centres then I'm afraid I think a NGN comes in handy.

bbb_uk wrote on Mar 18^th, 2007 at 2:59pm:

derrick wrote on Mar 18th, 2007 at 12:16pm: Then they should migrate to an 01 number! problem solved. A lot of smaller companies could easily do this.  However, those utilising several call centres then I'm afraid I think a NGN comes in handy.

It is my understanding? that most, if not all services operated on NGNs, can be operated on geo numbers in this day and age, I stand to be corrected  ::)

derrick wrote on Mar 18^th, 2007 at 3:51pm:

It is my understanding? that most, if not all services operated on NGNs, can be operated on geo numbers in this day and age, I stand to be corrected  ::)

Yes a assuming they have really expensive PABX switchboard, etc equipment.  They would probably have to have backups in place if it fails and would probably have to pay a huge maintenance cost as well.  I can also imagine that the equipment would need to be in each call centre as well and be sophisticated enough to handle the amount of calls the company/gov departments may receive. I believe the cheapest route for those using multiple call centres is unfortunately an NGN.

The point of 03x is that assuming at least some companies migrate to this new number range that it will offer same benefits as the 08x range but without the added cost for consumers in calling.

I'm hoping those companies that arent concerned in the revenue share and only opted for an 0845 for the network features will migrate to 03x.

Even if it does cost money to receive calls on the 03x, I'm hoping that its only a small amount so it's still cheap enough for companies/gov departments to consider taking this route.

Those companies that don't really operate multiple call centres, etc could probably easily go back to a geographical but of course there is no incentive for them to do so.

I have to admit to being a bit puzzled on the possibility of paying for inbound 03 calls. We deal with various providers for inbound VoIP calls where inbound geographic and non-geographic make us a small revenue as a telco, as you would expect. Yet at least one provider we deal with suggested that they would have to charge us for terminating 03 calls. Surely they either work the same as non-geographic like 056 (same price to call as 03) or geographic like 020, neither of which need a charge for inbound calls. I never got a straight answer.

Anyway, we offer 03 numbers delivered by IP or fax to email or voicemail to email with no inbound call charges. Maybe others will follow. www.call.me.uk

Hi Adrian, welcome to saynoto0870.com.  

There is a later thread on 03 numbers here and you'll see your company has already been mentioned.. :D

I have been searching around to find someone using a new 03 number without success.

There are a number of published references to companies and public bodies who either are using them, or are very keen to do so, but no names!

Who are they?




One interesting piece of information came to light at what sounds as though it should be an authoritiative source - http://www.uk03numbers.co.uk/how-it-works.php


Quote:

How 03 Numbers Works - 1. Decide the call charges your customers will pay for the call We have a variety of 03 numbers ranging between 1 pence per minute (PPM) and 5ppm cost to the customer. If you would like to earn a generous rebate (click here to view rates) and choose a 5ppm number. If you would like your customer to pay less and you subsidize, then choose 1ppm number.

It looks as though someone is set to breach GC 17!!, or is the author just trying to create confusion?

Quote:

03 Local Rate numbers (Non Geographic Numbers) are the most flexible Non Geographic Numbers available. The benefit of a company having a 03 Local Rate number is that 03 numbers are charged at local rate.

This, too is from the Global telecom 03 web site in the previous posting. http://www.uk03numbers.co.uk/

Just what is going on? Local rate? And this from a supposed 'Telecom' company?

I notice they have as their logo 'Global Telecom. In touch with the world'.

I'd add to that 'Global Telecom. In touch with the world. Out of touch with reality'.

And, I might add, what are useless Ofcom doing to police this sort of garbage?   >:(

You will see if you compare the website to their 0845 one that it's almost identical.

http://www.uk0845numbers.co.uk/how-it-works.php  is pretty much word for word.

Looks like a bit of cut-and-paste to me without sufficient proof reading.  Certainly the rates page it links to has TBC in almost everything!

mikeinnc wrote on Sep 30^th, 2007 at 1:16pm:

what are useless Ofcom doing to police this sort of garbage?   >:(

The thought of a formal complaint occurred to me. This issue is however (for the time being) outside my territory.

Assuming that the information is incorrect! this company is not only spreading the type of confusion that Ofcom is rightly (and I believe, genuinely) seeking to stop, it is also misleading its potential customers. It could be an idea for someone representing a mythical charity to make enquiries about obtaining an 03 number that would provide income to the charity from each call.

False information provided in response to such an enquiry would provide a genuine basis for a formal complaint to Ofcom.