Source: Money Guardian

http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2009/jul/14/bt-directory-inquiries

BT is putting you through – the call will cost £91

Pensioner pays price of being connected via telecom giant's directory inquiries

Miles Brignall
The Guardian, Saturday 4 July 2009

Next time you ring directory inquiries, don't under any circumstances let the service put you through to the person or company you were trying to contact. That's the warning from a Kent pensioner who was charged £91 by BT for a single phone call connected by the firm's service.

The experience of 81-year-old Alf Vanning echoes a report in this month's Which? magazine, that warned "calling 118 directory inquiries is more expensive than you think".

Vanning's problems started when he found the anti-virus system on the computer at his Tunbridge Wells home was preventing him from connecting to the internet.

Needing to contact Norton, the firm that provided the software, and unable to find the number elsewhere, he rang BT's directory inquiries service on 118 500. He was told the number and the operator offered to put him through to Norton's main line – an 020 London number.

He agreed and was put through. In doing so, he became the latest victim of the decision to charge by the minute for all calls put through by all the directory inquiries services. At £91, his is the most expensive we have come across so far.

"It was a rather long call because the Norton chap had to uninstall and then reinstall the programme. Growing concerned at the length of the call, I asked what it was costing, but was assured by the man that it was not an expensive 0845 number and that there would be no charge by Norton."

The call lasted one hour and 57 minutes. Vanning, an insurance underwriter before he retired, thought no more about it until he received his phone bill, which showed the call had cost £91.57.

He claims that "at no time when I made the call to directory inquiries did they warn me of the 77p a minute cost" – though BT says its call handlers always warn customers of the charge to be put through.

"If I had written down the number and dialled it myself, it would have cost me nothing," says Vanning, who says he has been a BT customer for many years. He contacted his local trading standards office, and discussed the possibility of taking his case to the small claims court.

"I'm not sure I want to be doing that at my age. However, I feel for BT to charge £91 is nothing short of outrageous. I'd like other pensioners who, like me, can't afford these charges to be made aware of the cost."

BT says its prices are in line with the "industry average". It told Guardian Money it will be reimbursing the cost of the call as a gesture of goodwill. "BT 118 500 offers customers the convenience of call connection as part of its comprehensive directory inquires service. Our operators advise customers of the cost of the call when connecting them, and the majority of calls to BT 118 500 are actually under a minute long rather than almost two hours, but as a goodwill gesture we will refund the cost of this call to Mr Vanning and a cheque for £91.57 is on its way to him," a spokesman says. He adds that BT also offers 118 707, a cheaper "no-frills" one inquiry service, while the BT directory service is available free online at bt.com and 118500.com.

An investigation into the leading directory inquiries services in this month's Which? magazine found that agreeing to be put through to the number you are asking about can be an expensive business. Some people think this would cost the same as dialling the number yourself, but the magazine says: "This is where costs escalate … Landline calls can reach up to 77p a minute."

The premium that is paid to cover the cost of the BT DQ service is not unreasonable (in principle - I have no idea whether the actual costing is fair). if there were none then all BT customers would pay for the service whether or not they used it. Apart from a modest single fee to cover the benefit of the convenience of not having to write the number down and re-dial, I cannot see the justifiable benefit of a connected call at the same rate as (perhaps fairly) charged for the DQ service. Surely the BT operators should not simply advise the cost, they should seriously caution callers that this is an extremely expensive call and that most customers would choose to dial themselves.

If billing or other technology permitted it would be highly desireable to be able to offer the feature of avoiding a redial at a sensible rate (maybe a small premium). As things stand it is highly damaging to the reputation of BT and others.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Jul 15^th, 2009 at 3:15pm:

The premium that is paid to cover the cost of the BT DQ service is not unreasonable (in principle - I have no idea whether the actual costing is fair). if there were none then all BT customers would pay for the service whether or not they used it. Apart from a modest single fee to cover the benefit of the convenience of not having to write the number down and re-dial, I cannot see the justifiable benefit of a connected call at the same rate as (perhaps fairly) charged for the DQ service. Surely the BT operators should not simply advise the cost, they should seriously caution callers that this is an extremely expensive call and that most customers would choose to dial themselves. If billing or other technology permitted it would be highly desireable to be able to offer the feature of avoiding a redial at a sensible rate (maybe a small premium). As things stand it is highly damaging to the reputation of BT and others.

For comparison purposes, Directory Assistance (DA) here is generally $1 to $2 per call, and Directory Assistance Call Completion (DACC) typically adds between $0 and $1 per call. Taxes and fees are extra. DA from ATT Wireless (a large cellular/mobile provider) is $1.99 per call* and DACC adds no further charge.

* plus airtime plus taxes

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Jul 15^th, 2009 at 3:15pm:

The premium that is paid to cover the cost of the BT DQ service is not unreasonable (in principle - I have no idea whether the actual costing is fair). if there were none then all BT customers would pay for the service whether or not they used it. Apart from a modest single fee to cover the benefit of the convenience of not having to write the number down and re-dial, I cannot see the justifiable benefit of a connected call at the same rate as (perhaps fairly) charged for the DQ service. Surely the BT operators should not simply advise the cost, they should seriously caution callers that this is an extremely expensive call and that most customers would choose to dial themselves.

The idea of a DQ service being able to onward connect your call is a reasonable convenience based one but what is not reasonable is the call not then reverting to the normal call rate charged by your underlying telecoms provider at that time of day for the type of number connected to at that point.  Or alternatively it should only be onward connected at some much lower rate per minute prominently advertised by the DQ service and which you are told by an announcement before you are onwards connected.

But predictably Ofcom instead provided a charter for the  telecoms industry's scam boys but of course called it enhancing competition. :o >:( >:( >:(

I am, as ever, delighted to find myself in complete agreement with NGMsG, on this occasion about the way in which DQ services should work in an ideal world.

As the complete call is actually billed by the caller's telco, which may be quite separate from the selected DQ provider, because this ridiculous obsession with "choice" and competition has prevented in-house DQ services or a single national provider, I am not sure if there could be a mechanism for changing the applicable rate at some point in what is seen by the originator as a continuous call.

Some more complex call placement service, requiring a direct commercial arrangement between the enquirer and the DQ provider, would probably be required to provide the service in the proper way.

The only sensible regulatory measure to deal with present situation would be to demand that some clear indication was given that connecting the intended call was at an absurdly high rate. An alternative would be if the whole call was offered on a fixed fee basis (regardless of duration), which appears to be what 118800 offers. With no assurance that the call would even be answered, this would be a high-risk option for any user, however some are prepared to call premium rate numbers in the hope of winning prizes on TV quizzes.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Jul 18^th, 2009 at 5:50pm:

The only sensible regulatory measure to deal with present situation would be to demand that some clear indication was given that connecting the intended call was at an absurdly high rate. An alternative would be if the whole call was offered on a fixed fee basis (regardless of duration), which appears to be what 118800 offers. With no assurance that the call would even be answered, this would be a high-risk option for any user, however some are prepared to call premium rate numbers in the hope of winning prizes on TV quizzes.

If we take the possible alleged technical deficiencies of the simplistic charging infrastructure on the remaining System X and System Y BT exchanges that will all finally be replaced with 21st Century Network Voip exchanges by 2012 then I suppose the only solution would be for most providers to charge a higher connection fee to DQ services but the per minute charge to be something much more modest like no more than 5p per minute.  I think this would be a perfectly reasonable way to go as if it takes three minutes to find a number with an operator instead of 40 seconds then in my experience by and large this occurs due to operator incompetence or in some cases a cynical policy of the DQ company to make their operators find the number as slowly as possible to rack up the call income.

By contrast a fixed fee is known in advance (or it should be if there were pre call announcements for DQ services which I cannot think of a valid reason for Flextel and their ilk to be able to object as they are never called by automated equipment unlike 084/7) and so the customer can make a rational decision about whether or not the call cost is affordable as he cannot possibly forecast in advance how competent or incompetent the DQ operator he speaks to may be.

NGMsGhost wrote on Jul 18^th, 2009 at 7:01pm:

I suppose the only solution would be for most providers to charge a higher connection fee to DQ services but the per minute charge to be something much more modest like no more than 5p per minute.

This proposal certainly addresses the issue very effectively, if consumers are able to deal with a two-part tariff, i.e. x + y ppm, as a means of assessing competing companies.

Whilst pre-call announcements can be a useful way of verifying charging information, they are more a way of offsetting complaints (a by-product of the Health and Safety warning culture) than providing useful consumer information. The emphasis must always be on the proper advance publication of rates that enables people to make decisions about whether or not to make a particular call in a particular way. With the phone at the ear and the number dialled, one is already past that stage, having made a decision that one may be reluctant to change.

I am a little alarmed that new telephone exchanges will include the ability for the rate being charged to be dynamically changed at the instigation of the person called. How will this be used? Will I be able to up the rate being paid by someone who is going on too long, or take over responsibility for paying for the call if my niece is running out of credit on her mobile?

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Jul 18^th, 2009 at 9:27pm:

This proposal certainly addresses the issue very effectively, if consumers are able to deal with a two-part tariff, i.e. x + y ppm, as a means of assessing competing companies.

A two part tariff already now exists for nealry all chargeable calls with BT and many other telecoms companies.  Namely connection fee then pence per minute.  However this structure was adopted earlier for 118 DQ than for other chargeable telephone calls by BT.  The only difference with DQ calls is that the connection fee is much larger than for any other call type as the basic principle is that the value is in getting your number and not how long you talk for in order to get it.  Some 118 DQ services only charge a connection fee and not a per minute charge at all but those services do not offer to connect you to the number you want (surprise, surprise).


Quote:

Whilst pre-call announcements can be a useful way of verifying charging information, they are more a way of offsetting complaints (a by-product of the Health and Safety warning culture) than providing useful consumer information.

They are just the telephone equivalent of having clear price labels on the shelf at Tesco or Asda.  Why do you seem to maintain the customer must consult a price catalogue before he reaches the fish shelf at the supermarket in case he may also be influenced by the fine appearance of a particular fish?


Quote:

I am a little alarmed that new telephone exchanges will include the ability for the rate being charged to be dynamically changed at the instigation of the person called. How will this be used? Will I be able to up the rate being paid by someone who is going on too long, or take over responsibility for paying for the call if my niece is running out of credit on her mobile?

There is no certainty that what I suggest will happen but the point is Voip telephony is computer controlled and you can program a computer to charge how you like as it is not a simple mechanical or electronic switch with a predefined pattern of operation.  I can't see how such functionality can be bad as it would allow rules to be introduced making it illegal for call centres to charge callers during any period in which their staff are not talking to the customer such as when they are in the initial queue or if they are placed on hold while speaking to an adviser.

NGMsGhost wrote on Jul 18^th, 2009 at 9:40pm:

A two part tariff ... was adopted earlier for 118 DQ than for other chargeable telephone calls by BT.

If the charge for the BT DQ service is loaded into the connection fee, how much is that? If the follow-on bit is 77 pence per minute then it must be considerable!

Without looking into the issue in detail, I had assumed that 77 pence per minute, i.e. perhaps £1 - £2 per number, was the extent of the charge. I must appear horribly naive.


Quote:

... the telephone equivalent of having clear price labels on the shelf at Tesco or Asda.  Why do you seem to maintain the customer must consult a price catalogue before he reaches the fish shelf at the supermarket in case he may also be influenced by the fine appearance of a particular fish?

I am totally in favour of the consumer having clear pricing information available where they are making a decision to buy a service, e.g. on a supermarket shelf, rather than when they are at the point of consuming it, e.g. taking it from the fridge to cook. Advance information (i.e. to help guide them as to which supermarket has the best prices, in general or on specific items) may be helpful as well, and I have no total objection to later reminders if they serve a useful purpose, e.g. the price written on the packing to remind you of what a bargain you got. Let us not fall out, because we are not arguing about one or the other, it is a matter of where the emphasis should be.

The analogy I would offer is of a restaurant where the pricing is confused. As the waiter puts your selected dish in front of you however, you are told the exact price and given the option to send it back at no charge. I acknowledge that this prevents any subsequent complaint about the cost and eliminates any uncertainty, but I would suggest that more care should be put into presenting a clearly priced menu, so that the cost conscious can select carefully or even choose to eat elsewhere.

(No analogy is perfect, but I hope this helps to communicate the point I am trying to make. If one would choose to eat in a restaurant such as that described, then we will have to agree to differ.)


Quote:

I can't see how such functionality can be bad as it would allow rules to be introduced making it illegal for call centres to charge callers during any period in which their staff are not talking to the customer such as when they are in the initial queue or if they are placed on hold while speaking to an adviser.

The situation described relates to a situation where the caller is paying the recipient for the call (“call centres charging callers”). Such a charge should obviously be suspended whilst no value is being delivered. This should make no difference at all to the rate charged by the carriers (telcos), who are entitled to charge whilst the line is open. This is all about transferring money between the respective telephone bills.

At present we have a very simple situation where the caller pays at a predetermined rate and some of this may be transferred to the called party (except for the half-baked, but equally fixed rate, 0800 situation). The idea of opening this up introduces all manner of possibilities, such as; genuine market research companies paying people for their time completing a survey, low value mail order companies and charities being able to collect variable amounts of money through the telephone bill or from the mobile credit. The phone bill could even become a way of collecting and paying small debts. Your solicitor would be able to turn the meter on whilst conducting a telephone conversation to save the trouble of sending a bill. A complaints department would be able to grant a goodwill credit there and then.

The commercial potential is enormous, even given that only relatively low value transactions would be able to be handled (so perhaps forget about the solicitor). The revenue sharing and premium rate scams will be looked on as a very petty operation once all this is up and going. Did someone ask about consumer protection? – easy! It will all be controlled by computers and every transfer of money will be authorised by a secret PIN. As for regulation, the telcos will in effect become banks, but then Ofcom is just as likely to make a good job of regulating them as the FSA.

What a disgrace that BT has been holding all of this back!

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Jul 19^th, 2009 at 12:05am:

The commercial potential is enormous, even given that only relatively low value transactions would be able to be handled (so perhaps forget about the solicitor). The revenue sharing and premium rate scams will be looked on as a very petty operation once all this is up and going. Did someone ask about consumer protection? – easy! It will all be controlled by computers and every transfer of money will be authorised by a secret PIN. As for regulation, the telcos will in effect become banks, but then Ofcom is just as likely to make a good job of regulating them as the FSA.

I presume you have just been consuming some of that nice after dinner liqueur that a certain Mr Ed Richards sent you. ;) ::)

Firstly legal service on £1.50 per minute 09 lines already exist but we at this campaign (apart from you of course) usually totally object to them because they involve the caller stealing from someone else's phone line bill.  Ditto with £1.50 per minute adult chat lines.

Secondly there will be huge growth in cheaper legal services delivered by email and phone line and by supermarket names etc but it will not be done by phone line charge which are insecure but by online payment by credit card over the internet where all charges are explicit before payment and the card  belongs to the cardholder.

Payment for any goods and services by phone bill will disappear because it in insecure and antique and the charges are not clear up front.

If Ofcom were to take me up on my offers of serious assistance, it would find that I do not come quite as cheap as is suggested.

I have not been drinking, but I am confused.


Quote:

I can't see how such functionality can be bad as it would allow rules to be introduced making it illegal for call centres to charge callers during any period in which their staff are not talking to the customer

If it can be used to suspend charging, it is implicit that the very technology enables the call centre to charge the customer whilst they are talking?

Does not the functionality of being able to adjust the charge between the two end parties to the call (which is not seen as being bad) open up all the possibilities indicated?


Phone line charges are deemed “insecure” whereas credit card internet transactions are “secure”. I admit that someone could break into my home whilst I was out in order to use my telephone to avoid having to pay £7.50 for five minutes worth of legal advice. If however they had the skills necessary to also disable the alarm so that they could be heard, they might find that these skills could be deployed more profitably. I am generally more concerned about the possibility of being defrauded by someone who steals or clones my credit card. It may be that some people operate a truly open house, and would never lose control of their credit card. I am not however sure that the general assertions made, which place me in an insignificant minority, are warranted.


I have to confess that I have failed to recognise that calls to premium rate numbers “involve” the fraudulent use of other people’s telephones, and that this is a major reason to say no to 0870.

For the record, I certainly object to fraud. I am however currently most concerned about that practised by the banks, which are happy to steal someone’s identity by ascribing it to anyone able to recite certain pieces of information, such as a PIN. I also object strongly to telephone call charges not being properly advised and available at the time when someone decides to make a telephone call. An opportunity to opt out at the last moment is not necessarily unwelcome, but it is not in any way a proper or complete solution.


It is good to hear such confidence being expressed about the eventual demise of revenue sharing and premium rate telephone numbers. This would of course make the flexible billing features of the celebrated new technology referred to redundant. The reasons given do not however explain how the conspiracy that is alleged to be the only reason for the existence of these numbers will break down. I am myself not quite so confident about the arrival of a new age of simplicity and security that seems to be required, as current trends, such as the continuing enthusiasm for “modern technology” available to all, suggest inevitable movement in the opposite direction.

NGMsGhost wrote on Jul 18^th, 2009 at 2:48pm:

The idea of a DQ service being able to onward connect your call is a reasonable convenience based one but what is not reasonable is the call not then reverting to the normal call rate charged by your underlying telecoms provider at that time of day for the type of number connected to at that point.  Or alternatively it should only be onward connected at some much lower rate per minute prominently advertised by the DQ service and which you are told by an announcement before you are onwards connected. But predictably Ofcom instead provided a charter for the  telecoms industry's scam boys but of course called it enhancing competition. :o >:( >:( >:(

Whilst this is desired from a moral point of view, the reality of how competing telecoms companies interconnect and pay one another surely makes this totally unlikely.

It has already been mentioned that a call is billed by the caller's telco (OCP). They in-turn pass the call to the receiver's communications provider and pay it for the call.

Logically, I can think of two ways of putting the call through to the destination number and charging that part of call the same as the caller would pay for a 01/02/03 call.


1.  Directory enquiries service connects call

The call to the destination number is connected by the directory enquiries service. As far as the OCP is concerned, the call is still being passed from the caller (its customer) to the DQ's CP, just as it was during the first part of the call.

If the caller were to be charged (by his/her OCP) at the same rate as for a geographical call, then it stands to reason that the cost imposed on it (the termination charge) will have to be the same as it pays for a geographical call. So the directory enquiries service (or to be exact its communications provider) receives the same level of payment as it must shell out to connect the call.

Thus, the directory enquiries service and its communications provider make no profit, and indeed, most probably make a loss in such a setup. Likewise, if the DQ service gets more, the OCP loses out and call prices are likely to rise.

By providing the service of putting calls through, a DQ service is therefore bound to charge just like any retailer does. It is absurd to suggest that it should be punished by making a loss for doing so.


2.  Caller's provider (OCP) connects call

Aside from the technical solution that would probably have to be implemented, let's consider the possibility of the caller's telephone company (OCP) connecting the call. When an OCP's customer dials a 118 number, the call would go through to the respective directory enquiries service charged at its designated call rate.

Once a number has been found, the DQ service notifies the OCP of the number and then the part of the call to the DQ service is ended. The OCP then connects its customer to the number in just the same way as it would had the caller dialled it him/herself.

This method would leave directory enquiries services forfeiting the opportunity to profit from connecting calls to destination numbers. Instead, they would be giving it away to the OCP.

Again, this does not fit in with the laws of economics as companies don't give away business to a competitor in order to reduce the cost to the customer.

The obvious solution to provide free onward connection would be for DQ services to only offer it on a different access number with a higher connection fee but much lower per minute charge such as 1p per minute billed by them.  But even then many callers with inclusive calls packages are not going to be happy as their per minute call rate is 0p per minute.

I don't think morality comes in to it.  The current position is simply anti competitive because people are stung with these huge per minute charges having no idea they are going to pay them before they start doing so.  If they knew it was costing that much per minute they would never agree to have the onward call connected or start paying the charges in the first place.

Therefore all that is actually needed is for a compulsory announcement to the caller of the continuing per minute rate if the call is onward connected by the human operator or a recorded announcement before they are onward connected.  If this were mandated by Ofcom then undoubtedly per minute rates to DQ services would fall to low levels and most of the charge for a DQ service would be placed where it should be on the initial connection fee.  This is because if it takes longer to find your number than expected due to operator incompetence it does not provide you the caller with any more added value and you have only obtained one phone number.