It's an NEG-style operation. School Information Lines uses 0844 "Lo-Call" (sic) numbers:

www.schoolinformationlines.co.uk


Quote:

0844 Lo-Call Number We provide the service on what is classed as a "Lo-Call" number instead of a higher rate 0870 national or premium rate number. We don't believe that this type of service should cost callers a high premium to call. Ofcom describes the cost of this number for callers as follows: "0844 calls are charged at up to 5p/min for BT customers." That's all the costs!

Somewhat different from the NEG "Schools Line", which seems to have been abandoned.

This is provided by Ovation Tele.com using a quite different business model to that of NEG.

The service is subsidised by the revenue share on 0844 numbers, but they appear to be more honest in their suggestions about costs.

Stating a belief that telcos should provide you with a subsidy without passing on the cost to callers may be fair enough. Many of us believe that Santa Claus should exist, it is only people like NEG who claim that he does.


The politics of fighting this one are also more tricky. Many parents are very happy to contribute small amounts of money towards the running costs of schools. They are actively encouraged to do so through various schemes, which are not even frowned upon, let alone prohibited in the way that those of us who believe in a taxation-funded public education system would wish.

I am almost inclined to suggest that this scheme is OK, so as to highlight the differences with Surgery Line, which (in the context of the NHS) is not. Fellow campaigners may be pleased to note that I would not quite go that far. Stating a wish that there "should" not be a premium charge could be taken as an admission that there will be. The term "lo-call" means a lower premium than in other cases. There is however quite enough confusion in these statements for some callers and users to be misled.

The School Information Lines services provides a 0844 number for a school which is answered by a menu. Selecting an option playes back a recorded message.


Quote:

The service is organised into message groups You can decide the names of up to 10 different message groups and we record the main menu in our recording studio's using professional voice artists. For example you could have: Press 1 for Opening times and school closures Press 2 for Exam timetables Press 3 for Field trip updates Press 4 for Club news

But such a service could be based on a school's PBX system. Even NEG's solutions have the menu based on geographical numbers at the customers' premises.

So how much does School Information Lines cost? See the costs page.


Quote:

The Costs We have aimed to provide a very cost effective solution to help solve everyday issues encountered by modern schools and their pupil/parent expectations. The cost to the school for the service is split into 2 parts: The Set Up Cost There is a "one off" initial set up cost of only £495 (of course..only billed after your FREE 3 month trial if you continue with the service) This includes: - Remote advice from our professional team - System set-up and number allocation - Recording of the service menu by one of our professional voice artists - System activation - Staff training documentation - Communication ideas and sample press release for you to disseminate. Monthly Rental There is a monthly rental of just £50 per month (again..only billed after your FREE 3 month trial if you continue with the service)

To summarise, there is a one off payment of £495 and ongoing service charges of £50 per month (the first three months are FREE).


It is totally unacceptable that pupils and parents be required to pay for information such as hearing if the school is closed and what times examinations are on.

The truth is that School Information Lines is just that: information. It can be made available for no cost on a school's website. A telephone number can be called where they can't get to the website.


Is this system really worth £495 plus a further £600 a year of a school's budget? Oh, and that's in addition to charges made to parents calling the 0844 number.

Dave wrote on Nov 5^th, 2009 at 11:17am:

Is this system really worth £495 plus a further £600 a year of a school's budget? Oh, and that's in addition to charges made to parents calling the 0844 number.

Are you saying that it would be better value if the £600 was increased to replace the income from the revenue share?

Use of revenue sharing numbers is commonly improper. That does not however mean that everything to do with those who provide and use them is necessarily bad in some way, of poor quality or poor value.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Nov 5^th, 2009 at 12:58pm:

Dave wrote on Nov 5th, 2009 at 11:17am: Is this system really worth £495 plus a further £600 a year of a school's budget? Oh, and that's in addition to charges made to parents calling the 0844 number. Are you saying that it would be better value if the £600 was increased to replace the income from the revenue share?

I made my original posting after having come across this service which operates using a 0844 number. I don't think it's right that parents should have to pay to know if the school is closed. If they don't want to pay, they take their chance and send their offspring to school.

Further examination of the website revealed the hefty price tag, and rather puts the revenue from the 0844 number in the shade. Indeed, one must wonder why there is any need for further subsidy on top of the £600 a year.

I would have thought that an up-to-date telephone system would be much better use of taxpayers' money. That may allow provision of an information service with less ongoing charges and no need for revenue sharing numbers.

Dave wrote on Nov 5^th, 2009 at 3:52pm:

I would have thought that an up-to-date telephone system would be much better use of taxpayers' money. That may allow provision of an information service with less ongoing charges and no need for revenue sharing numbers.

I am not quite sure of the basis for this comment. The revenue sharing number does not seem to be necessary in this case, unlike the NEG business model which is totally dependent on it. As for use of network based technology being out-of-date, I am not sure that the current move is towards locally based equipment because this offers better value for money. My knowledge of the market for small business telephone systems does not enable me to comment on the cost, although I can only say that the same system would be more expensive without the revenue share. At a rough guess I would think that they chose 0844 over 03xx or 0845 numbers to keep the cost down, but without straying into PRS.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Nov 5^th, 2009 at 5:51pm:

Dave wrote on Nov 5th, 2009 at 3:52pm: I would have thought that an up-to-date telephone system would be much better use of taxpayers' money. That may allow provision of an information service with less ongoing charges and no need for revenue sharing numbers. I am not quite sure of the basis for this comment. …

The payments for School Information Lines are rental of the provider's telephone equipment. I wonder whether that money would be better spent on a new telephone system that would benefit the entire school and whether this could provide the same facilities.  :-/

If that's not possible, then Andrews & Arnold provides an IVR on a 01/02/03 number for £13.80 a year with a £1.15 one off setup charge. What's so special about the School Information Lines service for its cost?  :-?

Indeed.  I've not checked the website, but if it's mainly an IVR supplying pre-recorded information, I could provide a similar system for them at considerably less cost, using open-source software!  If they supply a PC, it'd just cost about an hour or two of time for the setup, although they'd probably want the services of somebody with a more seductive voice than me to record the initial messages..   Plug it into any readily available internet connection and away they go.  They can then update their own daily information.   Choice of geo or non-geo number as required, from free, depending on supplier.

Cor that sounds like an ad!  Certainly it sounds like a fairly inexpensive facility to provide.

irrelevant wrote on Nov 5^th, 2009 at 9:27pm:

Cor that sounds like an ad!  Certainly it sounds like a fairly inexpensive facility to provide.

With all this understanding of the market, technical knowledge and entreprenureal flair, why are members moaning about other lousy businesses, which they could beat into a cocked hat, in a web forum rather than getting out there, proving it and making a good living at the same time?

Are we not here to discuss the propriety of use of revenue sharing numbers and ways for callers to avoid them?

Well in my case, it's because I'm what is often described as "a techy" and able to turn my hand to pretty much anything when it comes to computers, networking and telecoms.  What I am not, however, is a salesperson, and I don't want to be.  I'd rather be honest.  So, the lying scumbags that overcharge and underperform get work and I get to keep this as just a hobby.

My son's school has introduced an 0844 that looks to be based on this "service". During the initial trial I emailed my objections but they has pressed ahead regardless and are telling people not to use the old geographic number.

I am a school Governor and Deputy Chair of the Finance Committee. I am wondering how best to proceed. I don't think other parents are bothered, probably because they don't know how much this will cost them and the school. How can I get the message across?

ikr2 wrote on Nov 9^th, 2010 at 1:08pm:

My son's school has introduced an 0844 that looks to be based on this "service". During the initial trial I emailed my objections but they has pressed ahead regardless and are telling people not to use the old geographic number. I am a school Governor and Deputy Chair of the Finance Committee. I am wondering how best to proceed. I don't think other parents are bothered, probably because they don't know how much this will cost them and the school. How can I get the message across?

If the callers are mostly parents, they may be happy to help the school by subsidising the cost of providing this (probably over-priced) service. As always with parent participation in Education it will generally be those who are ready and able to pay who will be the most vocal, however that is life!

If this is the NEG SchoolsLine, then experience suggests that a good service will be provided, but costs are likely to be greater than initially expected and contractual conditions more than tight. There may well be other providers able to provide a similar service more cheaply, but they are unlikely to have been so effective in the the market.

I would suggest taking all claims about the cost of calling with a barrel of salt. Please contact me (or ask others in the forum) if you would like a table of call costs from various commonly used telephone service providers. I believe that the cost should be made obvious to callers; if they are happy to pay, then what could be the objection in publishing a summary of typical call costs? (BT rates for these calls are regulated and so wholely atypical.) It should also be understood that by failing to benefit from low rates and inclusive packages, which are now the standard for ordinary calls, the premium paid is generally much greater than the 4.5p per minute which goes to subsidise the cost of providing the service.

Experience suggests that the system will be configured so that the underlying geographic number will give access to most, if not all, of the services. If this is used, then the subsidy available to the school will be diminished, resulting in higher operating costs. As the provider will be keen to make the service appear as cheap as possible, it will be likely to fight any attempt to publicise this number.

Setting aside formal classifications and regulatory measures, this is a PREMIUM RATE service. If the school and the parents are happy with this, then there is little more to say. If they fail to understand it, then there is plenty more to say.

I would be really interested in a table of calls costs from landline and mobile operators.

When this was first trialled in Jan this year, I researched some costs but it would be useful to have more comprehensive and current costs.

I also looked up some OfCom data on how low-income households are less likely to have landlines and are more likely to have mobile phones. By extension it is these households that pay most when 0844 numbers are put into place.

ikr2 wrote on Nov 9^th, 2010 at 3:46pm:

I would be really interested in a table of calls costs from landline and mobile operators.

I have assumed that the 0844 number in question is one in band g6, the most expensive type (some providers, typically landline ones, charge different 0844 numbers at different rates). Rates below are those which apply during each provider's daytime period.

• BT
  01/02/03: inclusive/zero fee (or 10.9p call set-up fee plus 6.4ppm)
  0844: 10.9p call set-up fee plus 5ppm
  
  
• Virgin Media
  01/02/03: inclusive/zero fee (or 11.99p connection fee plus 8.5ppm)
  0844: 11.99p connection plus 10.19ppm
  
  
• TalkTalk
  01/02/03: inclusive/zero fee (or 10.9p call connection plus 6.4ppm)
  0844: 10.9p call connection plus 5ppm
  
  
• T-Mobile - Pay Monthly
  01/02/03: inclusive (or 30ppm)
  0844: 40ppm
  
  
• T-Mobile - Pay as you Go
  01/02/03: 25ppm
  0844: 40ppm
  
  
• O2 - Pay Monthly
  01/02/03: inclusive (and then 20ppm)
  0844: 20ppm
  
  
• O2 - Pay as you Go
  01/02/03: 20ppm or 25ppm for first three minutes of day, then 5ppm
  0844: 25ppm
  
  
• Vodafone - Pay as you Go
  01/02/03: 21ppm
  0844: 25ppm
  
  
• 3 - Pay Monthly
  01/02/03: inclusive (and then 12ppm, 20ppm or 25ppm, depending on tariff)
  0844: 20ppm

Yes it's an 0844 770 number so PG6 banded according to Virgin media with the costs you describe.

We have an undertaking that they will get fresh quotes to restore a purely geographic number with some sort of automated system attached to it. They want to allow parents to access recorded messages for routine information to take some of the pressure off the school office.

Edit: The latest school newsletter claims that "Calls cost a maximum of 5p per minute from a BT land line (1p more than a standard local call). Others providers may vary, and in some cases calls are included in call plan contracts."

Is the last bit true?

ikr2 wrote on Nov 11^th, 2010 at 9:03pm:

Yes it's an 0844 770 number so PG6 banded according to Virgin media with the costs you describe. We have an undertaking that they will get fresh quotes to restore a purely geographic number with some sort of automated system attached to it. They want to allow parents to access recorded messages for routine information to take some of the pressure off the school office. Edit: The latest school newsletter claims that "Calls cost a maximum of 5p per minute from a BT land line (1p more than a standard local call). Others providers may vary, and in some cases calls are included in call plan contracts." Is the last bit true?

In answer to the direct question - if it is alleged, then one must assume that the author is not a liar. I do not however know of any case - certainly none of the providers listed above include them. Ignore Virginmedia "Talk Anywhere"; that is a prepay bundle purely for high cost calls, not an "unlimited" call plan package.

There is a very serious schoolboy error in the first part of the statement. The word "maximum" should be "minimum" and it assumes consideration of calls having a near infinite duration where the effect of the call setup fee has become insignificant. A one minute call costs 16p per minute, a two minute call 10.5p per minute  etc. approaching 5p per minute as the duration approaches infinity. Students may like to calculate how the pence per minute rate falls below 5.1 at 1 hour 50 minutes and 59 seconds. Someone awarded a detention could be given the task of working out when it reaches 5p per minute!

I am sure that the Head of Mathematics could explain this to the editor of the school newsletter. The Head of History could advise that the distinction between rates for local and national calls disappeared from residential call charges in 2004 and the BT rate for a non-inclusive geographic call has not been 4p per minute since 30 November 2008. At that time the setup fee was 7p and there have been 7 price revisions since then, with the next to come on 3 January 2011. (If the school newsletter is a biennial publication, then it is just possible that the latest edition is accurate.)

The Head of Home Economics will point out that if BT customers were to call before 7am or after 7pm their local calls would almost certainly be free, whereas the cost of a call to a 0844 number is the same at all times. They would also advise that if calls are regularly made during weekday daytimes, it is probably most unwise not to subscribe to the Unlimited Anytime Call Plan.

The phrase "other providers may vary" is a classic piece of marketing newspeak - a topic to interest the Head of English. What it should say is that no other provider is prohibited by regulation from making money from its rates for these calls. Those who offer calling services to those with BT lines may mirror BT charges, but no other sane provider would fail to make a proper margin where it was allowed to do so.

The implication that parents are paying 1p per minute towards the cost of the service is grossly misleading. Their telephone company is paying around 4.5p per minute and would be expected to pass this on both directly and by the exclusion of these calls from reduced rate or inclusive deals. If the "premium only" BT rate of 5p per minute were set against the correct (current) "penalty rate" of 6.4p per minute for those who call outside the terms of their BT call plan, then the fact that apples were being compared with bananas would become obvious, as the school is not paying the parent 1.4p per minute for calling.

The fact that BT rates for 084 numbers are regulated and that it offers ordinary calls through call plans to cover the periods when the phone is used, applying penalty rates at other times, makes BT rates totally unsuitable for use as an example.

When the quotes come in from NEG for a purely geographic number, the extent of the subsidy being derived from callers will become apparent. If technical issues cloud that matter, ensure that a true like-for-like quote for a 03 number is obtained.

ikr2 wrote on Nov 11^th, 2010 at 9:03pm:

We have an undertaking that they will get fresh quotes to restore a purely geographic number with some sort of automated system attached to it. They want to allow parents to access recorded messages for routine information to take some of the pressure off the school office.

One must wonder why it is that they haven't offered something like this on a geographic number. Such a recorded message could run in tandom with a written one on their website.



ikr2 wrote on Nov 11^th, 2010 at 9:03pm:

Edit: The latest school newsletter claims that "Calls cost a maximum of 5p per minute from a BT land line (1p more than a standard local call). Others providers may vary, and in some cases calls are included in call plan contracts." Is the last bit true?

This is the sort of twaddle we see all the time. The topic is quite complex, as there's no simple (one sentence) answer and I've been thinking about a suitable analogy.

The cost of a lottery ticket is less than the cost of a can of fizzy drink. The statement is true because in some places such as airports and railway stations, the cost of a can of pop is more than £1. However, it's not representative because the price of fizzy drink in general is much lower than this.

Not sure how much that helps, so I'll return back to the subject of the cost of phone calls:

• Calls cost a maximum of 5p per minute from a BT land line
  
  • The maximum call cost to 0844 g6 numbers from a BT line is 5 pence per minute.
    
    
  • The minimum call cost to 0844 g6 numbers from a BT line is also 5 pence per minute.
    
    
  • The lowest charge made by any provider (including BT) to these numbers is 5 pence per minute. Thus, substituting the word "maximum" for "minimum" would allow this to apply to all telephone providers.
    
    
  • Chargeable (non-inclusive) calls with BT incur a call set-up fee of 10.9 pence. I'm not sure how long a typical call to this 0844 number lasts, but if it's less than 2 minutes and 11 seconds, then the call set-up fee will be greater than the "per minute" element of the call charge, yet it gets no mention whatsoever in this statement.
  
  
• (1p more than a standard local call)
  
  • For quite a number of years now, call packages have been available which, for a fee, all calls to local and national geographic numbers to be made for no extra cost. These calls are typically referred to as being "inclusive".
    
    The falling cost of call packages that have inclusive daytime geographic calls, combined with the sharp increase in the cost of geographic calls on non-inclusive packages means that the number of call minutes one needs to make in order to break even (and move up to the inclusive tariff) is much much lower. Thus, the normal call charge to a geographic number is zero pence.
    
    In all cases, the cost of calling 0844 numbers from BT lines remains the same and they are never part of inclusive allowances. So the (maximum) cost of a call to the 0844 number from a BT line is 5 pence per minute plus 10.9 pence call set-up.
    
    
  • The cost of a geographic call with BT, where such calls are chargeable rather than inclusive, is 6.4 pence per minute plus a call set-up fee of 10.9 pence.
    
    Thus, the 0844 number is cheaper for BT customers who make few calls during the daytime (and therefore don't subscribe to the Anytime Calling Plan). Such people are likely to be out all day (which would explain why they make few calls during that period) and therefore would call from their mobile phone.
  
  
  
• Others providers may vary, …
  Err, no, it's the other way around; BT's prices are the exception rather than the rule. BT's retail call prices for 0844 numbers are held low by regulation, whereas those of other telcos are not.
  
  Telcos we make calls with are retailers and they incur wholesale prices to connect calls. BT (as a retailer) puts only a tiny mark-up on 0844 calls and this is limited due to regulatory dictate. Thus, when it sells the 0844 product in its shop, its retail price is about the same as the wholesale price it paid to stock it. For more on this, see SilentCallsVictim's blog posting BT charges may vary from others.
  
  
• …and in some cases calls are included in call plan contracts
  I've heard that any provider that included 0844 calls in unlimited packages would be committing financial suicide.
  
  Any provider that did so would likely become the victim of people creating Artificial Inflation of Traffic. That's because there will be those who will get themselves a 0844 phone number that pays them revenue. They will call the number at no extra cost to themselves to generate revenue. The telco that has included these calls in a package will be liable for the higher wholesale charges, but won't be able to easily recover a penny from its subscriber. It would have to sharply increase the cost of its packages to make up, putting itself at severe disadvantage to its competitors.

I hope this is useful. I've broken it down and used bullet points in an effort to make it easier to follow.

As you can see, there are a number of interwoven issues that must be considered for appreciation of what's happening. If you have any further questions, post away.

I hope the OP and others are now able to understand the issues having had them addressed in two separate ways.


I will add just three comments to qualify and extend Dave's excellent contribution, made in a perhaps necessary attempt to clarify my contribution.

* The "call setup fee" (or "connection charge", the terms vary) must be seen as an inherent part of the "call cost", not some additional charge that need not be mentioned. It is not possible to express the cost of a telephone call from a landline as a flat rate per minute. No landline call provider has any such tariff.

** The offering of residential telephone service from BT and others is based on the concept of a Call Plan, with calls to "ordinary" numbers (of up to one hour) included during the time when the telephone is used. It is wrong to think of the "Unlimited Anytime" Plan as some chargeable extra service (perhaps for heavy users); it is the plan which all those who make calls at any time (i.e. not only during the evening and weekend) should select.

*** It is wrong to describe the "penalty charge" applied to those who make otherwise inclusive calls outside the terms of their Call Plan as "standard". The standard charge for a call to a geographic (or 03) number, under the terms of a contract for normal domestic landline or mobile telephone service, is ZERO.


I applaud Dave's attempt to find a suitable analogy. Unfortunately the complexity of telephone tariffs, with the largest call provider being wholly atypical due to the effect of regulation and therefore unsuitable for use as an example, is unequalled in our common experience. Given the possibilities for a complex situation to be misrepresented (as must be the case with any attempt to present simple clear information about costs) there is no analogy that is fair and truly equivalent.

Ofcom will shortly be publishing a consultation on proposals to revise the regulatory structure. Let us hope that once such proposals have been implemented the situation will become clearer.