I was recently happy to learn that my local council was involving itself in a pilot scheme. It relates to the reporting of things such as anti-social behaviour. By dialling 101 we can now release some of the burden on police and council telephone numbers, apparently. What the GLA backed scheme operators fail to make clear is that there is a 10p standard charge!
It was only when I checked entry number 16 of the 101 website's FAQs that it did become clear. It says: "The call charge will go to the telecom providers to offset the cost to them of carrying calls."
TOP marks GLA. They appear to have found a method of charging us to report crimes.
Residents of Barking and Dagenham and Waltham Forest, who are part of the pilot scheme, beware.

This "101" idea has been piloted elsewhere, without great success. It is not intended to address "criminal" activity, but breaches of bye-laws that nonetheless cause great distress.

The 10p charge per call is justified in two ways:

1. If calls were free it would suffer the same abuse that is suffered by 999 with trivial and deliberate nuisance calls.

2. Council tax payers would be unwilling to bear the cost of calls as well as the cost of the action that could follow. This is especially true in the context of the first point.

It is hard to say whether a cheaper rate could have been negotiated for the telecomms services provided.

This idea was first launched before Ofcom introduced the 03xx range. Sunderland and Newcastle Councils, who were early pioneers of 101, have now started to adopt 03xx numbers for access to all Council services. Although some would pay 11p for the first minute of a call to a 03xx number (e.g. daytime on BT/VM) and mobile callers would pay even more, other calls would cost less or even nothing. Unless 101 achieves the national recognition that it has failed to justify so far, 03xx is the way to go.

Thanks for pointing out that 101 has not died. Some serious engagement with the GLA and the Councils who are involved is clearly necessary.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Sep 2^nd, 2008 at 5:01pm:

The 10p charge per call is justified in two ways: 1. If calls were free it would suffer the same abuse that is suffered by 999 with trivial and deliberate nuisance calls. 2. Council tax payers would be unwilling to bear the cost of calls as well as the cost of the action that could follow. This is especially true in the context of the first point.

That is an old chestnut! There is no justification in my humble opinion. Everyone can afford 10p. I doubt whether that is a deterrent. It's just another way of collecting revenue. Ten pence is way too much to connect somebody to a number.

I see once again SCV is doing the work of the NGN snakeoil salesmen for them.  Why am I not at all surprised. ::)

I am sure he is just trying to play devil's advocate but there is no place for devil's advocates here in this forum.  The purpose of this forum is to slay the many 084/7 devils and accept no excuses from them for their sneeky actions.

The point the original poster was clearly making is that 101 is excluded from landline inclusive calling plans and mobile calling allowances and are not charged at a standard rate for those on geographic lines who pay for calls.  This is simply not acceptable if the point of 101 is just to be easier to remember as it is supposed to be.

As usual the snakeoil salesmen have hijacked the idea of simplicity in the name of a quick chance to make more money by the back door.  It is outrageous that councils and/or the Police are participating in this scam.

This is a zero tolerance forum for such scams so I do not expect to see any more posts by forum regulars attempting to justify the actions of the scammers, especially when the numbers in question are to call centres operating in the public sector. :o >:( [smiley=thumbdown.gif]

Would someone be good enough to detail the "non-standard" rates charged for calls to 101 for those on geographic lines who pay for calls, and perhaps for mobiles and call boxes also. If anyone is failing to charge the standard 10p per call, then surely Ofcom should be informed.

Could we please have a ruling from a forum moderator about whether my advocacy of non-geographic 03xx numbers, in preference to the failed 101 experiment, is out of order in this forum.

Perhaps we could also have an explanation of just who is engaged in a "sneaky" "scam" with 101, "making money by the back door". Does the flat rate of 10p per call represent a bad deal that has been negotiated with the telcos, when set against other call charges? Where is the lack of transparency? I favour use of 03xx, but have to admit that the charges for calling 101 are much clearer and easier to understand (unless there is something I have missed).

The 101 idea is attractive, but flawed. Similar problems will be found with the "888" idea being promoted for urgent non-emergency access to health and social care services. Call pricing is far from being the greatest of the difficulties.

This issue is worthy of note, however the major public sector issue is indeed with use of revenue sharing 084/7 numbers that save tax-payers money at the expense of service users. I would characterise those who permit this practice as being ignorant, foolish and politically misguided. I would only expect to hear those who seek to reduce burdens on tax-payers being characterised as "devils" by the most radical socialist.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Sep 2^nd, 2008 at 11:12pm:

Would someone be good enough to detail the "non-standard" rates charged for calls to 101 for those on geographic lines who pay for calls, and perhaps for mobiles and call boxes also. If anyone is failing to charge the standard 10p per call, then surely Ofcom should be informed.

It suddenly becomes clear to me why BT has raised the minimum cost of a call in the weekday daytime to 10p per minute for those on their most basic BT Together Plan.  But even then 01/02 calls cost less than 101 in the evenings.  Also the key point is that 01/02 is often a free call for those on inclusive calling plans covering particular times of day and 101 is excluded.

Surely you jest when you say that the matter should be reported to Ofcom.  Who would you report it to.  The Contact Centre?  Great another 1 on the click counter list.  Or perhaps Ed Richards, a man so arrogant about his responsibilities to the public that he often deletes emails from informed observers without having the courtesy to even read them or at least have a CEO's team who does so and sends back courteous responses to show he is on top of things.


Quote:

Could we please have a ruling from a forum moderator about whether my advocacy of non-geographic 03xx numbers, in preference to the failed 101 experiment, is out of order in this forum.

I have no problem with you promoting 03 numbers.  It was your excusing of public bodies who had joined in the 101 scam on the basis of the Janet and John like excuse that a 3 digit number is easier to recall without them worrying about it being affordable to call that I was against. As usual you suggest it is not their problem to worry about the cost.


Quote:

Perhaps we could also have an explanation of just who is engaged in a "sneaky" "scam" with 101, "making money by the back door". Does the flat rate of 10p per call represent a bad deal that has been negotiated with the telcos, when set against other call charges? Where is the lack of transparency? I favour use of 03xx, but have to admit that the charges for calling 101 are much clearer and easier to understand (unless there is something I have missed).

Lack of transparency is easy.   Their exclusion from geographic call plans is not admitted by their promoters.  It is obvious those behind them are as usual trying to make the caller pay for the cost of the service instead of the body running the service.  If not they would be charged as per geographic calls.  And obviously Ofcom could have mandated this to be so as they did so for 03 numbers.  Although of course we all know about the Competition Appeals Tribunal if Ofcom fail to mandate this from the outset of the creation of a particular number range prefix. ;) ::)


Quote:

I would characterise those who permit this practice as being ignorant, foolish and politically misguided. I would only expect to hear those who seek to reduce burdens on tax-payers being characterised as "devils" by the most radical socialist.

I would characterise them as incompetent and unfit to hold their jobs since they are meant to be the IT and telecoms professionals of the bodies in question.  It is not hard to get a grip on what phone calls cost and take this in to account.  Of course the most incompetent and unfit for purpose organisation is Ofcom who should have mandated that 101 was charged at geographic call rates like 03 numbers.

With respect to your last comment I shall ignore it as being the provocative nonsense it is clearly intended to be because the point of all these telecoms scams is that they involve deception with the caller not knowing what they are paying to make a call.  As a result of this the normal laws of market economics fail to operate when consumers are making choices about which numbers they can afford to call.

It is good to see that when it comes to the issues NGMsG and SCV have relatively few real points of difference.

The minimum cost for the weekday daytime BT call is going up to 11p on the 18th. The "standard" for 101 is 10p per call. It is any discovered differences with this standard that would represent a breach of regulations.

I seek to excuse nobody. I present issues as they are seen. Janet and John arguments can be very persuasive. I argue that public service providers should not subsidise their operations through surcharges on telephone callers, through use of revenue sharing numbers. With 101 a wholly different approach of a flat per-call charge is adopted. The issue of affordability is at least more transparent than with most other calls. 10p does not seem totally unreasonable to me, however I open the question about whether it is fair. I also explain the effect on taxpayers if it were to be 0p.

I cannot see evidence of an obvious intention to imply that 101 calls are included in standard packages. The 10p charge is said to apply to everyone equally, regardless of the type of telephone service. If some could be misled, then perhaps some further clarification could be helpful. I cannot however see how serious allegations of a "sneaky scam to make money by the back door" could be withdrawn on the basis of a few extra words being added to clarify this point.

We must not ignore the fact that tax-payer funded bodies will always look for the cheapest deal for the taxpayer first. They may see the relationship between service users and their telco, chosen from a competitive market, as none of their business. They may be genuinely unaware that all 084x numbers are revenue sharing, because they are not offered a "cashback" deal by their telco (as they would with 087x).

Whilst some may believe that this is all part of a diabolical plot, I simply argue the need for tax-payers to incur the full cost of providing public services. Assuming that the quality of its financial management remains unchanged, it will cost the DH more to run NHS Direct on 0345, rather than 0845, numbers. That is taxpayer's money. If, as is currently planned, NHS Direct uses "888" (on the same basis as 101) for some urgent services in some areas, including some new services, and retains its 0845 numbers for existing services, then this would be a "better deal" for taxpayers in general than a total switch to 03.

Is that diabolical? I say it is politically unacceptable for the NHS to remain on 0845 for each day that passes, because this violates the principle of "free at the point of need" due to the revenue share. My many arguments against "888" and 101 are however on a totally different basis.