Hey - we're not all out to rip off the public. A non geographic number has uses other than generating cash for the recipient of the call. I'm a technician for a housing association (a charity) that has an 0870 number and an ordinary 01xx number. The 0870 number is for the exclusive use of our customers and when dialled the call will be transferred to the first of the available 20 ready trained agents waiting to take your call from early morning till late at night and when we close our call centre it will provide the customer with an emergency number to call. Yes, calls cost over 4p per minute to our customers but we make nothing from that it all goes to the telecomms provider. We know that not all our customers can afford to pay 4p per minute particularly for a complex call and we always offer to call customers back after initial contact if that's what they want. Contrast that to the advice given on here to our customers to avoid the 4p cost and dial our 01xx number, which happens to be our main business contact number. That call goes to a single receptionist who's only on duty 9am to 5pm and handling all the inbound business calls, our customers may have to wait minutes to have their call answered and then end up on the end of the queue of calls going into our customer service agents. Call 01 out of hours and a message will inform you that the office is now closed - no way of being passed through to the call centre; no way of being given an emegency number to dial. In other words you will save 4p but you will receive terrible customer service - a painful consequence for those of us dedicated to planning and providing the best customer service we can.

Well said, you make the point very well. Your customers are left to consider the fact that they have to pay extra to get good customer service.

Before 2007 service providers had little choice, the benefits of non-geographic numbers had to be paid for by callers to a greater (0870) or lesser (0845) extent. There is however now the option of 03xx numbers, where the cost of the advanced facilities has to be carried exclusively by the service provider.

The question of who pays for these facilities is a matter between the charity and those who use its services. If it chooses to fail to offer high quality customer service without payment by service users, then that is a decision for which it must answer. If it wishes to offer quality services without payment by users then it must immediately adopt a 03 number.

For the time being, to avoid any misunderstanding caused by the presence of the geographic number on this website, it should present the situation clearly to all potential callers.

So provider123 why on earth did you pick the 0870 number if you make nothing from it? I'm sure it wasn't to ber generous to your telcom provider. Are you sure you do not get a better deal on your telecom costs even if you don't get a refund per minute per call? If not then why on earth do it? Why force your customers to pay extra for no reason? You could have picked an alternative to the 0870 and had the same facilities.

You state your customers can save 4p by calling the switchboard number, but of course the cost is not 4p. If calling form a payphone or PAYG mobile which I assume is more likely for those customers of a housing association (who are probably those least able to afford the calls) the cost can be anythin upto 40p.

Oh and that is not 4p or 40p for the call but 4p or 40p PER MINUTE!

So a jolly expensive call then.

provider 123, 01, 02 & 03 numbers come 'free' with most landline packages and often come 'free' with mobile contracts with the inclusive minutes whereas 08 numbers don't. As Keith says why are you using an 0870 number when you don't make anything out of it. Something very strange here me thinks. :-?

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Dec 5^th, 2008 at 4:24pm:

Well said, you make the point very well. Your customers are left to consider the fact that they have to pay extra to get good customer service.

So you think that customers get enhanced customer service do you SCV by having to pay for the covert premium cost of an 0870 call at up to 40p per minute on a mobile phone that would have come out of their bundled minutes had the call been to 01 or 02.  My experience says not and that I am always in long calls to abusive call centres on 084/7 who make callers pay for their call statistics to be free and for their lower switchboard maintenance cost or subsidised line rental and all the other little side benefits that 0870 call centre abusers receive.  The reality is that alternative 01/02 numbers listed on this website get through to a call centre more quickly 90%+ of the time.  Frequently they also bypass the lengthy and usually wholly unnecessary IVR menus (they only count call type before dumping you back to only one single call taking team) designed to ramp up call time and increase earnings for the telco providing the 084/7 number or the call centre.

All to the alleged benefits of elaborate routing and enhanced call statistics this gentleman no doubt claims are only available only on 0870 numbers all these things are now available on 03 numbers where his customers would then get their calls out of bundled inclusive minutes on landline and mobile phones.  The only difference is that the call centre and not the customer now has to pay for the extra benefits they are currently getting as kickbacks from their telecoms provider if they use 0870.  0845 numbers are also not as expensive from landlines as 0870 (although there is sadly no difference on mobile phones or payphones) so why does this person think he must have an 0870 number.  I really can't believe this absolutely card carrying brain washed and clearly very poorly informed member of the 084/7 call centre abusing industry can come on here and still spout this utter rubbish.  Has he not read any of the preceding posts in the forum.  Clearly he must always believe his company's own spinning press releases quite uncritically no matter how dishonest they are.  Also 0870 calls cost 7p to 10p per minute plus a connection charge of up to 7p so where does this person get their 4p per minute from? :o >:( [smiley=thumbdown.gif]


Quote:

Before 2007 service providers had little choice, the benefits of non-geographic numbers had to be paid for by callers to a greater (0870) or lesser (0845) extent. There is however now the option of 03xx numbers, where the cost of the advanced facilities has to be carried exclusively by the service provider.

Rubbish SCV.  Did you not attend a meeting with some representatives of the NHS where Tanllan previously clearly identified that all the so called benefits of 084/7 could be offered on 01/02 numbers, although some alteration of telephone hardware would have been needed to achieve this.  We all know that the real reason 084/7 is popular is because telcos discount the cost of other related services to the client (line rental, swithboard equipment cost and maintenance) if the call centre allow a hidden charge to be imposed on their callers using by 0870.  How does the Foreign & Commoweath Office manage to run its large switchboard distributing calls to embassies etc all over the world entirely on a geographic London number for instance I wonder.  And how do all Nationwide and John Lewis branches seem to cope perfectly well on 01/02 numbers.  Also the London Albert Hall has a large call centre to sell its tickets and this still manages to use an 020 number for all its calls.  But some people are still duped in to believing you must use 084/7 numbers to get these facilities.  This gentleman even says his lovely 0870 number gives you another number (perhaps a mobile) to call out of hours.  But excuse me can't an answering machine or electronic voicemail system also do that.  He should at least be saying it can redirect the call automatically to try to justify the extra expense to the caller.


Quote:

The question of who pays for these facilities is a matter between the charity and those who use its services. If it chooses to fail to offer high quality customer service without payment by service users, then that is a decision for which it must answer. If it wishes to offer quality services without payment by users then it must immediately adopt a 03 number.

I repeat that 084/7 numbers do not offer better service.  It is a stock lie told by the abusers who run them.  Try the alternative geographic number listed for Sky on this website for instance and you will find you get through in a tenth of the time of the official 0844 phone number.

Welcome to the forum provider123.


provider123 wrote on Dec 5^th, 2008 at 4:04pm:

... but we make nothing from that it all goes to the telecomms provider. ...

Whether your charity receives revenue payments directly, it still receives subsidy regardless. The process to facilitate revenue sharing exists in any case. So the decision not to take any revenue, means that your charity allows its telephone provider for the 0870 number to receive a larger service payment (about 19 times than they would be for geographical or 03 numbers).

Lower rate revenue sharing telephone numbers are available which don't incur incoming call charges such as 0845, but are cheaper to call and thus pay less to telephone company operating the number than with 0870.

So your charity must be receiving something in return for this higher payment than it would do on 0845.

Perhaps one should point provider123 to the RSPCA (another charity) who used to use an 0870 phone number but have now changed to an 03 prefixed phone number that costs the caller no extra to call and is part of all landline and mobile call packages (but still offers all those lovely call direction facilities and call stats provider123 says he cannot do without) due to public unhappiness about 0870.  See www.rspca.org.uk

Or even more recently another long standing charitable 0870 abuser - The Disasters Emergency Committee - replaced its frequently criticised 0870 phone number with an 0370 number phone number.  See www.dec.org.uk

We long thought that the DEC were beyond hope with getting the message on 0870 but in fact quite clearly all the many complaints they received from members of this forum and other donors to their causes must have got to them.  Note that the DEC also now only uses London 020 numbers for their press office and for their line with further queries about donations to them.  Not an 084/7 number in sight on their website any more.[smiley=thumbsup.gif]

See www.dec.org.uk/about/contact_us.html

So if the RPSCA and the DEC can switch away from an 0870 number to 0300 or 0370 provider123 then why can't your charitable organisation?

In case provider123 doesn't know about 03 phone numbers and their facilities and charging basis here are some helpful links:-

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

www.windsor-telecom.co.uk/blog/blog.html

www.24-7pressrelease.com/press-release/03-numbers-now-available-through-numberstore-68637.php

Yes but...

None of that would be possible had BT been privatised and deregulated. Everyone coped perfectly well before premium rate calls and it's very easy to justify their use after the event. Yours may be in a good cause but travel companies (the original culprits in many cases when it was 0990) and the government departments etc do it simply to make cash at our expense.

I don't know about BT rates as I haven't used it for years but cable charges 8-10p a minute for 0870 calls, 10p for 0871 and 7p for 0845 all the time. Considering 0845 was created when BT charged more for national calls and companies used it to save people money changed years ago those reasons are long gone and is now the same scam whatever 08- number we use, apparently even the 'free' ones now since mobiles now charge for them (they didn't when I got my first one).

It's simply a moral decision by the government to allow excess profit making and normally we only pay for goods and services we have actually chosen to buy, not simply for communication on top of the existing price you would normally pay. It's only one step left from allowing companies to make a call and let the receiver pay, they already do this in America for mobiles so not even a fantasy. Then I could set up a company, cold call 1000 people a day who hung up and make a few hundred a week. Anywhere else that would be called robbery but if they make it legal then anyone can simply clear money out from innocent people without having to do any work for it. Is this the sort of country any of you want to live in?

BT rates.....
     

Rate (pence per minute)

0845 numbers
     

Daytime: 1.96
Evenings: 0.49

0870 numbers
     

Daytime: 5.87
Evenings: 1.47

6.85p call set-up fee applies.

Swings and roundabouts then as BT got rid of the off peak flat rate making an hour's call escalate from 5p to I think 60p. We still have that on cable so at least if they try and get that back on 0845 you don't use them nearly as much but have no choice at all on BT so they remain getting my two fingers. And why anyone on BT still pays them for international calls when every firm and it's dog now let you call for a fraction from the same line without buying a card beats me.

David_H wrote on Dec 6^th, 2008 at 5:02pm:

Swings and roundabouts then as BT got rid of the off peak flat rate making an hour's call escalate from 5p to I think 60p.

But 0845 calls off course never had a free for the first 60 minutes weekday evening calling period so no difference there then.  The main point of getting rid of the free evening geographic calls was surely so as to pay for the cost of calls at the weekend becoming free for BT Option 1/Weekend Calls Plan customers so as to seem like BT were still offering free calls of some kind like most of their competitors.

The reason for the weekday daytime cut to 2p per minute is I'm sure so that people like HMRC and DWP can now make out being on 0845 is doing callers a favour call cost wise compared to being on 01/02/03 for people on the basic BT Weekend Calls Plan.

NGMsGhost wrote on Dec 6^th, 2008 at 5:28pm:

The reason for the weekday daytime cut to 2p per minute is I'm sure so that people like HMRC and DWP can now make out being on 0845 is doing callers a favour call cost wise compared to being on 01/02/03 for people on the basic BT Weekend Calls Plan.

Whether or not that is BT's intention, there is no question that is having exactly this effect. From a service provider's perspective it is tricky to understand the true situation with 0845 numbers, because BT Retail appears to be placing these calls to other networks at a loss.

Our OP invited us to consider the position of a service provider with a 0870 number, which is much more straightforward. All callers on all networks pay a premium to call this number. Whatever the alleged benefits that a service provider may see as being provided by use of a non-geographic number, it is callers who are paying for them, if a revenue sharing range is selected.

I have always argued that it is for the provider to justify to callers the cost that it chooses to impose on them. This applies to private businesses, public companies, charities and public sector organisations. The latter may find such a justification difficult or perhaps impossible.


Many charities would claim that they have no other way of funding the advanced telephony features that are deployed. If so, then the only way forward is to make the additional cost to callers totally clear, so that they know what they are paying for and why. Without such an honest and direct declaration the allegation of "Rip-off" is valid. For a non-profit making organisation there is no difference between income and subsidised cost. Some charitable organisations would not think it appropriate to use money paid by telephone callers as income or subsidy.

Unless it is cheaper to deploy necessary additional facilities on a geographic number, the best approach is to look for a good deal on a 03 number. Suggestion have been posted previously.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Dec 6^th, 2008 at 6:07pm:

Whether or not that is BT's intention, there is no question that is having exactly this effect. From a service provider's perspective it is tricky to understand the true situation with 0845 numbers, because BT Retail appears to be placing these calls to other networks at a loss.

I have written to BT's CEO, Mr Ian Livingston, with cc to his other board members asking for justification of the conflicting positions regarding call cost for 0845 numbers in the weekday daytime on a BT landline vs in the weekday daytime on a BT Payphone and suggesting that neither tariff for 0845 numbers would stand up to scrutiny by the Competition Commission and asking for BT's justification of its apparent inconsistency in making 0845 calls half the price of 01/02/03 calls on (for base level BT Weekend Calls Plan customers) in the weekday daytime but not then not part of the up to 60 minute free calling allowance at the weekend.

So far Mr Livingston seems to be trying to dodge the question and has handed it off to those lower down the chain for predictably spin doctored and meaningless forms of reply.

Maybe your charity doesn't get a cut from the calls, but did your telecoms provider supply your telephone equipment instead?  

David_H wrote on Dec 6^th, 2008 at 5:02pm:

Swings and roundabouts then as BT got rid of the off peak flat rate making an hour's call escalate from 5p to I think 60p. We still have that on cable so at least if they try and get that back on 0845 you don't use them nearly as much but have no choice at all on BT so they remain getting my two fingers. And why anyone on BT still pays them for international calls when every firm and it's dog now let you call for a fraction from the same line without buying a card beats me.

David_H

Re read reply #3

The crooks of the matter is that callers to all services using 0844, 0845, 0870 and 0871 telephone numbers are providing subsidy to those services.

The process of a service provider [receiving party] receiving cash back from its telephone service provider drives down the service payment to that provider.


Is provider123 aware of these facts?

Dave wrote on Dec 8^th, 2008 at 4:19pm:

The crooks of the matter

Perhaps "crux", or maybe not!

No response from the OP !
Wonder why!!

derrick wrote on Dec 9^th, 2008 at 2:31pm:

No response from the OP ! Wonder why!!

Those who only sing determinedly from the company hymn sheet are always left floundering once they learn that the company tract is the work of a false prophet. ;) ::)

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Dec 8^th, 2008 at 5:35pm:

Perhaps "crux", or maybe not!

I feel sure that was a perfectly legitimate if somewhat unconventional use of the word crooks given the context in which it arose. ;) ;D

Where oh where can provider123 be.  Has he gone off on holiday this week on some of the proceeds of the bonus his charity may perhaps have been able to pay him from their artificially increased budget due to not having to pay for their switchboard rental and/or also due to getting artificially low prices on their outgoing calls I wonder.

Or having been revealed as completely credulous on the whole plethora of widely told NTS corporate lies does he have absolutely nothing left to say in his defence? ::) :-/

So are you a man or a mouse provider123? :P

If we want to have a fight for its own sake, let me put what could be the position of the organisation that the OP represents. I have no way of knowing if it is the case, but if we want an argument, then lets have one.

(This thread is already one of those which I would not wish to draw to the attention of general readers who are seeking briefing on the issues, or prospective new members. I would therefore not do any harm if I were to contribute to turning it into another internal discussion.)

What follows is hypothetical.

---

A hard-pressed charity is looking for an advanced telephone system to improve its call handling. Various features are presented to it along with a price tag. It is said that these features would require a change of telephone number, so that the cost of adopting them is negligible. The cost of advising the change of number is seen as perhaps an unnecessary expense, so an alternative quote to provide the same features on the existing number is sought. The figure is seen as astronomical by comparison.

The cost to callers of the new number is said to be "national rate". It is accepted that this will cost some callers more and that those who call from mobiles may find it very expensive. Given that the charity wishes to improve its service and cannot see how to raise the sum necessary to do so without a change of number, it agrees.

Service users are generally impressed by the improved service and are not unduly worried by the few extra pence per call that they are paying. They have bigger issues to worry about in the context of making the call and because they are grateful for the service they receive they would not wish to make a complaint about a relatively trivial matter.

An alternative number appears on SayNoto0870. This directs calls to a head office switchboard rather than the call centre set up to provide service to customers. Callers therefore have to wait for attention at the switchboard before gaining access to the call centre and cannot get through outside office hours. They are also denied some of the features provided when calling the call centre number. This over-burdens the switchboard and provides an inferior service to customers.

When the situation is presented in the SayNoto0870 forum with a denial of rip-off it is implied that the money that has been saved by using a revenue sharing number is used to pay bonuses to staff.

---

If members are not prepared to accept the terms of the hypothesis presented above then there is no point in arguing about it. There are some who would say that the advanced features are totally unnecessary or could be provided at no extra cost - those are separate points which I treat as being untrue for the sake of this case.

For those who can accept the hypothesis, I pose one simple question:

Where does the charity find the money to pay for the extra features itself, as would be necessary if it were to offer the same service on a 03 or geographical number?

I suspect that the OP is not "man enough" to offer to pay for them through a donation out of his wages.

I have discussed similar situations with a number of charities and I must admit that I cannot myself answer the question that I pose. All I can do is invite every organisation that uses revenue sharing numbers to recognise the fact that it is thereby charging for its services. I would then encourage those who find this unacceptable to look for the easiest and cheapest way of getting out of a position that they may have entered unwittingly.

I might decide that it is tactically better not to cause those who may find this very difficult to defend the status quo publicly. Having dug their heels in, it could be more difficult for them to change when an opportunity to do so comes along. I do not present this as if it were a general rule not to criticise anyone, however I am concerned primarily with achieving change for the better.

Let battle rage.

SCV,

Clearly your lengthy post has perhaps served some sort of useful exercise for yourself in helping fill up night time hours that might otherwise have been wasted on an unproductive activity such as sleeping. :P

I would define it as an archetypal SCV type post and not one I would expect to find from any other active regular member of this forum.

However I see no other purpose in your post since the arguments of the OP were entirely adequately set out in post 1 and it is he/she who started the debate and it is he/she who has then failed to respond having deliberately set out to put the cat amongst the pigeons.

The arguments of the opposition have been more than adequately set out on numerous other occasions but they are always utterly intellectually vacuous and wholly incoherent and characterised only by the argument that if they can get away with it and Ofcom fails to stop them then they will do.  The Royal Mail group are especially notorious in this regard.

If I want to have the other point of view argued in my face just for the sake of it then I can always get in touch with The Nolan Show on BBC Radio Five Live..................

NGMsG,

A number of points in response.

I agree with your suggestion that the OP had little to add to the initial posting. I believe that it was intended to offer food for thought (as have some replies) rather than as a deliberate attempt to generate a vigorous exchange of views for its own sake.

I have always seen it as our role to change the status quo, rather than to defeat attempts to undermine our position in government. The burden of presenting comprehensive coherent and persuasive arguments therefore falls on us, not on those who do not recognise the need for change.

Our case is not helped by the false assumption that those who do not yet share our understanding of the issues can be simply characterised in any way. It is undermined by the false suggestion that Ofcom has any authority to regulate the activities of charities or telephone users in general. Its powers are wide, but not as wide as many, include Ofcom itself, often pretend.

If I misunderstood the purpose of replies #21 & 22, then I apologise. It seemed to me that the poster was looking for an argument.

The subject of this thread invites us to consider the issues from the perspective of a service provider using a revenue sharing number. If we really believe that these can be simply characterised in the way that is suggested, then we are either unwilling to listen and understand or we are not talking to the right people.

Do we really believe that any coherent argument in defence of using revenue sharing numbers must be based on lies, or originates from someone who is open to personal attack, because it does not fit with our view of the world?

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Dec 13^th, 2008 at 10:04am:

Do we really believe that any coherent argument in defence of using revenue sharing numbers must be based on lies, or originates from someone who is open to personal attack, because it does not fit with our view of the world?

I have yet to see any arguments defending the use of 084 and 087 prefixed numbers that did not resort to economy with the truth or simply involve mindless corporate platitudes (Royal Mail Group defends their use of 0845 at CEO level as being part of their "brand values").

This person made a post that anyone with even half a braincell would be likely to realise might be deemed highly inflammatory in this forum and likely to spark a substantial debate but they then proved unwilling to continue the debate or defend their views.  Is it therefore any wonder that people have been rather frustrated by that approach on the part of the thread starter?

This person simply seemed to wish to peddle their mindless propaganda and then ride off in to the sunset without having to justify any of those comments.

If a member of the www.brake.org.uk campaign tries to make a post in the discussion forums at www.pepipoo.com or at www.pistonheads.com defending the widespread installation of 20mph speed limits and the ever increasing use of covert mobile camera vans they surely don't expect their post to be greeted in a positive manner do they? :-?

I seek to address the issues rather than the personalities of forum members.

The previous posting suggests a possible defence of the practice of revenue sharing - citing three examples of others who do the same.

I believe that the OP raised serious points that need to be considered. The argument was not complete and perhaps was presented without a full understanding of the situation.

There is no question about the position of commercial organisations who charge customers for making complaints or service enquiries by telephone, this should clearly be funded as an overhead cost.

I take the position that all public services funded by taxation should extend this funding to all aspects of telephone services, rather than imposing fees on service users, even if this has an adverse effect on taxation or borrowing.

A not-for-profit organisation that currently benefits from revenue sharing (however it got there) is possibly in a more difficult position. If there is no obvious funding source that could pick up the cost currently being incurred by callers, what does it do?

If the consequences of saying no to 0870 (or another revenue sharing prefix) are a reduction in some aspect of the service for which it is answerable, then perhaps we need to adopt a more sympathetic and helpful stance if we wish to persuade organisations to make this decision.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Dec 13^th, 2008 at 11:46am:

If the consequences of saying no to 0870 (or another revenue sharing prefix) are a reduction in some aspect of the service for which it is answerable, then perhaps we need to adopt a more sympathetic and helpful stance if we wish to persuade organisations to make this decision.

I don't think we should show any sympathy at all for 084/7 abusers.  We are a vigorous campaigning group who sticks to our guns and not a bunch of mealy mouthed civil servants who constantly shift their ground according to which way the political wind is blowing (i.e. OfCoN).

It is also rubbish for you to suggest that charities do not have a funding source.  They have those who give them donations.  Otherwise they wouldn't be in business.  Before 084/7 numbers charities still existed and still took phone calls.  ergo/ipso facto an 084/7 number is not necessary in order for a charity to be able to take a phone call.

If I want to meet apologists for the 084/7 abusers I will go to a meeting at Ofcom.  If I want to campaign against the misuse of the  numbers I will come to this forum.  I don't expect members of this forum to repeatedly act as apologists for  084/7 number use but you always consistently do so.  You seem to derive some kind of perverse pleasure from playing devil's advocate on the issue.

No doubt so long as the Contact Council only meets with you and you continue to tut tut sympathetically about the difficulties of them giving up their revenue share main lining then they will feel they are not up against very vigorous opponents and may as well carry on with business as usual (as most of them are still doing).

It is never acceptable for a member of this campaign to even begin to accept the argument that an 084/7 numbers would not exist were the revenue share not in effect.  That is a specious and untrue call centre industry argument used to disguise them bringing in a hidden charge for using their service by the back door.

I'm sure there must be plenty of forums for employees of the call centre industry where your sympathy with their plight in giving up their beloved revenue share would no doubt be greeted with far more open arms than in this one.

In the above, we find a serious difference of view. I do not campaign in this forum. I seek change, which is not achieved by posting here.

I share my thoughts here with others who may be similarly motivated.

It is a logical, if slightly odd, position to have no sympathy whatsoever for the enormous section of business, the public sector and charities that abuse revenue sharing numbers. If one adopts a position of total opposition to most commercial organisations as well as the BBC, the NHS and the Red Cross, one is perhaps unlikely to be able to exert any influence over decisions that they may make as one would be clearly seen as an anarchist.

I can declare that it was very difficult to recently be seen to be in support of the Metropolitan Police. One may also engage with all sorts of organisations in the hope that they may be able to assist with the cause. Life would be much easier if the world were clearly divided into good guys and bad guys, who could be identified by the colour of their hats, but it is my experience that it is not like that.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Dec 13^th, 2008 at 1:07pm:

If one adopts a position of total opposition to most commercial organisations as well as the BBC, the NHS and the Red Cross, one is perhaps unlikely to be able to exert any influence over decisions that they may make as one would be clearly seen as an anarchist.

I do not oppose the whole of the BBC, or the whole of the NHS or the Red Cross or the RSPCA or the DEC.  I have merely opposed their misuse of 084/7 numbers as being in conflict with their many other excellent services and actions, which I otherwise frequently support.  I do not see how being firmly and fundamentally opposed to one mistaken action of an organisation that one otherwise has no particular quarrel with can be seen as the behaviour of an anarchist.  An anarchist is opposed to nearly all systems of social organisation and control.  Where have I ever stated that to be my agenda?

But the continuance of using 084/7 numbers is based on a perpetuation of a frequently repeated lie that its only a few p per minute extra (hiding the hundreds of millions or rather billions of pounds a year extra on phone bills it is costing consumers) and/or that the service would not exist without this extra hidden NTS charge.  These positions by the organisation cannot be accepted or supported at any time and it is your indulgence of these organisations on that position with which I fundamentally disagree.


Quote:

Life would be much easier if the world were clearly divided into good guys and bad guys, who could be identified by the colour of their hats, but it is my experience that it is not like that.

I never said there were wholly good guys or bad guys and there are merely good actions or bad actions and that is why I oppose 084/7 number use whether they are introduced by a Conservative, Labour or Lib Dem council as I do not believe that all actions by Conservative councils are to be unswervingly supported, even though I do normally vote for the party at election time.

It is your indulgence of the misusers of these numbers and the shifting sands of your own debating position where your likely position in advance cannot be forecast (as it seems to shift organisation by organisation and from day to day) with which I fundamentally disagree.

NGMsGhost wrote on Dec 13^th, 2008 at 1:22pm:

I do not oppose the whole of the BBC, or the whole of the NHS or the Red Cross or the RSPCA or the DEC.  I have merely opposed their misuse of 084/7 numbers as being in conflict with their many other excellent services and actions, which I otherwise frequently support.  I do not see how being firmly and fundamentally opposed to one mistaken action of an organisation that one otherwise has no particular quarrel with can be seen as the behaviour of an anarchist.  An anarchist is opposed to nearly all systems of social organisation and control.  Where have I ever stated that to be my agenda?

But if you write to these organisations and attack them by saying something like "You rip-off callers with your covert premium 0870 telephone numbers" and "you continue to give the usual lies that all 0870 abusers give and that is that they are necessary to run an efficient call centre", then I can hardly blame them for regarding you as an anarchist.

Whilst I appreciate that you do not see the whole of the BBC as bad, they can only go on what they see of you. That is the words you have put in your correspondence.

Dave wrote on Dec 13^th, 2008 at 1:46pm:

That is the words you have put in your correspondence.

Please refer me to where I have used the words in correspondence with the BBC that you claim I have used in paragraph 1 of your post?  I think you are just assuming that this is the kind of wording I use in my correspondence.  If I did ever use such wording with the BBC in the past it was only after they had for several years avoided any attempts to engage with them more constructively on this issue.  I certainly would not use such an approach when initially contacting a body that may be well receptive to ceasing to use these 084/7 numbers.

If we are going to start pointing fingers I think it is pretty hard for the world at large to take the stated aims of this website seriously when the site owner persistently continues to have click thru ad banners for abusive commercial firms like GrabAGrand (go on live a little etc) which are directly in conflict with the stated aims and objectives of this campaign (i.e. bringing to an end ripoff hidden charges for telephone services).  Whilst the site owner always claims the site does not make a profit I think you will find that this is only after the site has paid its head web developer and site owner their not insubstantial annual salary/fee for the time and effort they expend in the development and maintenance of this site.  The idea that it makes no money and scarcely covers its costs is I believe a brilliant form of playing with semantics worthy of Tony Blair himself.

The site owner is engaged in a number of other blatantly commercial operations to develop websites and earn click thru ad revenue and was also so engaged in them before he ever thought of the www.saynoto0870.com campaign.  In my view the site owner does not use his large mailing list of members to encourage them to take actions that might bring the misuse of 084/7 numbers to an end by the government sector as soon as possible because it is not in his own commercial interest to do so.  The fact that the site owner rarely ever posts in the campaigning sections of the forum yet regulalry spends time developing aspects of the site designed to promote its use and so the level of click thru ad revenue only further reinforces that impression.

NGMsGhost wrote on Dec 13^th, 2008 at 2:01pm:

Please refer me to where I have used the words in correspondence with the BBC that you claim I have used in paragraph 1 of your post? ...

I am not claiming you have put those exact statements in any correspondence. The last sentence of the second paragraph could probably have been better worded.

I am saying that any correspondence you send them is the only thing they have to go on. That is, the words on the page.


NGMsGhost wrote on Dec 13^th, 2008 at 2:01pm:

... I think you are just assuming that this is the kind of wording I use in my correspondence.  If I did ever use such wording with the BBC in the past it was only after they had for several years avoided any attempts to engage with them more constructively on this issue.  I certainly would not use such an approach when initially contacting a body that may be well receptive to ceasing to use these 084/7 numbers.

So initially you would be polite, and then if they didn't change their number, then perhaps move on to more attacking wording. If the former approach didn't work, then do you seriously think that they will change their mind when they receive a subsequent letter with phrases like "call centre abuser" and "rip-off" in?

Dave wrote on Dec 13^th, 2008 at 2:12pm:

So initially you would be polite, and then if they didn't change their number, then perhaps move on to more attacking wording. If the former approach didn't work, then do you seriously think that they will change their mind when they receive a subsequent letter with phrases like "call centre abuser" and "rip-off" in?

Well those are more the kind of phrases that another forum member rather than I most prefers to use.  Again though you are trying to put words in my mouth.

But if an organisation like Norwich City Council is unrepentant and their senior execs do not return phone calls does one just continue to write saying "oh I'm sure its just some quite honest little misunderstanding on your part", rather than say perhaps threatening to use the escalated complaints procedure through to the Local Government Ombudsman.  Reasonableness  only works with people who are themselves reasonable.  Many 084/7 abusers are not open to any form of reason.

I note you do not comment on the Grab A Scam ad banner that continues to humiliate this website since there is nothing you can possibly say in its defence.

Also those of you who are patient negotiator types seem to demand that I or Derrick must campaign in your way.  But I and Derrick are motivated by righteous indignation on these abuses and like to call a spade a spade.  You cannot seek to force us to campaign in your sort of way.  It is the totality of all these different approaches and their overall total number and relentless nature that eventually begins to wear down some of the 084/7 abusers.

NGMsGhost wrote on Dec 13^th, 2008 at 2:30pm:

But if an organisation like Norwich City Council is unrepentant and their senior execs do not return phone calls does one just continue to write saying "oh I'm sure its just some quite honest little misunderstanding on your part", rather than say perhaps threatening to use the escalated complaints procedure through to the Local Government Ombudsman.  Reasonableness  only works with people who are themselves reasonable.  Many 084/7 abusers are not open to any form of reason.

Would it not be more productive to move on to someone else who will listen. There are those out there who will see that 03 is the only suitable non-geographical number range to use. The Hall of fame shows that some organisations think that way.


NGMsGhost wrote on Dec 13^th, 2008 at 2:30pm:

Also those of you who are patient negotiator types seem to demand that I or Derrick must campaign in your way. ...

I don't believe I have ever "demanded" that anyone must campaign my way. I have questioned the effectiveness of such an attacking style of words.

Dave wrote on Dec 13^th, 2008 at 2:38pm:

I have questioned the effectiveness of such an attacking style of words.

It never seems to have done Gerry Adams or Martin Mcguinness or the Reverand Ian Paisley any harm as far as I can tell.

As I say patient and polite negotiation only works when those you are negotiating with are open to such an approach.

In my view it is not enough to content ourselves with simply persuading those willing and open to making a change to 03 numbers.  We also need to force bodies like Wiltshire Police who have active contempt for the needs of the calling general public to also fall in to line.

It is of course disappointing that provider123 has not come back and responded to any points made here.

In short, as his or her organisation does not receive any from calls. Its telephone provider receives around 6 pence per minute during the daytime, in addition to what it would get had it operated a geographical or 03xx number. Any revenue paid to this person's organisation would come from this premium which is collected regardless.

In not receiving any payments, it allows its telephone provider to keep it all, thereby increasing the payment made to its telephone provider.

The point is that whether the receiver takes a share of the revenue isn't the only issue with 084 and 087 numbers. If it were, then we would have congratulated provider123.

I feel that examination of the termination charges gives justification of why these numbers are in no way the same as a geographical call. It is a stronger argument than the call charges which tend to vary between providers and the differential (0870 to geo) of which can be far less than the termination charges.