Does anyone know the call charges to 0345 numbers? Are they included in the mobile phone mins?

clarissa wrote on Aug 18^th, 2011 at 12:10pm:

Does anyone know the call charges to 0345 numbers? Are they included in the mobile phone mins?

Yes. All 03 numbers are included in mobile and landline minutes.

clarissa wrote on Aug 18^th, 2011 at 12:10pm:

Does anyone know the call charges to 0345 numbers? Are they included in the mobile phone mins?

It depends on your network, if it's a landline, or mobile. Also if it's PAYG or Contract.

They are charged at standard geogaphic rates the same as 01/02 numbers.

CJT-80 wrote on Aug 21^st, 2011 at 12:07pm:

They are charged at standard geogaphic rates the same as 01/02 numbers.

Apart from correcting a typogaphical error, nothing more need be said.

I have a bad keyboard, it needs replacing!

CJT-80 wrote on Aug 21^st, 2011 at 12:07pm:

clarissa wrote on Aug 18th, 2011 at 12:10pm: Does anyone know the call charges to 0345 numbers? Are they included in the mobile phone mins? It depends on your network, if it's a landline, or mobile. Also if it's PAYG or Contract. They are charged at standard geogaphic rates the same as 01/02 numbers.

CJT-80,

The comments in your first and second paragraph unfortunately appear  contradictory but in any event it is an Ofcom General Condition that 03 numbers are always charged on the same basis by all landline and mobile operators as calls made to other 01 and 02 prefixed geographic numbers for that particular customer.  Thus the price you are charged for calling an 03 number always be the same as what you are charged for calling 01 and 02 numbers at that time of day (including being covered by call packages or inclusive minutes deals).  To start to make any other statements such as that it depends on your network provide etc is in my opinion actively confusing even though I know that those who do it are only trying to cover their backs (eg the BBC in far too many instances).

All that needs to be said is that whatever deal you get for 01 and 02 numbers when you make a call you will also get this deal for 03 numbers as they must be charged on the same basis.  Any statement that tries to equivocate beyond that point is unnecessary and will also lead to customer misunderstanding of the call charges they will pay.

It does not of course help that Ofcom does not currently have any clear up to date item on their website to explain the effects of this provision of GC17 in respect of the pricing of 03 numbers to ordinary telecoms consumers. :o :'( :'( :'(

NGMsGhost wrote on Jan 11^th, 2012 at 4:18pm:

It does not of course help that Ofcom does not currently have any clear up to date item on their website to explain the effects of this provision of GC17 in respect of the pricing of 03 numbers to ordinary telecoms consumers. :o :'( :'( :'(

This point, as with the rest of the comment, is absolutely spot on.

If Ofcom offered a simple form of words for people to use - most of them would use it, without question.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Jan 11^th, 2012 at 4:39pm:

If Ofcom offered a simple form of words for people to use - most of them would use it, without question.

SCV,

I think that you mean if Ofcom made legally obligatory (with large financial penalties for rule breaches) the use of a simple form of words then most companies would use them without question when displaying telephone numbers.

The sad example of the way in which Ebuyer has chosen to technically comply with the letter of the PhonePayPlus call cost price disclosure regulations whilst in reality sticking up two fingers at them can currently be found at:-

http://static.ebuyer.com/customer/help/index.html?action=Y29udGFjdF91cw==

Here the company displays in massive bold and large type its 0871 number at the top of the web page with no indication at all of call price whilst only displaying the actual call price per minute in very small print at the bottom of a web page that you will not even see if you do not chance to scroll down to it.

The simple explanation is to say that a significant proportion of marketing persons are unfortunately amoral on the matter of quoting accurate price indications to their customers (they may even lack the necessary circuitry in their brains to understand this aspect of morality judging from the frequency of the problem) and that they will therefore only comply at the point of a very large and powerful regulatory gun.

In another part of its operations Ofcom quite clearly understands the need to use heavy firepower to enforce its regulations but sadly these activities are confined purely to rigorous fine based enforcement action to stop any of us seeing too much of a male or female person's genitalia (beyond a maximum allowed in television broadcasting by an arcane interpretation of an extremely antiquated piece of legislation) on a satellite television channel that is specifically known and advertised to be dedicated only to pornographic broadcasts rather than to ensuring that UK citizen consumers can always receive accurate price indications of the cost of making telephone calls........

NGMsGhost wrote on Jan 11^th, 2012 at 5:22pm:

SCV, I think that you mean if Ofcom made legally obligatory (with large financial penalties for rule breaches) the use of a simple form of words then most companies would use them without question when displaying telephone numbers.

No I do not. It may be helpful to restore my quoted comment to its context, as follows:


SilentCallsVictim wrote on Jan 11^th, 2012 at 4:39pm:

NGMsGhost wrote on Jan 11th, 2012 at 4:18pm: It does not of course help that Ofcom does not currently have any clear up to date item on their website to explain the effects of this provision of GC17 in respect of the pricing of 03 numbers to ordinary telecoms consumers. If Ofcom offered a simple form of words for people to use - most of them would use it, without question.

My comment was with exclusive reference to unhelpful descriptions of the cost of calling 03 numbers. There is however a wider point to be drawn, regarding the powers of a regulator.


Most of what Ofcom (or indeed any regulator) achieves is expected to come through persuasion, albeit supported by powers of enforcement when necessary. Most of those who operate in the public domain will wish to be seen to be compliant with all relevant standards and regulations, regardless of the scale of the risks they may run as a result of stepping over the edge of regulatory requirements. That is the environment in which Ofcom primarily operates, and indeed this is the role that is defined for it in the Communications Act.

From time to time it must be seen to flex its regulatory muscle, but the reality is that it simply does not have the resources to ensure complete and total compliance with every regulatory requirement that it "imposes". It is also very ready for any enforcement action that it takes to be challenged in law, placing further demands on its resources.

Please understand that I do not seek to justify or support this approach. I had no part in drafting the Communications Act 2003 and I believe that much of it was ill conceived. I simply comment on the world as I see it.

That is the world in which we have to seek to achieve our objectives.


I believe that the "unbundled" approach, of which we will hear more very shortly, offers a new and much better basis for an understanding of how "revenue sharing" (including PRS) numbers operate. This should also make the position of 03 clearer.

The first hope must be that this will be accepted, in principle, by the telcos and the PRS users. I understand that the present signs are more positive than we may have expected, certainly from the mobile operators. The new form of words to be used by service providers in declaring their service charge will undoubtedly be set more firmly than the present PP+ requirements. The issue of the "Access Charges" and how that will be both set and presented is much more difficult, as each telco will be watching its competitors and may therefore be reluctant to take the lead.

The biggest problem, as I see it, will be with the 084 users, notwithstanding possible alterations to the regulation of 087 users. I have my doubts that Ofcom's alleged assessment of their needs and wishes is sound. In particular, I doubt that there are many 0845 users who are so attached to the benefit of the modest revenue subsidy which they enjoy, that they would be genuinely ready to declare a petty service charge in order to retain it.

There are also serious questions about how the costs incurred in funding enforcement of a requirement to make such a declaration could be met. The economics of a proportionate levy, following the present PP+ model, would surely not add up. If one is to deviate from the general principle that regulation is paid for by the regulated, then this raises the question of who it is who should pay.

Without addressing the rag-bag of 0844/3 users, my view is that Ofcom should consider very carefully whether there is any true demand for low-rate revenue sharing numbers in a world of transparency. The fact that the 0871 range has remained in use despite light, but not non-existent, transparency requirements may not provide any assistance, as the general profile of 0871 users is somewhat different to that of 084 users.

It must also be noted that all PRS regulations are imposed and enforced by a "self-regulator", representing the interests of the industry to whom it belongs. The suggestion that this industry includes 0871 users, let alone 0844, or even 0845, users is quite absurd. The comparison with the (quite separate) broadcasting arm of Ofcom enforcing "decency" standards may be matched by the apposite question of whether E-buyer is truly part of the same industry as the providers of SES on 098 numbers. Whilst PP+ consults on whether it should consider taking on the role of enforcing regulation of 084 users, we note that it was never the right body to deal with 0871 users.

We await the forthcoming Ofcom consultation with interest.

NGMsGhost wrote on Jan 11^th, 2012 at 4:18pm:

CJT-80 wrote on Aug 21st, 2011 at 12:07pm: clarissa wrote on Aug 18th, 2011 at 12:10pm: Does anyone know the call charges to 0345 numbers? Are they included in the mobile phone mins? It depends on your network, if it's a landline, or mobile. Also if it's PAYG or Contract. They are charged at standard geogaphic rates the same as 01/02 numbers. CJT-80, The comments in your first and second paragraph unfortunately appear  contradictory but in any event it is an Ofcom General Condition that 03 numbers are always charged on the same basis by all landline and mobile operators as calls made to other 01 and 02 prefixed geographic numbers for that particular customer.  Thus the price you are charged for calling an 03 number always be the same as what you are charged for calling 01 and 02 numbers at that time of day (including being covered by call packages or inclusive minutes deals).  To start to make any other statements such as that it depends on your network provide etc is in my opinion actively confusing even though I know that those who do it are only trying to cover their backs (eg the BBC in far too many instances). All that needs to be said is that whatever deal you get for 01 and 02 numbers when you make a call you will also get this deal for 03 numbers as they must be charged on the same basis.  Any statement that tries to equivocate beyond that point is unnecessary and will also lead to customer misunderstanding of the call charges they will pay. It does not of course help that Ofcom does not currently have any clear up to date item on their website to explain the effects of this provision of GC17 in respect of the pricing of 03 numbers to ordinary telecoms consumers. :o :'( :'( :'(

I just wanted to point out that the "cost" of calling an 03 number will differ depending on if you use a Landline or Mobile. If it's a Mobile it depends if it is Contract or PAYG.

However the cost will be the same as 01/02 Numbers.

So technically I was right. :-)

CJT-80 wrote on Jan 11^th, 2012 at 9:31pm:

I just wanted to point out that the "cost" of calling an 03 number will differ depending on if you use a Landline or Mobile. If it's a Mobile it depends if it is Contract or PAYG.

But call costs will always vary according to whether you use a landline or mobile or have a call package or the time of day or who your telecoms provider is.  That is true of every single telephone number in the system that you might call.

But when trying to simplify the public's understanding of 03 numbers and that they are not an expensive or premium or abnormal class of numbers to call it is an exceedingly dangerous point to make because it once again makes them sound like something special or different.  All the points you make about costs varying with who you call with and when you call are also true of 01/02 numbers so why do you need to make them specially only for 03 numbers?

For the public to have a straightforward understanding of 03 numbers they need to be told only that they will be charged at the same rates they pay with their telecoms provider for calling a normal 01/02 number and that they will also benefit from any inclusive minutes packages they have with their call provider that already covers 01 and 02 numbers.

To start making all these other various equivocations about the price to call 03 varying between landline and mobile or your call provider is irrelevant and unhelpful when the points you make are also true of every single POTS phone number that somebody might call with their landline or mobile phone.

CJT-80 wrote on Aug 21^st, 2011 at 12:07pm:

clarissa wrote on Aug 18th, 2011 at 12:10pm: Does anyone know the call charges to 0345 numbers? Are they included in the mobile phone mins? It depends on your network, if it's a landline, or mobile. Also if it's PAYG or Contract. They are charged at standard geogaphic rates the same as 01/02 numbers.

I think that is worthwhile to consider different ways of describing the charges so as to have an appreciation for what not to do.

The highlighted part of CJT-80's statement is not incorrect and I do not believe that others were suggesting it was. The point is that it isn't very helpful when it comes to not spreading misunderstandings and dispelling myths.

It is a statement about the nature of telephone call charges in general and not specific to 03 numbers.

Dave wrote on Jan 12^th, 2012 at 12:58pm:

The highlighted part of CJT-80's statement is not incorrect and I do not believe that others were suggesting it was. The point is that it isn't very helpful when it comes to not spreading misunderstandings and dispelling myths.

Dave,

I completely agree with your observations in this regard.

The trouble is that far too many people writing descriptions about the calling costs of 03 numbers (inlcuding the BBC on some of their programs) are far too concerned only with covering the backs and not missing anything and so throw in everything they can possibly think of about the call charges to these numbers.

But by doing this in an out of context manner (where the position of 01/02 numbers is not mentioned at the same time) they actually cause the public to misunderstand the cost of calling these numbers and still leave them with the impression that they may be more expensive to call than the ordinary 01/02 geographic number for their brother, mother, aunt or uncle.

To be fair to CJT-80, I believe that the point was made only in the context of the forum. I stand ready to be corrected, but I do not believe that this was being commended for use by those who make general publications about call costs.

The origin of the need for excessive qualification in call cost statements arises from the historic position when it was reasonable to give the actual cost of a telephone call, on the basis that there was essentially a single provider. We are currently in a phase where this is retained, but subject to qualification.

Ofcom proposes that we move forward to a more realistic situation. With the tariff unbundled, a Service Provider will be able to confidently state their Service Charge, but say no more, other referring to the fact that the caller's telephone company will add an "Access Charge".

01/02/03 numbers stand clear of this, being "geographic rate", with no Service Charge permitted.

The form of the call cost statement will, I believe, be prescribed. We would welcome a prescribed form of words for 03 call cost statements without delay.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Jan 12^th, 2012 at 2:36pm:

Ofcom proposes that we move forward to a more realistic situation. With the tariff unbundled, a Service Provider will be able to confidently state their Service Charge, but say no more, other referring to the fact that the caller's telephone company will add an "Access Charge".

So Ofcom proposes that callers should not know what a revenue earning call will cost before a caller makes it unless they search for quite deliberately made hard to find tariff lists from their own telecoms provider? Several of these telecoms providers even remain in flagrant breach of the requirement to publish such tariffs on their own website.

And Ofcom also proposes consumers cannot even be informed of the call cost on their own phone line (leaving aside the issue of quoting a meaningful price for phone calls to NTS numbers in general advertising) in specific announcements when they make their call as Will Goodall at Flextel and other chums of his in the telecoms industry managed to use the wheeze of telling Ofcom it would stop burglar alarms or OAP panic alarms from working to stop such announcements from being made.

Surely the EU commission must have some concerns about such a completely price opaque industry.  Ryanair seems to have got in to significant trouble with the EU over precisely the lack of such transparancy in its own fees and charges to passengers.

NGMsGhost wrote on Jan 12^th, 2012 at 3:28pm:

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Jan 12th, 2012 at 2:36pm: Ofcom proposes that we move forward to a more realistic situation. With the tariff unbundled, a Service Provider will be able to confidently state their Service Charge, but say no more, other referring to the fact that the caller's telephone company will add an "Access Charge". So Ofcom proposes that callers should not know what a revenue earning call will cost before a caller makes it unless they search for quite deliberately made hard to find tariff lists from their own telecoms provider? Several of these telecoms providers even remain in flagrant breach of the requirement to publish such tariffs on their own website.

For any particular tariff, there won't be different Access Charges applicable to different 0844 numbers, for example.

Dave wrote on Jan 12^th, 2012 at 3:39pm:

For any particular tariff, there won't be different Access Charges applicable to different 0844 numbers, for example.

And is the Access Charge different from the Total Charge actually payable by the consumer.  I suppose if I read the consultation document I would know but I'm currently all Consulted Out with Ofcom.

My last effort was on their ludicrous proposal that telephones on fibre optic lines should only have a one hour battery backup capability.  Needless to say Ofcom proceeded with its original proposals and completely ignored all of the consultees just as it always does.  What is the point of a statutory duty to consult if you don't have a statutory duty to take any notice of the consultation responses you receive. :o >:( >:( >:(

Dave wrote on Jan 12^th, 2012 at 3:39pm:

NGMsGhost wrote on Jan 12th, 2012 at 3:28pm: SilentCallsVictim wrote on Jan 12th, 2012 at 2:36pm: Ofcom proposes that we move forward to a more realistic situation. With the tariff unbundled, a Service Provider will be able to confidently state their Service Charge, but say no more, other referring to the fact that the caller's telephone company will add an "Access Charge". So Ofcom proposes that callers should not know what a revenue earning call will cost before a caller makes it unless they search for quite deliberately made hard to find tariff lists from their own telecoms provider? Several of these telecoms providers even remain in flagrant breach of the requirement to publish such tariffs on their own website. For any particular tariff, there won't be different Access Charges applicable to different 0844 numbers, for example.

It is not yet clear as to how many different "Access Charges" will be permitted under the terms of a particular tariff, although the proposal is that there be just one to cover all calls to which a "Service Charge" applies. This will most likely have to be extended a little given that some "Service Charges" will continue to apply per call, rather than per minute. There is strong opposition (from Ofcom) to the present situation, where landline "Access Charges" are partly per call and partly per minute. I agree that this mixture of methods is highly undesireable.

I personally cannot accept an argument which suggests that the bad debt risk element of the cost of high priced calls should be part of the Access Charge, thereby requiring many different Access Charges. I argue that this should form part of the Service Charge, which may need to be taken back by the OCP, under separate arrangements to cover this risk.

It would be hoped that if telcos were only required to publish a single Access Charge (or relatively few), they would be more likely to comply, than they are with the present situation where they, effectively, have to publish every one of the different bundled Access+Service Charges that may apply. If callers are familiar with any of the elements of their tariff, it could be hoped that they would be aware of the Access Charge before contemplating a call.


There are good arguments for and against PCAs. My personal view is that they should only be used in circumstances where the information may be expected to come as a surprise to the caller, so as to make them review their decision to make the call. There is an unanswerable argument for PCAs in the case of chargeable 080 calls from mobiles and calls to 070/074 numbers, if at a rate greater than that of a call to a mobile number. I do not believe that the cost of providing them (which will ultimately be met by callers), not to mention the annoyance and possible confusion, is justified, other than in cases where there could be some surprise.

I would have no strong objection to the principle of telcos offering PCAs, or something more, as an additional optional facility for their customers to choose, probably subject to a monthly fee. This could be seen as the return of the old ADC feature. I would however be concerned if this were seen to become the norm.


For me, the strongest argument against PCAs, except where justified, is that they may be seen as a way of avoiding providing the information that a potential caller needs at the time when they consider making a call. Once they have picked up the handset and dialled, they have already committed some of their time to making the call including that preparing what they are to say.

The time to present call cost information is when arranging (or amending) the terms of the telephone service, with the telco, and when a Service Provider solicits a call by presenting their number. PCAs provide a backstop for where it is likely that this mechanism has failed.

Let us hope that under new arrangements it will not fail so often. I feel that it is better to give attention to remedying the failures than perhaps "giving up".

NGMsGhost wrote on Jan 12^th, 2012 at 4:23pm:

I suppose if I read the consultation document I would know but I'm currently all Consulted Out with Ofcom.

My strong advice to anyone is NOT to attempt to read the whole 2010 consultation document. I have read far too much of it for the good of my health!

If anyone can offer a link to a comprehensive, but brief, summary of the "unbundled tariff" proposal then this could be of benefit.

It may be that contributions to this thread could be worth reading.

Re ebuyer, having received bad service and contacted the md's assistant I am currently re asking what about your post of 4 years ago