http://www.fundraising.co.uk/newswire/2009/10/19/03-numbers-039the-new-freephone-number-2010039-says-windsor-telecom

Promoting your own firm, are you?

03 numbers are free, are they?

Garbage

Can't you come up with an even more misleading version?

mark1979 wrote on Oct 29^th, 2009 at 9:43am:

http://www.fundraising.co.uk/newswire/2009/10/19/03-numbers-039the-new-freephone-number-2010039-says-windsor-telecom

As we have said many, many times on this site, 01 , 02 and 03 numbers are not free. Inclusive yes but not free.

andy9 sums it up well

Of course, any use of the term "free" is bound to imply some form of deceit in the context of a commercial operation; everything is paid for somehow!

The rightly made point is that 03 numbers are cheaper than 0800 to call for many mobile users, in some cases without any extra charge for a call. Furthermore the cost of receiving calls to 03 numbers is likely to be less than that of 080.

For the increasing number of landline subscribers who sign up for inclusive packages there is no effective differential between the cost of a call to a 03 number over that of 0800.

As many mobile companies voluntarily waive their charge for calls to registered helplines on 080 numbers, they would doubtless claim that this is far enough for them to go without doing the same for fundraising lines.

We will be likely to hear shortly about the first case of a recipient of calls to non-helpline 0800 numbers coming to an arrangement with the mobile companies that will make these free to caller also. The need to go down this route suggests that there is insufficient demand from all 080 users to have a similar arrangement ti enable Ofcom to compel it.

Yes, the wording of the headline is oversimplified, but I see no good reason not to welcome Windsor's efforts in promoting use of 03. Anything that can be done to spread awareness of 03 should be celebrated.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Nov 8^th, 2009 at 2:24am:

Of course, any use of the term "free" is bound to imply some form of deceit in the context of a commercial operation; everything is paid for somehow! The rightly made point is that 03 numbers are cheaper than 0800 to call for many mobile users, in some cases without any extra charge for a call. Furthermore the cost of receiving calls to 03 numbers is likely to be less than that of 080. For the increasing number of landline subscribers who sign up for inclusive packages there is no effective differential between the cost of a call to a 03 number over that of 0800. As many mobile companies voluntarily waive their charge for calls to registered helplines on 080 numbers, they would doubtless claim that this is far enough for them to go without doing the same for fundraising lines. We will be likely to hear shortly about the first case of a recipient of calls to non-helpline 0800 numbers coming to an arrangement with the mobile companies that will make these free to caller also. The need to go down this route suggests that there is insufficient demand from all 080 users to have a similar arrangement ti enable Ofcom to compel it. Yes, the wording of the headline is oversimplified, but I see no good reason not to welcome Windsor's efforts in promoting use of 03. Anything that can be done to spread awareness of 03 should be celebrated.

They are NOT "FREE" from a mobile!!
They are "INCLUSIVE"!!

FREE means "at no cost", you need to pay a monthly charge for a contract, (as you pay a line rental for a landline), I know of no mobile phone company that offer 0800 numbers at no cost to the caller, and even if they start doing so they will impose a monthly charge,(same as now for INCLUSIVE 01/02/03 numbers), you don't/won't get them "free"!

andy9 wrote on Nov 7^th, 2009 at 4:33pm:

Promoting your own firm, are you?

I think you mean, "Promoting your own firm again, are you?"

Mark1979 is Mark Guy of Windsor Telecom (check out his only other post - which, amazingly, also promosted Windsor Telecom - and you'll see he even signed his full name on that).

Quote:

Mark Guy Windsor Telecom www.windsor-telecom.co.uk

derrick wrote on Nov 8^th, 2009 at 10:40am:

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Nov 8th, 2009 at 2:24am: free to caller They are NOT "FREE" from a mobile!! They are "INCLUSIVE"!!

re-read SCV, he's talking about companies asking mobile companies to make calls "Free to caller" at their expense - these would actually be free, just like 0800 calls already are from a landline.  And like 0808 80 helpline calls from mobiles. As per the recent 116 consultation, Ofcom differentiate "freephone" calls, which ARE charged, from
Quote:

’free to caller’ , meaning that there is no charge irrespective of how the call is made .

I believe that in the "Call Providers" section of the forum it is fair enough to discuss the merits and demerits of those who provide telephone services. That should not preclude users or providers of services, nor indeed anyone else, from making positive comments about any particular provider.

Can we also please have a sense of balance about use of the term "free". No telephone call is free. It consumes one's time, which many set at a high price; on a mobile there is the personal cost of depreciation on an owned handset as well as the electricity consumed by use of the battery; there is indeed the cost of network connection. On mobiles the latter is reflected in call charges, often in a pre-paid bundle, rather than a line rental charge.

Where the call charge is waived or met by the recipient it is a near as damn it accurate to say that the call is "free (of call charge) to the caller". This is quite different from a situation where a charge that would otherwise be imposed is included in the terms of a package.

If a term is frequently used improperly it is tempting to wish to ban it from any use. If we are concerned only about false impressions being created, rather than pursuing a Utopian (indeed Orwellian) desire for every word to only have one possible meaning, then we have to be careful in where we aim our attacks.

There is a difference in English by saying that something "is the new" whatever, rather than saying something "is" whatever. The former is means that the something is used in the same way as the whatever.

I say that 0844 is the new 0870. That doesn't mean that 0844 is exactly what 0870 used to be, but is being used widely in the same way as 0870 used to be.



SilentCallsVictim wrote on Nov 8^th, 2009 at 2:24am:

We will be likely to hear shortly about the first case of a recipient of calls to non-helpline 0800 numbers coming to an arrangement with the mobile companies that will make these free to caller also. The need to go down this route suggests that there is insufficient demand from all 080 users to have a similar arrangement ti enable Ofcom to compel it.

This is an interesting point. It assumes that organisations using 080x numbers give consideration to what they would like to offer if they had the choice, rather than simply choosing from what is on offer.

Was a non-geographical number range carrying no premium in demand from those wishing to use it before the introduction of 03xx numbers? They've been around for a couple of years now, so I assume that all those who really wanted it have moved to it.

However, I don't believe that all those who are now using 03 numbers realised what they were doing when they were on 0845 (or 0844) numbers, and hence didn't demand them.

Indeed, for many it is only after the event (after choosing and bringing their 08xx numbers into service) that they have come in for criticism from those calling them.

Remember that the authorities issued a 0870 number following the London bombings in 2005. They obviously didn't appreciate the "revenue sharing" aspect to it and instead were taken in by its "national rate" label.