ScarletPimpernel wrote on Feb 9^th, 2010 at 5:04pm:

[ I'm not saying what you are trying to achieve is incorrect, however the result of publishing 01xx numbers only encourages people to call them as they believe that they will be getting a cheaper call or in some packages a free call.

Name us a package that gives you a free call..... There isn't one. .....Inclusive calls maybe but never a free call. There is a difference.

[edit]This thread has been split off from the thread Cost of 0870 vs calling blocked local numbers.[/edit]

sherbert wrote on Feb 9^th, 2010 at 5:29pm:

Name us a package that gives you a free call..... There isn't one. .....Inclusive calls maybe but never a free call. There is a difference.

While I am no longer familiar with UK telephone packages, I do consider that my package here can accurately be described as providing free calls. Basic phone service (which could be described in British terms as line rental) here, excluding taxes and fees, is $13.68 per month. I consider this to be the cost of providing a line into my location which further provides a dial tone and an ability to make and receive calls, either through the local provider or through any provider of my choice. Some people simply need a line for signalling purposes, whether it be alarm-related or some other facility. It just happens that basic phone service also allows calls to me made to anywhere within the local call area at no cost. Furthermore, such calls are neither metered nor itemized. The phone bill does not list such calls nor does it provide the number or type of calls made. This is usual throughout this country for residential lines, and any such description of free or inclusive calls is not generally used as a marketing tool; rather it is a given that free calls come with basic phone service. So, as I have stated before, with basic phone service, one could happily make a call for 31*24*60 minutes in a typical month (which may well have been popular during dial-up internet imes) and no one would really care. There would be no record of the call on the bill as there is no itemization. Now is this call free or inclusive? My belief is that it can correctly be designated as free. Whilst it can also be considered as inclusive, the free description is not, I would argue, incorrect.

idb wrote on Feb 10^th, 2010 at 12:30am:

sherbert wrote on Feb 9th, 2010 at 5:29pm: Name us a package that gives you a free call..... There isn't one. .....Inclusive calls maybe but never a free call. There is a difference. While I am no longer familiar with UK telephone packages, I do consider that my package here can accurately be described as providing free calls. Basic phone service (which could be described in British terms as line rental) here, excluding taxes and fees, is $13.68 per month. I consider this to be the cost of providing a line into my location which further provides a dial tone and an ability to make and receive calls, either through the local provider or through any provider of my choice. Some people simply need a line for signalling purposes, whether it be alarm-related or some other facility. It just happens that basic phone service also allows calls to me made to anywhere within the local call area at no cost. Furthermore, such calls are neither metered nor itemized. The phone bill does not list such calls nor does it provide the number or type of calls made. This is usual throughout this country for residential lines, and any such description of free or inclusive calls is not generally used as a marketing tool; rather it is a given that free calls come with basic phone service. So, as I have stated before, with basic phone service, one could happily make a call for 31*24*60 minutes in a typical month (which may well have been popular during dial-up internet imes) and no one would really care. There would be no record of the call on the bill as there is no itemization. Now is this call free or inclusive? My belief is that it can correctly be designated as free. Whilst it can also be considered as inclusive, the free description is not, I would argue, incorrect.

Well, here we will have to disagree I am afraid. BT do indeed itemise all the 'inclusive' calls on my bill as does o2 on my mobile bill. Last year BT increased their line rental by (I think) a pound a month. At the same time they announced that the 0845 & 0870 numbers would be included in the calling plan which you belong to. If they had not have done this, would they have increased the line rental? Probably not. So I and also many others on this site, maintain that any calls that are covered on a calling plan are 'inclusive' and not 'free' as whenever BT offer 'something for nothing' the line rental increases to cover their costs.

Anyway that is my interpretaion of it and no doubt others will put their views here.

Entirely agree with you Sherbert.    "Free" is a marketing term used by large companies to tease or entice , some would say, the gullible, but as you say, we all pay for these calls one way or another.    The phone companies do not allow calls passed between them to be free of charge -- they still pass originating and terminating fees between each other and account for every cotton pickin' minute in their own accounts and inter-company charges, as I understand things.  (Please correct me if my understanding is incorrect).    They must then generate revenue somehow to cover these unavoidable costs -- so they may indeed be paid for out of the line rental charges.

I am sure they must also monitor very carefully the totals and distribution of call traffic as part of their network utilisation and capacity management activities.   It would not do to have callers unable to connect due to lack of available line capacity.

I would say there are no "free" calls in the UK, (the USA may be different), there are only "inclusive" calls.

Yes, I have a 24/7 inclusive call package and all my calls are itemised, those without charge being shown as "free" (although I pay a fee each month on top of line rental to have 24/7 inclusive calls) and the relevant charge being shown for other calls, almost exclusively in our case to mobiles, together with date, time, duration.

loddon wrote on Feb 10^th, 2010 at 10:32am:

I am sure they must also monitor very carefully the totals and distribution of call traffic as part of their network utilisation and capacity management activities.   It would not do to have callers unable to connect due to lack of available line capacity.

Indeed they do, as BT have just announced that the 'evening period' is changing from 6pm to 6am to 7pm to 7am. (From April 1st) They stated in their 'blurb' that people make very short calls between 6pm & 7pm (I guess people come home from work at that time and confirm their evening arrangements). So yes, they must be monitored.

loddon wrote on Feb 10^th, 2010 at 10:32am:

Entirely agree with you Sherbert.    "Free" is a marketing term used by large companies to tease or entice , some would say, the gullible, but as you say, we all pay for these calls one way or another.    The phone companies do not allow calls passed between them to be free of charge -- they still pass originating and terminating fees between each other and account for every cotton pickin' minute in their own accounts and inter-company charges, as I understand things.  (Please correct me if my understanding is incorrect).    They must then generate revenue somehow to cover these unavoidable costs -- so they may indeed be paid for out of the line rental charges. I am sure they must also monitor very carefully the totals and distribution of call traffic as part of their network utilisation and capacity management activities.   It would not do to have callers unable to connect due to lack of available line capacity. I would say there are no "free" calls in the UK, (the USA may be different), there are only "inclusive" calls.

I would agree about the inappropriate use of the term marketing term 'free' in many situations, however for basic phone provision, the term 'free' is generally not used here in the context of local calls. It is generally accepted (that is, no additional marketing or qualification is needed) that if one pays for line rental then one receives free (not billed, not metered, not itemized) local calls. I have yet to see an advertisement by AT&T along the lines of "get our plan and make as many calls as you want" in a local call context. For long distance, it is different and there are similar inclusive plans that I believe exist in the UK.

Whilst this country has its faults, it has adopted a sensible approach to telecoms, in terms of numbering, charging and regulation. About the only criticism that is generally made is the strange array of taxes and fees that vary by municipality, but for $14 a month, one can call anywhere within a local call area without having concern for hanging up after sixty or seventy minutes just because of a pathetic rule.

As I said, I have no comment about the description of 'free' calls within UK plans, but I do contend that phone packages here come with free calls.

idb wrote on Feb 10^th, 2010 at 12:30am:

sherbert wrote on Feb 9th, 2010 at 5:29pm: Name us a package that gives you a free call..... There isn't one. .....Inclusive calls maybe but never a free call. There is a difference. While I am no longer familiar with UK telephone packages, I do consider that my package here can accurately be described as providing free calls. Basic phone service (which could be described in British terms as line rental) here, excluding taxes and fees, is $13.68 per month. I consider this to be the cost of providing a line into my location which further provides a dial tone and an ability to make and receive calls, either through the local provider or through any provider of my choice. Some people simply need a line for signalling purposes, whether it be alarm-related or some other facility. It just happens that basic phone service also allows calls to me made to anywhere within the local call area at no cost. Furthermore, such calls are neither metered nor itemized. The phone bill does not list such calls nor does it provide the number or type of calls made. This is usual throughout this country for residential lines, and any such description of free or inclusive calls is not generally used as a marketing tool; rather it is a given that free calls come with basic phone service. So, as I have stated before, with basic phone service, one could happily make a call for 31*24*60 minutes in a typical month (which may well have been popular during dial-up internet imes) and no one would really care. There would be no record of the call on the bill as there is no itemization. Now is this call free or inclusive? My belief is that it can correctly be designated as free. Whilst it can also be considered as inclusive, the free description is not, I would argue, incorrect.

Sorry you are wrong, your calls are INCLUSIVE, they are not "free", try not paying your "$13.68 per month" and see if you will still be supplied with "free" calls, the answer is, you won't, therefore by definition your calls are INCLUSIVE!

derrick wrote on Feb 10^th, 2010 at 12:56pm:

Sorry you are wrong, [...]

I'm not, trust me! My local line provides me with free local calls, period. No qualification. No restriction. They are free of any charge. The $13.68 I pay is only for the rental of the line.

What happens in the UK is entirely different to what happens here.

idb wrote on Feb 10^th, 2010 at 1:00pm:

derrick wrote on Feb 10th, 2010 at 12:56pm: Sorry you are wrong, [...] I'm not, trust me! My local line provides me with free local calls, period. No qualification. No restriction. They are free of any charge. The $13.68 I pay is only for the rental of the line. What happens in the UK is entirely different to what happens here.

What we are trying to say is, if your telephone provider charged you for what you call free calls, the rental charge would be lower. So therefore your calls are inclusive and not free, however they wish to market it.

sherbert wrote on Feb 10^th, 2010 at 1:08pm:

idb wrote on Feb 10th, 2010 at 1:00pm: derrick wrote on Feb 10th, 2010 at 12:56pm: Sorry you are wrong, [...] I'm not, trust me! My local line provides me with free local calls, period. No qualification. No restriction. They are free of any charge. The $13.68 I pay is only for the rental of the line. What happens in the UK is entirely different to what happens here. What we are trying to say is, if your telephone provider charged you for what you call free calls, the rental charge would be lower. So therefore your calls are inclusive and not free, however they wish to market it.

I will try once more, and leave it at that. I pay a certain amount for the provision of a phone line. By default, the provision of such line provides certain features. One of which is the ability to receive calls. Another is the ability to call, as many times as one wishes, for as long as one wishes, and however one wishes, be it a voice, fax or data call, to anywhere within the local call area without incurring any charge.


My cellular plan *is* an inclusive plan as there is restriction and qualification. My land line is not as it is not marketed as such. There is no 'you can use 31*24*60 minutes per month' or even 1000 or 5000 minutes per month or any fair use policy.

If I don't pay the $13.68, then I lose the ability to, inter alia, makle free calls to local subscribers.

Obviously you are entitled to your opinion, and I suspect you have little practical experience of the North American telecoms market. If you ever visit, then perhaps ask some random individuals as to whether their home phone service has inclusive, free, or other calls. I can almost guarantee that no one has ever even considered the question, and assumes that if a line is provided, then local calls are provided. Free!

idb wrote on Feb 10^th, 2010 at 1:00pm:

derrick wrote on Feb 10th, 2010 at 12:56pm: Sorry you are wrong, [...] I'm not, trust me! My local line provides me with free local calls, period. No qualification. No restriction. They are free of any charge. The $13.68 I pay is only for the rental of the line. What happens in the UK is entirely different to what happens here.

Nothing to do with the Country, you pay a monthly premium that INCLUDES some phone calls,(not "free"), if you don't pay the monthly premium then you don't get the calls!
How are they "free" if you need to if you need to part with cash to receive them?

Free = at no cost!

derrick wrote on Feb 10^th, 2010 at 2:04pm:

Nothing to do with the Country, you pay a monthly premium that INCLUDES some phone calls,(not "free"), if you don't pay the monthly premium then you don't get the calls! How are they "free" if you need to if you need to part with cash to receive them? Free = at no cost!

I agree with idb here. In the UK, inclusive calls are an add-on, as it were, to the basic telephone service. He is saying that in the US they (local calls) are part of the provision of a telephone line.

derrick, with your logic, that means that "buy one get one free" offers are not such. Is it acceptable for a car dealership to promote "free insurance" when one purchases one of their motors?

Of course nothing is "free" per se, but where do we draw the line?

derrick wrote on Feb 10^th, 2010 at 2:04pm:

Free = at no cost!

If one is to accept that definition of the word as being strict and absolute, then the word can never be used at all. It is always possible to identify some type of cost.

In fact the word "free" is meaningless without some implied or stated qualification, as it refers to the absence of "something". There is always room for a potentially interesting debate around what it is that is implied.

In the specific context of telephone call charges, it refers to the absence of a charge for each call. It is therefore possible to say that one may pay a monthly fee to get calls free (of the particular individual call charge that would otherwise apply). Where there is perhaps an attempt to conceal a specific cost, it may be necessary to point out how this freedom has to be bought, but one cannot necessarily say that it was wholly inappropriate to use the word "free".

Every freedom has some cost! Only a fool would seek to deny, or fail to acknowledge, this fact. Only a total cynic would thereby deny the existence of any freedom. Words (like our freedoms) are available for us to use as we will. It is those who hate them who seek to take them away from us, through fear that we may use them in ways of which they do not approve.

I find it helpful to use the phrase "free at the point of need", when referring to the NHS. It may however take very many words and examples to explain exactly what this means. I may often take the trouble to do so, however I may often use the phrase anyway.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Feb 10^th, 2010 at 3:56pm:

I find it helpful to use the phrase "free at the point of need", when referring to the NHS. It may however take very many words and examples to explain exactly what this means. I may often take the trouble to do so, however I may often use the phrase anyway.

The NHS has never  been free. If only it was and we would not be paying National Insurance contributions and other taxes, like hospital car parking, that fund the NHS

sherbert wrote on Feb 10^th, 2010 at 4:03pm:

The NHS has never  been free. If only it was and we would not be paying National Insurance contributions and other taxes, like hospital car parking, that fund the NHS

Thanks for this, Sherbert. After a momentary pause for thought, I believe that I understand your position. The NHS continues to retain a strong legacy of the position that you advocate, from the past, however for most of us times have moved on. Many see the situation moving on again to produce the situation that you support, however you and I are thereby set in total opposition.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Feb 10^th, 2010 at 4:26pm:

sherbert wrote on Feb 10th, 2010 at 4:03pm: The NHS has never  been free. If only it was and we would not be paying National Insurance contributions and other taxes, like hospital car parking, that fund the NHS Thanks for this, Sherbert. After a momentary pause for thought, I believe that I understand your position. The NHS continues to retain a strong legacy of the position that you advocate, from the past, however for most of us times have moved on. Many see the situation moving on again to produce the situation that you support, however you and I are thereby set in total opposition.

So, from what I can understand from that garbled response, you are saying that the NHS is indeed free?

Surely the concept of the NHS was originally, and it still is, that each shall receive according to his need (and free of charge at the point of need) while each shall contribute or pay (via his taxes) according to his means?    It was always recognised that the NHS had to be paid for somehow in order to enable everyone to benefit from it no matter how impoverished they may be.

sherbert wrote on Feb 10^th, 2010 at 4:39pm:

So, from what I can understand from that garbled response, you are saying that the NHS is indeed free?

Under the terms of the NHS Constitution, services are delivered without charge, except where sanctioned by parliament - if that is what is meant by the NHS being "free" - then Yes.

It may be helpful for readers to understand what is meant by a NHS not funded by taxation and income from use of excess land.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Feb 10^th, 2010 at 4:58pm:

sherbert wrote on Feb 10th, 2010 at 4:39pm: So, from what I can understand from that garbled response, you are saying that the NHS is indeed free? Under the terms of the NHS Constitution, services are delivered without charge, except where sanctioned by parliament - if that is what is meant by the NHS being "free" - then Yes. It may be helpful for readers to understand what is meant by a NHS not funded by taxation and income from use of excess land.

From the C.A.B. site     http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/index/your_money/benefits/national_insurance_contributions_and_benefits.htm#how_contributions_pay_for_benefits



National insurance contributions also go towards the costs of the National Health Service.


So it can't be free.

sherbert wrote on Feb 10^th, 2010 at 6:24pm:

So it can't be free.

Can we please politely establish the level at which this discussion is being conducted, and its purpose.

For the purposes of this discussion, just what do we mean by "free"? or are we trying to understand the different ways in which the word may be used?

There was an earlier proposal of a free NHS not funded by taxation. Are we looking to understand how that would work?

The CAB document deals with the difference between contributory and non-contributory benefit entitlements. All NHS services are non-contributory, so far as I am aware. Do we mean the word "free" to mark the difference between contributory and non-contributory benefits? If so, then what does this have to do with the NHS?

Some particular NHS services are subject to charges, from which some are exempt, including beneficiaries of some benefits. Is this what we are trying to get to?

Some providers of NHS services breach the terms of the NHS Constitution by using revenue sharing telephone numbers. Are we arguing about whether this is perhaps acceptable, because the principle of "free at the point of need" does not apply at all?

There are some who argue that it is unacceptable to incur any incidental cost whatsoever in accessing NHS services, e.g. the cost of car parking or the cost of a normal telephone call. Is it being argued that for the NHS to be free, all incidental expenses incurred should be reimbursed, or that all the necessary services, e.g. transport and telephones, should be provided at the expense of the NHS?

derrick wrote on Feb 10^th, 2010 at 2:04pm:

Free = at no cost!

And, in the context of this discussion and by local convention and the general public perception, this is correct - the calls are free, that is there is no cost for making an unlimited number of local calls. We can spend hours debating the ins and outs of the word 'free', and, as is often pointed out, little, if anything is truly free'. In the context of this thread, however, I will maintain that the calling plan to which I subscribe provides free local calls. It is a fair and accurate description.

I have absolutely no choice in the local calling provision. My plan, Complete Choice Enhanced, combines basic phone service with eleven calling features (possibly known as star services in the UK) shown below. The AT&T basic phone service is the lowest available tariff ^(*) to a residential subscriber here. I cannot remove local calling. I cannot unbundle or exclude a potential 44640 local monthly minutes from the plan. The free local calls are, if you like, a side-effect of having basic phone service. I have not requested any service other than for AT&T to provide me with a line (plus my selected calling features), and that is exactly what I get for my money - a line (plus my selected calling features).

Looking at my latest bill, there is no mention of local calling anywhere on the invoice, just an indication that I have a residential line (plus some of my selected calling features; no idea why all are not shown) on the $26 plan indicated:

Monthly Service - Jan 11 thru Feb 10

1. Complete Choice® Enhanced 26.00 ^(**)

Residential Line
Three-Way Calling
Call Waiting ID
Call Return
Caller-ID Name-Number Delivery
Anonymous Call Blocking

Nowhere on the bill is there any indication of having made any local calls. The only calls itemized are the 119 minutes of LD calls that I made, for which I pay $4 per month for unlimited (note, not free as I have a choice) nationwide calls. I could make 44600 minutes of calls to Los Angeles should I so desire, at a cost of $4 - not free.

People may require a line for various reasons - emergency 911 use, alarm signalling, a safety net in case of power outage (common here), an incoming service only, and for various other requirements. Each line has the ability to makle an unlimited number of free local calls.



* Some, perhaps most, perhaps all, states offer lower cost plans for low-income families. This may be determined on a county basis, I really don't know. An example in California provides an incoming line only for a couple of dollars per month and an incoming line with sixty minutes of local calls for around three dollars per month. I have no idea what is available in FL and whether it is determined by the county or by the state.

** Complete Choice Enhanced combines the $13.68 basic phone service with eleven other calling features: Caller ID, Call Waiting ID  OR Call Waiting, Call Return, Three-Way Calling, Call Forwarding OR Remote Access to Call Forwarding, Call Blocking, Anonymous Call Blocking, Speed Dial 8, Call Trace, RingMaster®1 OR RingMaster®2, Selective Call Forwarding

Dave wrote on Feb 10^th, 2010 at 2:21pm:

derrick wrote on Feb 10th, 2010 at 2:04pm: Nothing to do with the Country, you pay a monthly premium that INCLUDES some phone calls,(not "free"), if you don't pay the monthly premium then you don't get the calls! How are they "free" if you need to if you need to part with cash to receive them? Free = at no cost! I agree with idb here. In the UK, inclusive calls are an add-on, as it were, to the basic telephone service. He is saying that in the US they (local calls) are part of the provision of a telephone line. derrick, with your logic, that means that "buy one get one free" offers are not such. Is it acceptable for a car dealership to promote "free insurance" when one purchases one of their motors? Of course nothing is "free" per se, but where do we draw the line?

Yes BOGOFF's are not free, you need to part with cash to get the "free" product, so not "free", the term should be something like " buy one and we will give another one", or why don't they make it simple and just halve the price!

Same with your car insurance comment, if you don't part with money for the car you will not get "free" insurance, so it is INCLUSIVE, with conditions, i.e. buy the car or you don't get it!

ibd, sorry we will have to agree to disagree, with my parting,(repeated), shot, if you don't part with cash you will receive NO calls, so as you are paying money out your calls are INCLUSIVE!

It seems that after "Big Brother" and "Room 101" it is time for "Newspeak" to come from the pages of 1984 into common language.

The improper application of "political correctness" causes some to urge for words that have the potential for misuse or for causing offence to be removed from the language.

Perhaps those who I am implicitly accusing of supporting Winston Smith's work at Minitrue would like to offer a meaningful definition of the word "free", with examples of where it could be used properly.

(Wikipedia contains articles that may be of use to those who are unfamiliar with the book and wish to fully understand my comments)

I have just replied to a letter addressed to me for a quote for home insurance, I took up the offer as it offered a free road atlas for doing the quote, the phone number was freephone, (0800), the quote took about 5 minutes and the quote and atlas will  be posted out to me with no obligation to take out the policy, so on the assumption that I don't,(which I won't as the quote was quite high), I will receive a road atlas for absolutely no cost to me, i.e. free.

Now I have received similar offers over the years and in most cases received the free gift, (as countless other people throughout the country will have also), that is the definition of "free", at no cost, unless you want to count the 5 minutes of time I spent on the phone, but that would be taking pedantic a bit to far!

derrick wrote on Feb 11^th, 2010 at 2:32pm:

I have just replied to a letter addressed to me for a quote for home insurance, I took up the offer as it offered a free road atlas for doing the quote, the phone number was freephone, (0800), the quote took about 5 minutes and the quote and atlas will  be posted out to me with no obligation to take out the policy, so on the assumption that I don't,(which I won't as the quote was quite high), I will receive a road atlas for absolutely no cost to me, i.e. free. Now I have received similar offers over the years and in most cases received the free gift, (as countless other people throughout the country will have also), that is the definition of "free", at no cost, unless you want to count the 5 minutes of time I spent on the phone, but that would be taking pedantic a bit to far!

That, derrick, if I may so, is a perfect description of what, you, I & others have been trying to put accross. Thanks

sherbert wrote on Feb 11^th, 2010 at 4:29pm:

derrick wrote on Feb 11th, 2010 at 2:32pm: absolutely no cost to me, i.e. free. That, derrick, if I may so, is a perfect description of what, you, I & others have been trying to put accross. Thanks

The point is well made. I regret that I cannot myself accept so narrow a definition, as I value use of the word "free" in contexts where it is not possible to take advantage of the situation by ensuring that the costs are exclusively carried by others, especially when that is not the intention behind the offer. I also think it acceptable for the word "free" to be used in a relative, rather than an absolute, sense.

The example given illustrates two aspects of what I see as being the ugly side of consumerism, i.e. looking at issues only from a very narrow personal financial perspective and the fact that those who take out policies with the insurance company in question have to pay for atlases being provided to those who do not. This is no great issue however, because the cost of providing the quote by telephone is probably greater than the cost of the atlas, so the "free" quote could be said to be more important that the "free" atlas. The opportunity to watch an entertaining TV advertisement could be said to be an even more valuable "free" gift, given that one does not purchase the product or service being promoted.

Sorry guys, I can see what you on about, but you cannot steal the word "free" to only fit your agenda. That would be "newspeak". I am still waiting to hear something of how a "free" NHS would work under these terms.

derrick wrote on Feb 11^th, 2010 at 10:41am:

ibd, sorry we will have to agree to disagree, with my parting,(repeated), shot, if you don't part with cash you will receive NO calls, so as you are paying money out your calls are INCLUSIVE!

If I don't part with the cash, I lose the ability to make free local calls. No more, no less. To me, it's a very straightforward concept.

idb wrote on Feb 11^th, 2010 at 11:39pm:

derrick wrote on Feb 11th, 2010 at 10:41am: ibd, sorry we will have to agree to disagree, with my parting,(repeated), shot, if you don't part with cash you will receive NO calls, so as you are paying money out your calls are INCLUSIVE! If I don't part with the cash, I lose the ability to make free(INCLUSIVE) local calls. No more, no less. To me, it's a very straightforward concept.

You have, on your own admission, accepted what I have said; "If I don't part with cash", by "parting with  cash" you make any product associated with that cash INCLUSIVE, and if you don't "part with cash" you don't receive ANY calls, so they are not "free".

derrick wrote on Feb 13^th, 2010 at 9:26am:

idb wrote on Feb 11th, 2010 at 11:39pm: derrick wrote on Feb 11th, 2010 at 10:41am: ibd, sorry we will have to agree to disagree, with my parting,(repeated), shot, if you don't part with cash you will receive NO calls, so as you are paying money out your calls are INCLUSIVE! If I don't part with the cash, I lose the ability to make free(INCLUSIVE) local calls. No more, no less. To me, it's a very straightforward concept. You have, on your own admission, accepted what I have said; "If I don't part with cash", by "parting with  cash" you make any product associated with that cash INCLUSIVE, and if you don't "part with cash" you don't receive ANY calls, so they are not "free".

Your argument is nonsensical and flawed and your definition too narrow. There is little benefit in continuing this aspect of the discussion. All I would suggest is that you may wish to carry out a little research into local calling provision here and the legal obligations and heavy regulation that define such provision across fifty separate entities. It is a very different beast to what you may be familiar with.

idb wrote on Feb 13^th, 2010 at 11:34am:

derrick wrote on Feb 13th, 2010 at 9:26am: idb wrote on Feb 11th, 2010 at 11:39pm: derrick wrote on Feb 11th, 2010 at 10:41am: ibd, sorry we will have to agree to disagree, with my parting,(repeated), shot, if you don't part with cash you will receive NO calls, so as you are paying money out your calls are INCLUSIVE! If I don't part with the cash, I lose the ability to make free(INCLUSIVE) local calls. No more, no less. To me, it's a very straightforward concept. You have, on your own admission, accepted what I have said; "If I don't part with cash", by "parting with  cash" you make any product associated with that cash INCLUSIVE, and if you don't "part with cash" you don't receive ANY calls, so they are not "free". Your argument is nonsensical and flawed and your definition too narrow. There is little benefit in continuing this aspect of the discussion. All I would suggest is that you may wish to carry out a little research into local calling provision here and the legal obligations and heavy regulation that define such provision across fifty separate entities. It is a very different beast to what you may be familiar with.

Only because you do not want to believe what is in front of your eyes, if you pay pay out for something, anything that comes with it cannot be free as it will be INCLUDED, I have given a definition and an example but you continue to live in your own little air bubble. A definition is a definition whether narrow or not, (not that I agree my definition is).

Dictionary definition of Free;- " to exempt, to absolve from some charge".  You are being charged!
Dictionary definition of Inclusive;- "comprehended in the number or sum", (meaning you calls are INCLUSIVE via the monthly charge!).

Or maybe the word INCLUSIVELY may sit better with you, (although it is basically the same); "so as to include something mentioned"!  i.e. your "free" calls.

BT  state as an example that if you pay £4.99 per month you can have unlimited 24/7 calls to certain numbers,( I am pretty sure they used to state "free", but looks like they changed the wording),they are not free they are being paid for at the charge of £4.99 a month, therefore inclusive, or as BT state "unlimited", which is still not true as you are limited to call durations of 60 minutes on calls to 01/02/03 numbers and a fair use policy on calls to 0845/0870 numbers, go over those limits and you will be charged.

Agree with you Derrick on what you have been saying about all this. [smiley=thumbsup.gif]

However BT are advertising for their 'any time' calling plan say the first three months is free. That as you say can not be correct  [smiley=thumbdown.gif]

http://www.productsandservices.bt.com/consumerProducts/displayCategory.do?categoryId=CON-HOME-PHN-R1

Can we try to take this argument forward onto a matter of particular relevance.

I oppose use of revenue sharing telephone numbers by providers of NHS services, because the NHS is “free at the point of need”.

I regard the expense incurred in paying the price of a normal telephone call to access NHS services as acceptable, but object to the surcharge which subsides the costs of the NHS provider when a revenue sharing 084 number is used.

Can I take it that the “absolutists” would not regard the NHS as being “free” when accessed by telephone unless the NHS paid for the installation and rental of the telephone line as well as all calls. I have encountered this very argument from those who defend use of “Surgery Line”, saying that you have to pay anyway, why not pay a little more for a better service. Do the obsolutists believe that it is simply a question of whether the extra charge provides good value for money, because one is paying out money anyway? If so, then 0844 numbers are absolutely fine so long as there are sufficient callers on the BT Weekends call plan. The same would apply to 0845 numbers for callers on any BT call plan, or with other providers who do not surcharge 0845 calls.

The same argument applies to car parking. Should a hospital meet all incidental expenses incurred in attending an outpatient appointment, e.g. all those associated with travel?

I see this issue as fundamental to the basis of our principled objection to use of revenue sharing numbers in the provision of public services. I am reluctant to see it diluted or destroyed

---

Telephone service is never absolutely free (except perhaps 0800 and 999 calls from a public payphone). There are however some calls that are exempted from "some charge". In common with some of us engaged in this debate, the quoted dictionary does not accept that the word "free" can only be used in an absolute sense. If some calls are exempt from a call charge, whilst others are not, they may be said to be "free" (of a call charge).

If the word were to be used to imply that one may avoid the rental and call plan charge if making only "free" calls, then such a statement would be misleading. In the absence of explcit qualifcation, every word has to be taken in context.

sherbert wrote on Feb 13^th, 2010 at 1:23pm:

Agree with you Derrick on what you have been saying about all this. [smiley=thumbsup.gif] However BT are advertising for their 'any time' calling plan say the first three months is free. That as you say can not be correct  [smiley=thumbdown.gif] http://www.productsandservices.bt.com/consumerProducts/displayCategory.do?categoryId=CON-HOME-PHN-R1

Yes, I was going to mention that about BT, but hey it is getting a bit to complicated for idb, so I left it, however you are correct, it it not free, it is inclusive of the extra £4.99 a month and also ties you in for a minimum 12 month contract, (totaling £44.91 for the year, so much for "free", it is just making it the equivalent of £3.74 per month), but hey, in idb's world it will be "free"

derrick wrote on Feb 13^th, 2010 at 3:16pm:

... it is getting a bit to complicated ...

I would suggest that the difficulty with complications should be felt by those who quote dictionary definitions with which they disagree.

Perhaps we need to establish whether or not we truly share campaign objectives.

For those who would disagree with the general statement that the NHS is “free at the point of need” - can there be any problem with the principle of using revenue sharing telephone numbers in the delivery of NHS services?

I have encountered many people who cannot understand the problem. This is especially true now that for some BT customers all 084 numbers are invariably cheaper to call during weekday daytime than 01/02/03 numbers. I continue to oppose them on the point of principle. I would welcome the opportunity to engage in debate on this matter in this forum as I suspect that some members do not share my view.

derrick wrote on Feb 13^th, 2010 at 1:00pm:

Only because you do not want to believe what is in front of your eyes, if you pay pay out for something, anything that comes with it cannot be free as it will be INCLUDED, I have given a definition and an example but you continue to live in your own little air bubble. A definition is a definition whether narrow or not, (not that I agree my definition is). Dictionary definition of Free;- " to exempt, to absolve from some charge".  You are being charged! Dictionary definition of Inclusive;- "comprehended in the number or sum", (meaning you calls are INCLUSIVE via the monthly charge!). Or maybe the word INCLUSIVELY may sit better with you, (although it is basically the same); "so as to include something mentioned"!  i.e. your "free" calls. BT  state as an example that if you pay £4.99 per month you can have unlimited 24/7 calls to certain numbers,( I am pretty sure they used to state "free", but looks like they changed the wording),they are not free they are being paid for at the charge of £4.99 a month, therefore inclusive, or as BT state "unlimited", which is still not true as you are limited to call durations of 60 minutes on calls to 01/02/03 numbers and a fair use policy on calls to 0845/0870 numbers, go over those limits and you will be charged.

Given such a narrow-minded perspective and an apparent failure to understand the subject matter, despite a suggestion that a little research is carried out, any further debate around this subject is meaningless. Why you feel the need to involve BT plans in this discussion is neither here nor there. If you had any understanding of the market on this side of the ocean, and the significant differences in what is provided by regulation, then such ignorant comments could be avoided.

It is perhaps natural that our correspondent from the country that was founded with a written constitution that sought to set out a series of liberties (freedoms) would take offence at those who do not demonstrate an appropriate appreciation of the importance of words attempting to either limit their meaning, or proscribe their use.

This is however an open discussion forum in which all are free to express their ideas. I am very keen to hear how the very particular idea of what is "free" that is being advanced here can be applied to the issues on which some of us campaign as a matter of principle.

I believe that I have a sense of what is meant, but I am anxious not to leap to an over-hasty conclusion about a poor degree of unanimity amongst contributors to the forum on a (perhaps the) key issue that separates the campaigning forum from the money-saving database of alternative numbers and suggestions about cheap call providers. The NHS provides a most useful, and I hope relevant, vehicle for identifying where people stand on the issue of what is "free" in a financial sense. From debates that I have encountered (this one for example, I find this issue to be highly relevant to matters on which "we" are campaigning.

The NHS is a uniquely British concept that has developed and continues to work in a very British way. Network telephony was an American invention which grew up in use to suit the very particular federal structure of the US. The British adaptation of it developed under a state monopoly with characteristics fitted to that and also the very different structure of the UK. From what little I know (and without getting into the matter of a possible private monopoly), I am well aware that the US Health and Telephone systems always have been, and always will be, very different from their equivalents here. We are very different, and there are certainly many differences in our respective concepts of freedom.

Please let the discussion of the issues continue.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Feb 14^th, 2010 at 1:23am:

It is perhaps natural that our correspondent from the country that was founded with a written constitution that sought to set out a series of liberties (freedoms) would take offence at those who do not demonstrate an appropriate appreciation of the importance of words attempting to either limit their meaning, or proscribe their use.

Little offence, or even offense, was taken, even if this was implied by a previous contribution. Rather, a frustration of a lack of progress with the discussion, now consumed with a particular definition of a word rather than examining the specific context, qualification and historical perspectives that are relevant. The paragraph below is very appropriate.


SilentCallsVictim wrote on Feb 14^th, 2010 at 1:23am:

The NHS is a uniquely British concept that has developed and continues to work in a very British way. Network telephony was an American invention which grew up in use to suit the very particular federal structure of the US. The British adaptation of it developed under a state monopoly with characteristics fitted to that and also the very different structure of the UK. From what little I know (and without getting into the matter of a possible private monopoly), I am well aware that the US Health and Telephone systems always have been, and always will be, very different from their equivalents here. We are very different, and there are certainly many differences in our respective concepts of freedom.

sherbert wrote on Feb 9^th, 2010 at 5:29pm:

Name us a package that gives you a free call..... There isn't one. .....Inclusive calls maybe but never a free call. There is a difference.

Another package that provides free, and totally free, calls, on a national basis, is Google Voice. While one needs a US phone number to activate and use the service, that number does not need to be one owned by yourself - an office phone will suffice. Google Voice allows free calls, without the need to part with any cash whatsoever, throughout the United States. Now, can Gooogle Voice be accommodated into your understanding of the word 'free'?

I think to draw this argument to a close, perhaps we should agree that the word 'free' has a different meaning in America than it does in England? ;D

Perhaps besides spelling words differently to us, they may also have different interpretations. ;)

sherbert wrote on Feb 15^th, 2010 at 8:18am:

... perhaps we should agree that the word 'free' has a different meaning in America than it does in England?

Indeed it does, I am not however sure that this was ever the primary point of contention.

It is disappointing for the discussion to be terminated with many stated views remaining unexplained and questions unanswered. Americans, in general, will always have difficulty in understanding how the NHS is "free at the point of need" and therefore why those who provide NHS services should cease use of revenue sharing numbers. My concern is for those in England who do not "get it", perhaps because they share the more American view of the concept of personal liberty which is starting to be adopted quite widely here in the UK. The consequent acceptance of the use of revenue sharing telephone numbers in the NHS and elsewhere, balanced by nothing more than the right of people to refuse to call them or seek ways around having to do so, is what I personally campaign against. I regret the fact that I am denied the opportunity to engage in discussion with those who would seem to support the freedom to use revenue sharing numbers in inappropriate circumstances.

It is however fair to say that those who express opinions in this forum are free not to participate in further discussion, if they so wish.

sherbert wrote on Feb 15^th, 2010 at 8:18am:

I think to draw this argument to a close, perhaps we should agree that the word 'free' has a different meaning in America than it does in England? ;D Perhaps besides spelling words differently to us, they may also have different interpretations. ;)

I think you will find that consumerism is equally prevalent within the two nations, and free simply means free.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Feb 15^th, 2010 at 10:19am:

sherbert wrote on Feb 15th, 2010 at 8:18am: ... perhaps we should agree that the word 'free' has a different meaning in America than it does in England? Indeed it does, I am not however sure that this was ever the primary point of contention. It is disappointing for the discussion to be terminated with many stated views remaining unexplained and questions unanswered. Americans, in general, will always have difficulty in understanding how the NHS is "free at the point of need" and therefore why those who provide NHS services should cease use of revenue sharing numbers.

I'm not so sure that your assertion about American understanding the free nature of the NHS is correct. As you may be aware, there is an ongoing debate over here about health care reform. Comparison is often made with European health care systems in general and the UK system specifically. They are often referred to as 'free' systems or, more pejoratively, as socialized medicine. I believe that if you asked a random selection of Americans, bearing in mind that many do not know the name of their own Vice-President, or that Canada is the nation to the north, or that the Eiffel Tower is in Paris, a large number would say that their perception of the UK NHS is that it provides free health care to anyone who wants it. When asked, I tell my American friends that the NHS does indeed provide free health care to all and is publicly-funded.

Personally, I find it depressing that such a model, or indeed a similar one, does not appear to be wanted over here. There is a large proportion of the population campaigning against something that would it be in their self-interest to actually have. The number of uninsured and under-insured here is staggering.

idb wrote on Feb 15^th, 2010 at 12:45pm:

When asked, I tell my American friends that the NHS does indeed provide free health care to all and is publicly-funded.

I have said elsewhere and SCV disagrees with me (as usual) the NHS is not free. It is funded by National Insurance contributions and also by those folk who have to pay for their prescriptions and other taxes, (like car park charges at hsopitals.) If it was free we would not be paying any of those taxes.

Perhaps the only people who do get it totally free are those who enter the United Kingdom and use our facilities without ever having paid any contributions.

sherbert wrote on Feb 15^th, 2010 at 1:08pm:

Perhaps the only people who do get it totally free are those who enter the United Kingdom and use our facilities without ever having paid any contributions.

Which, under some circumstances, they have a right to do and it is correct and proper that this should be the case.

I was hoping to engage in discussion with those who oppose the NHS, rather than in analysis of the differences found on either side of the Atlantic, however I think that the two may come together.

Contrary to what adoption of the American concept of freedom is doing to views of the NHS, one has to accept that any publicly-funded system must severely limit the opportunity for "choice". This makes it unable to be adopted as a serious principle, although the availability of some modest degree of selection between readily available alternatives is obviously worthwhile. One can never have the freedom in spending somebody else's money that one has in spending one's own. This is where the libertarian and the socialist clash over the concept of freedom. The former demands freedom to spend as one wishes, the latter seeks freedom from treatable illness for all.

Foundation of the NHS represented victory in principle for the latter view. Conflict has continued to rage, with the present emphasis on quality and choice suggesting that the tide may be turning, even though there is a reluctance to accept that the principles no longer hold true. Introduction of market principles as a way of improving efficiency and effectiveness has a certain logic, however one has to fear that the downsides introduced by the overheads and distortions of purpose that flow from a market may prevent any net gain.

Obama is repeating what Clinton tried to achieve but failed - a modest degree of intervention in a liberal market for health services. I do not believe that the US will ever be ready to adopt the socialist principle that the UK has (perhaps most oddly) accepted through a consensus that remains in place. I fear that dilution of the principle in the UK, to satisfy those who find anything associated with the "s" word unacceptable (notably those in New Labour), may ultimately lead to its saturation.

It is only those who hold firmly to the principle of "free at the point of need" who could object to the imposition of a relatively modest charge to fund additional telephone system features through use of a revenue sharing telephone number. I cannot think when this could ever become an issue in the US.

sherbert wrote on Feb 15^th, 2010 at 1:08pm:

Perhaps the only people who do get it totally free are those who enter the United Kingdom and use our facilities without ever having paid any contributions.

As those who have not (previously) paid taxes would have to pay the premium associated with calling a revenue sharing telephone number, is this an argument that use of revenue sharing telephone numbers to subsidise the cost of providing NHS treatment represents a fairer way of paying for if?

Should high earners, who pay more tax, those who have retired from employment, having paid NI throughout their working life and those who travel to hospital by car, and therefore take advantage of car parking facilities, get proportionately more NHS treatment than the poor, the young, life-long carers who are exempt from NI contributions and those who travel to hospital by public transport or ambulance?

We note that Great Ormond Street Hospital, which treats those who pay little or no tax, seeks to remove itself from the NHS by spending money on TV advertising to attract donations. (In fact it gets around NHS regulations by operating through a parallel organisation called the GOSH Children's Charity.)

How, after accepting the glaringly obvious point that nothing is absolutely free of any cost, can I fail to continually disagree with this nonsense?

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Feb 15^th, 2010 at 2:15pm:

How, after accepting the glaringly obvious point that nothing is absolutely free of any cost, can I fail to continually disagree with this nonsense?

Perhaps, if as you see it everyone else's opinions as nonsnese, not only here but also on other threads, we had all better leave this forum as there seems little point in anyone having any opinions, as in your opinion, you are the only one that is right.

sherbert wrote on Feb 15^th, 2010 at 2:53pm:

Perhaps, if as you see it everyone else's opinions as nonsnese, not only here but also on other threads, we had all better leave this forum as there seems little point in anyone having any opinions, as in your opinion, you are the only one that is right.

sherbert, can you answer two questions that have been in my mind for the last few days:

Are you suggesting that it is incorrect to use "free" in respect of NHS services as the stand at the moment?

What you point out is that the NHS is not "free", and I accept that it is not "free" as in without any cost. This leads me to ask, are you suggesting that it should be free to all without paying anything (whether through direct charges such as payment for parking or a charge for having an operation or through taxation) ?

Dave wrote on Feb 15^th, 2010 at 3:00pm:

sherbert wrote on Feb 15th, 2010 at 2:53pm: Perhaps, if as you see it everyone else's opinions as nonsnese, not only here but also on other threads, we had all better leave this forum as there seems little point in anyone having any opinions, as in your opinion, you are the only one that is right. sherbert, can you answer two questions that have been in my mind for the last few days: Are you suggesting that it is incorrect to use "free" in respect of NHS services as the stand at the moment? What you point out is that the NHS is not "free", and I accept that it is not "free" as in without any cost. This leads me to ask, are you suggesting that it should be free to all without paying anything (whether through direct charges such as payment for parking or a charge for having an operation or through taxation) ?

In answer to your first question Dave.......Yes

In answer to your second question, I have made no comment on that, all what I am saying is that SCV's is wrong in saying that the NHS is free.

sherbert wrote on Feb 15^th, 2010 at 3:30pm:

In answer to your first question Dave.......Yes In answer to your second question, I have made no comment on that, all what I am saying is that SCV's is wrong in saying that the NHS is free.

Whilst of course you are free to hold any opinion that you wish, it appears that you maintain one specific definition as absolute. Despite qualification being provided, despite context being used, despite commonly accepted norms, despite reasoned argument, you maintain a stubborn and narrow-minded belief that if as much as one cent or one penny changes hands in whatever capacity, then one cannot describe something as free. I find this attitude to be ridiculous an d shallow.

sherbert wrote on Feb 15^th, 2010 at 2:53pm:

Perhaps, if as you see it everyone else's opinions as nonsnese, not only here but also on other threads, we had all better leave this forum as there seems little point in anyone having any opinions, as in your opinion, you are the only one that is right.

Each is entitled to believe in the ideas that they put forward. I hope to benefit from ideas put forward by others. None of us gain anything from simple statements of agreement or disagreement.

The suggestions that I described as nonsense were perhaps a reasoned conclusion from the very limited comments made in a previous posting - or perhaps not. If contributors wish to withdraw from discussion then we will never know for certain.

If brief comments are not properly expanded to address the point under discussion, then they may be open to misinterpretation. Have I understood the point correctly? - I understood an implied suggestion that the benefit derived from the NHS should be proportionate to the contribution made, but I may be totally wrong. If I am correct then this would seem to be an argument in favour of use of revenue sharing telephone numbers.

If I am wrong, then the relevance of the level of contributions to the funding of all public expenditure needs to be explained. The issue of whether receipt of NHS services was a contributory or non-contributory benefit was raised earlier in the discussion, but never concluded. I hope we all understand that hypothecation of taxation is a suggestion that is still being pressed by some against the strong will of the Treasury, even though some hint at it by the use of misleading phrases such as "death tax".

sherbert wrote on Feb 15^th, 2010 at 3:30pm:

In answer to your second question, I have made no comment on that, all what I am saying is that SCV's is wrong in saying that the NHS is free.

(I read this after drafting my previous posting.)

I do not want to move from debating the meaning of "free" to debating the meaning of "is", but there may be some deliberate confusion being created around use of this word.

We may each hold all manner of opinions, when we choose to "say" them in a public discussion forum other readers would perhaps generally appreciate, and perhaps have a right to expect, that they be accompanied by some comment or explanation. If we are here for discussion, then let us discuss.

I repeat - if the NHS is not (in some sense) "free" then how may one oppose use of revenue sharing telephone numbers in the delivery of NHS services?