Slightly new to these numbers, but just had a new one to me. What are 0300 numbers all about. More expensive, the same, or what exactly.

Tks

03 numbers are (or should be!) charged at the same price as geographic numbers (01/02). If you have inclusive minutes, they should also include calls to 03 numbers.

03 numbers are "UK wide" - not tied down to one geographic area - and provide the same functionality as 08 numbers.

jgxenite wrote on Apr 21^st, 2010 at 12:36pm:

03 numbers are (or should be!) charged at the same price as geographic numbers (01/02). If you have inclusive minutes, they should also include calls to 03 numbers.

Given the poor level of compliance with other Ofcom regulations the caution is well justified.

After some blips in the early days, there are now no known cases where the regulation of charges for calling 03 numbers is being breached. If any cases come to light, publication in this forum would be expected to lead to correction.

Just to add a little extra detail. 0300 and 0303 are reserved for public bodies and not-for-profit organisations, 034x and 037x for guaranteed migration from the equivalent 084x and 087x numbers, 0330 is the only other range in use at present. The same pricing regulations apply to all 03 numbers.

03 numbers (including 0300 ones) are the solution we've been looking for. For the first time, organisations can have a non-geographic number (that's a number not related to a place, eg 0121 is Birmingham) and not charge a premium for calls. The Hall of Fame lists known 03 numbers.  ;)

Dave, now we just need to see the likes of

NHS Direct and National Rail Enquiries having them.... that would be a major start  ;)

CJT-80 wrote on Apr 21^st, 2010 at 8:22pm:

Dave, now we just need to see the likes of NHS Direct and National Rail Enquiries having them.... that would be a major start  ;)

NHS Direct is now using 03 numbers for new national services that are not on 0800.

The battle over 0345 4647 will be resumed shortly, probably when the new government abandons the ill-considered 111 idea.

NHS Direct and indeed NRE need to pull their fingers out... No longer ANY reason to keep either number...

NHS24's 0845 service is a disgrace..Time it was changed to 03 something.. Lobby your parliamentary candidates...

JoeCurry wrote on Apr 24^th, 2010 at 12:08pm:

NHS24's 0845 service is a disgrace..Time it was changed to 03 something.. Lobby your parliamentary candidates...

NHS24 still happily lies "Calls to us are charged at local rate":

http://www.nhs24.com/content/default.asp?page=s4

Dave wrote on Apr 24^th, 2010 at 12:40pm:

JoeCurry wrote on Apr 24th, 2010 at 12:08pm: NHS24's 0845 service is a disgrace..Time it was changed to 03 something.. Lobby your parliamentary candidates... NHS24 still happily lies "Calls to us are charged at local rate": http://www.nhs24.com/content/default.asp?page=s4

Dave regarding that service, perhaps users of NHS 24, might want to voice their opinions regarding the "cost" of calling NHS24 via here... Note the e-mail address provided at the bottom...

perhaps worth including the page where it lists "local rate" ...

just my 2p worth.

:)

CJT-80 wrote on Apr 24^th, 2010 at 1:02pm:

just my 2p worth.

Better not to mention 2p.
That is the rate per minute which some BT callers pay to call 0845 numbers during the daytime. Less than the 5.9p per minute charged for calls to local or national geographic, or 0300, numbers.

This perverse discount for some callers does not make 0845 acceptable, nor does it make the false statements on the NHS24 website correct. We must however be aware of it when addressing this issue.

One may assume that anyone responding to a complaint about NHS24 may consult the BT price list, where they will find this figure for the cost of non-inclusive calls to 0845 numbers given as "local NTS". (see page 39)

sorry for the "2p" comment....

frankly IF calling an 01/02/03 number IS charged at the SAME rate, then it makes complete sense to call one of those numbers from a Mobile or Landline with "inclusive" minutes.  What has NEVER made sense is the insistant use of the words.. "local rate" as I believe has been pointed out here several times is the following:

local rates have not existed since 2004.. or simmilar words to that effect.

my argument therefore is ... can calling an 0845 number "local rate" be considered as a lie?

Virgin Media treat 0845/0844 numbers at 'premium' rate. 10p connection and 10p per minute thereafter.

Regarding 0844 BT is 5p per minute with a 9.9p connection charge, so the 1st minute alone is almost 15p...

Virgin appear to be worse!

Where may I ask did you get that figure from?

CJT-80 wrote on Apr 24^th, 2010 at 1:41pm:

... my argument therefore is ... can calling an 0845 number "local rate" be considered as a lie?

It is unquestionably misleading as the term "local rate" has no true meaning any more. It implies "cheap" when, apart from a few perverse exceptions, calls to 0845 numbers are in fact more expensive than calls to local numbers. That is quite enough for me, without getting into a semantic and moral discussion about use of the word "lie".

All public sector organisations must come to understand that (under the present regime, which will be reviewed shortly) the benefit of the subsidy derived from use of 0845 numbers is essentially improper, unless they can justify imposing a service fee on telephone callers and declare and explain it properly. The regulations which prevent the call cost being greater than for normal calls from BT only apply to BT. BT no longer holds a sufficient share of the market (it has 0% of the mobile market) for its rates to force others to copy, so that they may be considered as the norm. Unless a service delivered by telephone is only offered to the minority of citizens who call from BT lines, then use of a 0845 number (without proper explanation) must be regarded as a rip-off for the majority of callers.

Private businesses, which (unlike most public sector bodies) are implicitly entitled to charge users fees for their services, are engaged in a deception unless they properly declare the charges that are incurred for calling their revenue sharing numbers and the reason for the surcharge.

The simple fact is that most public bodies (especially NHS bodies) could never be expected to provide a proper explanation of the cost of calling revenue sharing numbers, because to do so would involve admitting impropriety. Whilst it is deemed acceptable to quote BT rates with the comment that others may vary, I cannot see any great point in arguing over call cost descriptions (even though those given are false and misleading). One could accurately say that calling a 0845 number is cheaper than, or the same as, a local number from BT.

CJT-80 wrote on Apr 24^th, 2010 at 2:40pm:

Regarding 0844 BT is 5p per minute with a 9.9p connection charge

If that is correct then it is cheaper to phone a 0844 number than a 0845 or a  0870 number because Daytime call charges to all UK landlines with BT are

   * Call set-up fees are 9.9p.
   * Daytime call charges to all UK landlines, 0845 numbers and 0870  5.9p a minute.

CJT-80 wrote on Apr 24^th, 2010 at 2:40pm:

Regarding 0844 BT is 5p per minute with a 9.9p connection charge, so the 1st minute alone is almost 15p... Virgin appear to be worse! Where may I ask did you get that figure from?

http://allyours.virginmedia.com/pdf/003817-Residential-Cable-Apr-V8_100311.pdf

Looks like I'm a bit out of date..connection fee is now 11p!

sherbert wrote on Apr 24^th, 2010 at 3:13pm:

CJT-80 wrote on Apr 24th, 2010 at 2:40pm: Regarding 0844 BT is 5p per minute with a 9.9p connection charge If that is correct then it is cheaper to phone a 0844 number than a 0845 or a  0870 number because Daytime call charges to all UK landlines with BT are    * Call set-up fees are 9.9p.    * Daytime call charges to all UK landlines, 0845 numbers and 0870  5.9p a minute.

Sherbert, I can provide you both the associated links for the number in question, but clarify for you I needed to call 0844 277 2000, according to BT Price List here according to page 10 it's a g6 call, and according to page 38 they are charged at 5.00 at ALL times. Also according to page 1

"Call set up fees payable in addition to any pence per minute rates apply to most calls as follows:
Light User Scheme, BT Basic and BT Standard Rate Customers - 2.553 pence (ex VAT), 3.00 pence (Inc VAT)
All other Residential Customers - 8.425 pence (exc VAT), 9.90 pence inc VAT) "

You can already do the maths on that one.... 1st min costs almost 15p and then 5p per min there after... so in MY case it's cheaper to call 0845 or 01/02/03.

>:(

JoeCurry wrote on Apr 24^th, 2010 at 3:44pm:

CJT-80 wrote on Apr 24th, 2010 at 2:40pm: Regarding 0844 BT is 5p per minute with a 9.9p connection charge, so the 1st minute alone is almost 15p... Virgin appear to be worse! Where may I ask did you get that figure from? http://allyours.virginmedia.com/pdf/003817-Residential-Cable-Apr-V8_100311.pdf Looks like I'm a bit out of date..connection fee is now 11p!

Perhaps Virgin Media need to re name that link... replacing ALL with UP....

and I thought BT were rip off merchants!

CJT-80 wrote on Apr 24^th, 2010 at 4:30pm:

sherbert wrote on Apr 24th, 2010 at 3:13pm: CJT-80 wrote on Apr 24th, 2010 at 2:40pm: Regarding 0844 BT is 5p per minute with a 9.9p connection charge If that is correct then it is cheaper to phone a 0844 number than a 0845 or a  0870 number because Daytime call charges to all UK landlines with BT are    * Call set-up fees are 9.9p.    * Daytime call charges to all UK landlines, 0845 numbers and 0870  5.9p a minute. Sherbert, I can provide you both the associated links for the number in question, but clarify for you I needed to call 0844 277 2000, according to BT Price List here according to page 10 it's a g6 call, and according to page 38 they are charged at 5.00 at ALL times. Also according to page 1 "Call set up fees payable in addition to any pence per minute rates apply to most calls as follows: Light User Scheme, BT Basic and BT Standard Rate Customers - 2.553 pence (ex VAT), 3.00 pence (Inc VAT) All other Residential Customers - 8.425 pence (exc VAT), 9.90 pence inc VAT) " You can already do the maths on that one.... 1st min costs almost 15p and then 5p per min there after... so in MY case it's cheaper to call 0845 or 01/02/03. >:(

I think you must have the SCV syndrome because that does not make any sense to me :-/

Right... appols.. I am tired... how would you like me to best describe it?

I call 0844 277 ****,  it costs 15p for the 1st minute, then 5p per min thereafter (as confirmed in the link I provided)

Better?

Sorry but I try my hardest to get in as MUCH info as possible, and sometimes it gets muddled up...

:-/

CJT-80 wrote on Apr 24^th, 2010 at 4:32pm:

JoeCurry wrote on Apr 24th, 2010 at 3:44pm: CJT-80 wrote on Apr 24th, 2010 at 2:40pm: Regarding 0844 BT is 5p per minute with a 9.9p connection charge, so the 1st minute alone is almost 15p... Virgin appear to be worse! Where may I ask did you get that figure from? http://allyours.virginmedia.com/pdf/003817-Residential-Cable-Apr-V8_100311.pdf Looks like I'm a bit out of date..connection fee is now 11p! Perhaps Virgin Media need to re name that link... replacing ALL with UP.... and I thought BT were rip off merchants!

I have just discovered that Asda mobile are cheaper than VM for 0845 numbers..checking with them for 0844

Quote:

I have just discovered that Asda mobile are cheaper than VM for 0845 numbers..checking with them for 0844

Asda mobile charge 35p per minute for 0844 - this prefix is turning out to be a cash cow for 0844 suppliers.
Time I think for the competition commission to get involved.

Perhaps some clarity would help. This is a very complex issue. We are only looking at a small segment of what is actually paid.


sherbert wrote on Apr 24^th, 2010 at 3:13pm:

If that is correct then it is cheaper to phone a 0844 number than a 0845 or a  0870 number because Daytime call charges to all UK landlines with BT are    * Call set-up fees are 9.9p.    * Daytime call charges to all UK landlines, 0845 numbers and 0870  5.9p a minute.

I am afraid that this is not quite correct.

We are talking here about non-inclusive daytime calls from the two leading landline providers.

A 11p VirginMedia connection charge or 9.9p BT call setup fee applies.

The charges (pence per minute) are currently as follows:

	BT	Virgin Media
01/02/03	5.90	7.50
0845	2.00	10.00
0844 (G6)	5.00	9.19
0870	5.90	10.00

These represent a relatively small sample of the charges actually paid as most of those who make a significant daytime calls from these services will subscribe to the inclusive packages. In the case of BT these cover all those listed except 0844, for VirginMedia only 01/02/03 are inclusive.

BT rates for 0844 and 0845 calls are subject to regulation, i.e. they are not fully set by BT.

The inflated VirginMedia rate for calling 0870 numbers is subject to special requirements covering declaration.

JoeCurry wrote on Apr 24^th, 2010 at 6:02pm:

Time I think for the competition commission to get involved.

As mentioned many times in this Forum, although without any reaction, Ofcom will be giving attention to this issue, in the widest sense, in the very near future.

The providers and users of 0844 numbers do not profit directly when excessively high rates are charged for calls to these numbers. They only benefit to the tune of up to 5p per minute. BT is currently trying to get its hands on a share of excessive charges for calls to 0800 and 0845 numbers, although this is the subject of disputes and appeals. Depending on one's viewpoint, the excessive rates are due to profiteering or due to the need to subsidise competitive rates for other more common types of call, which are more openly subject to fierce competition.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Apr 24^th, 2010 at 6:09pm:

sherbert wrote on Apr 24th, 2010 at 3:13pm: If that is correct then it is cheaper to phone a 0844 number than a 0845 or a  0870 number because Daytime call charges to all UK landlines with BT are    * Call set-up fees are 9.9p.    * Daytime call charges to all UK landlines, 0845 numbers and 0870  5.9p a minute. I am afraid that this is not quite correct.

Why not? I got that information from the BT web site

http://bt.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/13908/c/761,2072

Why is it you are correct and they are wrong?

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

Why not? I got that information from the BT web site http://bt.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/13908/c/761,2072 Why is it you are correct and they are wrong?

SCV is correct and the link you provided is wrong. For the record, it states:

Quote:

Changes to call charges From 1 April 2010 we also made the following changes: Call set-up fees increased from 9.3p to 9.9p. Daytime call charges to all UK landlines, 0845 numbers and 0870 numbers increased from 5.4p a minute to 5.9p a minute.

Prior to 1st April, the cost of 0870 calls during the daytime with BT (where they aren't inclusive) was 5.4 pence per minute, as were geographic calls. Both these call types are now 5.9 pence per minute.

The cost of 0845 calls on non-inclusive BT Calling Plans during the daytime is 2 pence per minute, and this was the case before 1st April.

The current prices are confirmed by The BT Price List:
http://www.bt.com/pricing/current/Cust_Opts_Res_boo/3185_d0e228.htm

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

Why is it you are correct and they are wrong?

It is for BT to explain why a leaflet that is focused on promoting the Unlimited Anytime Plan overstates the cost of non-inclusive calls.

0845 should not be included in the statement which correctly states the old and new rates for "landlines" and 0870 numbers. The rate for calling 0845 numbers was not changed on 1 April 2010. I previously referred to the relevant detailed pricing document.

The quoted letter from BT referred only to landline call rates increasing, it did not mention that 0870 rates are now tied to these by BT, whereas 0845 are not.

Inclusion of both 0845 and 0870 calls in packages is such a big thing for BT's marketing, one has to suspect that someone got carried away when preparing the marketing document for the Anytime Inclusive package and slipping both in, when only one was appropriate. We must remember that BT's non-inclusive rates are steadily increasing at the consistent rate of 30% per annum. This is simply about getting people to switch to inclusive packages. If BT simply wanted the call revenue, the documents would not be so heavily littered with encouragement to avoid providing it.

I have reported the error to a BT representative, who agrees that this looks like a mistake. Others may wish to do the same. We may see a correction in due course, although this document is only really of historic interest as it covers a change that has happened, and the current information all appears to be correct.

This issue is complex and difficult enough to explain without BT making errors in stating its own prices so as to create further unnecessary confusion!

It is widely expected (indeed this error would seem to support such an expectation) that revenue sharing will be removed from 0845 and the limit on BT's prices for 0845 calls will be lifted so that they settle at the same rate as for "normal" calls. Although this will not happen for some time, BT anticipated this change by making 0845 calls inclusive in packages last year, as it also anticipated the removal of revenue sharing from 0870 by over 6 months.

---

P.S. This was drafted and first published before seeing reply #26.

Well, I am even more confused now as must be all others who are reading this thread

sherbert wrote on Apr 24^th, 2010 at 8:03pm:

Well, I am even more confused now as must be all others who are reading this thread

I am reading it and am not confused. :-/

Dave wrote on Apr 24^th, 2010 at 8:05pm:

sherbert wrote on Apr 24th, 2010 at 8:03pm: Well, I am even more confused now as must be all others who are reading this thread I am reading it and am not confused. :-/

Yea, but you are cleverer than the rest of us Dave ;)

So from what I can understand from all this, we must not take it for granted what we see on the telephone provider web sites is correct? How do we know that it is not correct after all it is they that set and publish the prices. :-/

sherbert wrote on Apr 24^th, 2010 at 8:11pm:

So from what I can understand from all this, we must not take it for granted what we see on the telephone provider web sites is correct? How do we know that it is not correct after all it is they that set and publish the prices. :-/

Two reasons:

1. The link you provide and the current page of The BT Price List do not tally; therefore one or both must be wrong (and they cannot both be right).

2. The cost of a 0845 call from a BT line on a Calling Plan was 2 pence per minute prior to 1st April and not 5.4 pence per minute as is suggested in the link.

sherbert wrote on Apr 24^th, 2010 at 8:03pm:

Well, I am even more confused now as must be all others who are reading this thread

As I have tried to say many times, if you get into the detail of these issues, which includes errors on websites to make matters even worse, telephone charges in a diverse and part regulated market is not simple stuff.

From many conversations with them, I find that those who use 084 numbers are often no less confused than the rest of us.

We share the common belief that using revenue sharing numbers is at best a bit dodgy and at worst totally improper and illegal. Some of us choose to engage in the issue in a way that requires understanding as much of the detail as they can. Others are perhaps driven to do that anyway. Equally there may be some who do not want to get involved in the messy detail at all. Being from the first of these groups, I cannot expect those from the latter to be interested in reading many of my postings - that is fair enough. I hope that I can show proper respect for those who approach these issues differently. When we actually disagree on points of detail, or of principle, we must be able to discuss these differences, if it is appropriate to do so.

I take no particular joy in presenting the confused and potentially confusing situation as I see it. I am however keen to share my understanding for the sake of those who may wish to benefit from it. I see it as vital for campaigners to have a fair knowledge of what they are up against. There is no point in saying that it always costs more to call revenue sharing numbers when that is untrue - even though it obviously should be if all was simple.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Apr 24^th, 2010 at 11:04pm:

There is no point in saying that it always costs more to call revenue sharing numbers when that is untrue .

So untrue we have this webpage to help folk avoid them:  :'(

JoeCurry wrote on Apr 25^th, 2010 at 7:22am:

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Apr 24th, 2010 at 11:04pm: There is no point in saying that it always costs more to call revenue sharing numbers when that is untrue . So untrue we have this webpage to help folk avoid them:  :'(

The database of alternatives is here because the statement that "it costs more than 01/02/03" is always true for 0871/2/3, almost always true for 0844/3, commonly true for 0870, generally true for 0845 and often true for 080.

The list of exceptions is different for each type. In the case of 0844/3, 0845 and 080 calls, these sometimes cost less than 01/02/03. In the case of 0870, 0845 and 080 calls, these sometimes cost the same as 01/02/03. That is sadly the difficult and potentially confusing truth of the situation in which we choose to campaign.

The forum is here in part for those who are campaigning against inappropriate and improper use of any of these numbers to share information and discuss the issues. When engaged in discussion or when responding to complaints, users of these numbers may offer true facts as justification. I see it as vital to present an argument or complaint that cannot be dismissed in this way. I believe that when campaigning, one should not risk losing an argument through overstating an otherwise valid case. I also believe that it is helpful to understand any factually correct, but inadequate, justification that may be offered.

It is for each of us to judge how far the fact that it does not always cost more to call revenue sharing numbers affects our efforts and approach. I focus my efforts more strongly on 0844/3 than 0845, where both are used, but that does not in any way diminish the efforts that I put into campaigning against 0845.

I believe that the vast majority of public sector bodies should move immediately from 084 to 0300 or 034 (or perhaps geographic) numbers. I accept that this may (at least for the moment) cause some callers to pay more as well as possibly increasing the cost to taxpayers of running the service. I do not shout about these disadvantages of the move, however I do not try to pretend that they do not exist.

Some may feel that it is good and fair tactics to counter one lie with another - I do not.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Apr 25^th, 2010 at 8:24am:

In the case of 0844/3, 0845 and 080 calls, these sometimes cost less than 01/02/03. In the case of 0870, 0845 and 080 calls, these sometimes cost the same as 01/02/03. That is sadly the difficult and potentially confusing truth of the situation in which we choose to campaign..

My 0844 surgery line costs me 11p connection and 9.19 per minute.. If it were a  geo number I could take advantage of my 'free' minutes and it would be 'free'.
Nothing difficult or confusing about it except the denial of choice to avoid the use of these numbers. Long live sites like www.saynoto0870.com  :-*

JoeCurry wrote on Apr 25^th, 2010 at 10:16am:

My 0844 surgery line costs me 11p connection and 9.19 per minute.. If it were a  geo number I could take advantage of my 'free' minutes and it would be 'free'. Nothing difficult or confusing about it except the denial of choice to avoid the use of these numbers. Long live sites like www.saynoto0870.com

This is where we disagree Joe. I want your surgery (and all others) to return to a geo number, or adopt the equivalent 0344 number if that is necessary because of their contractual commitment to Talk Talk. I do not want the 0844 number to be retained and published by saynoto0870, so that those with the BT unlimited weekends package can save 0.9p per minute by having the choice to avoid the new number when calling during weekday daytimes. (Although cheaper then, the 0844 number would be more expensive for them at other times.)

Where alternatives are cheaper for all or where users are able to avoid any confusion about which number is best for them, then saynoto0870 is a most valuable service. That is why some have been able to choose to make money out of selling the alternatives published here.

As a general rule (to which there are exceptions) I do not believe that service providers should be encouraged to offer multiple numbers because of the confusion that this can cause for users who are not fully clued in to the complexities of telephone tariffs. Offering "choice" in this type of situation is simply a way for the service provider to pass the buck to their users, so that they can justify benefiting from those unable to make the right decision.

It is fundamentally wrong for a NHS provider to benefit from revenue sharing. Offering patients the opportunity to avoid incurring the consequent cost is a wholly inadequate response. I approve of the principle that NHS patients are denied the choice to pay more for a better service.

JoeCurry wrote on Apr 25^th, 2010 at 10:16am:

My 0844 surgery line costs me 11p connection and 9.19 per minute.. If it were a  geo number I could take advantage of my 'free' minutes and it would be 'free'. Nothing difficult or confusing about it except the denial of choice to avoid the use of these numbers. Long live sites like www.saynoto0870.com  :-*

The ultimate objective of SAYNOTO0870.COM is not for choice, but for the end of innappropriate use of these premium numbers.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Apr 25^th, 2010 at 11:38am:

It is fundamentally wrong for a NHS provider to benefit from revenue sharing. Offering patients the opportunity to avoid incurring the consequent cost is a wholly inadequate response. I approve of the principle that NHS patients are denied the choice to pay more for a better service.

The NHS is underfunded and could do with a share of the lottery cash in addition to current arrangements. I think the use of 0844/0845 numbers will start eroding original
principles. Where will it end? MD's with "buy Bill's burgers T shirts"? Large screen TV's advertising local traders?  I don't know what the answer to increased funding is but I'm sure 0844 providers should not be allowed to benefit from chugging the NHS.

Dave wrote on Apr 25^th, 2010 at 11:43am:

The ultimate objective of SAYNOTO0870.COM is not for choice, but for the end of innappropriate use of these premium numbers.

It's a can of worms Dave.. should Telco providers be allowed to describe services as 'unlimited' when in fact they are not.
I agree with your  explanation of the aims of this site and applaud the chance it gives to express views on nin geo numbers.

JoeCurry wrote on Apr 25^th, 2010 at 1:31pm:

The NHS is underfunded and could do with a share of the lottery cash in addition to current arrangements. I think the use of 0844/0845 numbers will start eroding original principles. Where will it end? MD's with "buy Bill's burgers T shirts"? Large screen TV's advertising local traders?  I don't know what the answer to increased funding is but I'm sure 0844 providers should not be allowed to benefit from chugging the NHS.

The consensus seems to be that the NHS will have to make do with what it has for the time being. Many of us feel that further commercialisation is not a price worth paying for expansion, as this would inevitably dilute vital cherished principles.

I am one of those who oppose the choice to make additional tax contributions to fund core spending by buying lottery tickets.

We are however in total agreement about the need to remove revenue sharing numbers from the NHS, with 03 numbers being adopted where necessary.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Apr 25^th, 2010 at 1:48pm:

We are however in total agreement about the need to remove revenue sharing numbers from the NHS, with 03 numbers being adopted where necessary.

Going off-topic a tad. VM are advising it's clients to use this site when they complain to them about VM's charges for revenue sharing numbers.
A 'Big boy done it and ran away'?

I think it's also worth emphasising the success that the Say no to 0870 campaign movement has had so far. We now have 03 numbers which are non-geographic, but are charged at no more than a geographic call from all landline and mobile phones. I think that this campaign has had great influence in getting this off the ground.

If an organisation wants a non-geographic number (i.e. one not related to a location) and doesn't want to charge a premium, then it can select a 03 number.

Ofcom is soon to announce a review of 084 revenue sharing numbers which I am sure we will all look at closely on here.

Dave wrote on Apr 25^th, 2010 at 5:21pm:

If an organisation wants a non-geographic number (i.e. one not related to a location) and doesn't want to charge a premium, then it can select a 03 number. Ofcom is soon to announce a review of 084 revenue sharing numbers which I am sure we will all look at closely on here.

The main excuse for adopting 0844 is multi lines (according to my surgery)..does 03 numbers allow similar?
Any news when the OFcom announcement is due?

JoeCurry wrote on Apr 25^th, 2010 at 6:39pm:

Dave wrote on Apr 25th, 2010 at 5:21pm: If an organisation wants a non-geographic number (i.e. one not related to a location) and doesn't want to charge a premium, then it can select a 03 number. Ofcom is soon to announce a review of 084 revenue sharing numbers which I am sure we will all look at closely on here. The main excuse for adopting 0844 is multi lines (according to my surgery)..does 03 numbers allow similar? Any news when the OFcom announcement is due?

All of the features that are implicitly associated with 084 numbers are similarly associated with 03. The only difference with 03 is the charging regulations and the prohibition of revenue sharing - this obviously affects the cost to the user. The detail of what these features are is often misrepresented, but the facts about the lack of difference with 03 stand without question.

Migration from a 0844 number to the equivalent 0344 number is guaranteed. This may provide the best option for those who are tied into long term contracts to take supply of their network telephone service from Talk Talk and to use a system that relies on the features of non-geographic numbers. Introduction of a NHS contract revision that will require GPs to move away from numbers that are more expensive than a geographic number to call (i.e. all 084 numbers) is currently pending. It was due to take effect from 1 April, but has been delayed.

The latest I have heard on the Ofcom situation is that a consultation covering many issues is likely to be launched within the next three months. (If the preparatory work is not ready in this time, it may be delayed until September.) If members are interested in discussing what could and should be covered, then this topic needs to be the subject of a dedicated thread. As this would need to cover the intricacies of regulatory measures to achieve particular effects and to replace highly confusing regulations that are currently in existence, it would not be likely to attract the interest of all members.Those who believe that Ofcom, its consultations and its regulations are a waste of time would probably see speculation about what may feature in a future Ofcom consultation as an even greater waste of time, and they would be perfectly within their rights to say so in such a thread.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Apr 25^th, 2010 at 7:22pm:

[quote author=JoeCurry link=1271853178/30#43 date=1272220753] Migration from a 0844 number to the equivalent 0344 number is guaranteed. This may provide the best option for those who are tied into long term contracts to take supply of their network telephone service from Talk Talk and to use a system that relies on the features of non-geographic numbers. Introduction of a NHS contract revision that will require GPs to move away from numbers that are more expensive than a geographic number to call (i.e. all 084 numbers) is currently pending. It was due to take effect from 1 April, but has been delayed.

Unfortunately NHS matters in Scotland are a devolved issue, even more unfortunately, the current SNP government is
either ignoring change or is glad to accept every little bit of revenue these 0844 numbers generate for Doctor surgeries.

JoeCurry wrote on Apr 25^th, 2010 at 7:50pm:

NHS matters in Scotland are a devolved issue

The respective governments in both Scotland and Wales are being briefed on developments in England and are (apparently) looking into the issue on their own account. I have had contact with officials undertaking this work in both countries.

In neither case is the density of 084-using GPs as great as it is in England, although it is still significant. It seems that in both cases they are waiting to see what happens in England. It is normal for equivalent changes to the GP contracts to follow after a short delay.

The issue of NHS24 may be a little different from that for NHS Direct (which operates for both England and Wales, separately but using the same telephone number.) I am not aware of any commitment from NHS Scotland to the 111 idea. The justification used for retaining 0845 4647 does not therefore apply.

If any member is involved in the situation with the NHS in Northern Ireland, it would be good to have an update on what may be the situation there.

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

Why not? I got that information from the BT web site http://bt.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/13908/c/761,2072 Why is it you are correct and they are wrong?

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Apr 24^th, 2010 at 7:49pm:

It is for BT to explain why a leaflet that is focused on promoting the Unlimited Anytime Plan overstates the cost of non-inclusive calls. ... I have reported the error to a BT representative, who agrees that this looks like a mistake. Others may wish to do the same.

As a quick update; many representatives of BT have now acknowledged the error. I forecast that it will shortly be corrected.

We may ponder on why it takes a large organisation so long to remove two inaccurate words from a website.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Apr 28^th, 2010 at 9:12am:

As a quick update; many representatives of BT have now acknowledged the error. I forecast that it will shortly be corrected. We may ponder on why it takes a large organisation so long to remove two inaccurate words from a website.

What odds would you give?   ;D

JoeCurry wrote on Apr 28^th, 2010 at 1:31pm:

What odds would you give?

My forecast means that I would offer you something much less than evens on a bet that it will happen. I am however a little too much of an optimist to be a good bookmaker.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Apr 28^th, 2010 at 1:49pm:

JoeCurry wrote on Apr 28th, 2010 at 1:31pm: What odds would you give? My forecast means that I would offer you something much less than evens on a bet that it will happen. I am however a little too much of an optimist to be a good bookmaker.

I'm not much of a punter..I backed Lord Lucan to ride into London on the back of Shergar...

JoeCurry wrote on Apr 25^th, 2010 at 1:35pm:

It's a can of worms Dave.. should Telco providers be allowed to describe services as 'unlimited' when in fact they are not.

Clearly they should not but I believe similar unreasonable claims were tested with the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) in the case of so called Unlimited broadband services that were not actually unlimited but limited to a certain amount of data in a specific time period and unfortunately the ASA found in favour of the advertiser of the service.

Of course the issue here is more complicated as most so called unlimited call plans do actually now also limit the maximum number of free minutes to numbers starting 01, 02 or 03 in terms of what they call "fair use" but the fact that 0844 numbers are excluded is a more clear cut omission.  I expect the telecoms company will argue that people know 0844 numbers are not normal priced phone numbers and so cannot be expected to be included in call packages.  Although the fact that 0845 numbers are now frequently included in such packages might considerably weaken their position in proving this point.

Has anyone so far made a complaint to the Advertising Standards Authority at http://asa.org.uk/Complaints-and-ASA-action/How-to-complain/Online-Form.aspx about one of these so called Unlimited plans if they feel they were genuinely misled in to believing 0844 calls were in the free allowance? The case of a complainant would undoubtedly be strongest in the event that the company's literature or website did not adequately make clear which calls were and were not part of the inclusive calls plan.

NGMsGhost wrote on Apr 28^th, 2010 at 8:59pm:

Has anyone so far made a complaint to the Advertising Standards Authority at http://asa.org.uk/Complaints-and-ASA-action/How-to-complain/Online-Form.aspx about one of these so called Unlimited plans if they feel they were genuinely misled in to believing 0844 calls were in the free allowance? The case of a complainant would undoubtedly be strongest in the event that the company's literature or website did not adequately make clear which calls were and were not part of the inclusive calls plan.

We should all check what our telco providers are claiming for 'unlimited'..Just stating non geo is misleading..the prefixes excluded should be highlighted ie;  0844 etc etc.
if these are not detailed we have cause to complain to ASA.

Another grey area is holders of numbers describing 0844 as 'local' calls. when they clearly are not.