Can any member update me in regard to the use of 0800 - 0808 numbers for mobiles. The consultation that was sent to Ofcom should be well on the way by now. I have contacted Ofcom but they do not appear to know much about it. I guess I am talking to the wrong person.

Did I get it all wrong, it was my understanding that all 08 numbers including FREE PHONE numbers were under review. I don't understand why the consultation went against providing 0800 number calls free for  mobile users. I thought I voted for it how did I get it so wrong or did I. 

You can use this 0800 Buster for the moment 01237200800 use it like a calling card from you mobile but its only for calling 0800 numbers http://www.0800buster.co.uk/ There are some threads on this site about it also.

D

bazzerfewi wrote on Dec 10^th, 2011 at 8:09pm:

Did I get it all wrong, it was my understanding that all 08 numbers including FREE PHONE numbers were under review. I don't understand why the consultation went against providing 0800 number calls free for  mobile users. I thought I voted for it how did I get it so wrong or did I.

Can anybody update me in this regard, I cannot understand why mobile phone users cannot use the free 0800 numbers for free when making 0800 calls, I thought there was a consultation or have I got it all wrong

bazzerfewi

I assume your refering to this?

Hi CJT did you mean a web link because if so it did not appear in your message

bazzerfewi wrote on Dec 17^th, 2011 at 3:41pm:

Hi CJT did you mean a web link because if so it did not appear in your message

Yes it did! Click on 'this' in CJT-80's message

Discussion about making the hyperlinks in the forum bold has been moved to a new thread in the Site Related section: Links in the forum - Should they be bold?

bazzerfewi wrote on Dec 16^th, 2011 at 9:41pm:

bazzerfewi wrote on Dec 10th, 2011 at 8:09pm: Did I get it all wrong, it was my understanding that all 08 numbers including FREE PHONE numbers were under review. I don't understand why the consultation went against providing 0800 number calls free for  mobile users. I thought I voted for it how did I get it so wrong or did I.  Can anybody update me in this regard, I cannot understand why mobile phone users cannot use the free 0800 numbers for free when making 0800 calls, I thought there was a consultation or have I got it all wrong

This issue is discussed in detail starting at section A7.23 on (pdf) page 345 of the 2010/11 consultation document. There are comments to be found amongst the many responses.

Ofcom has not yet responded to the comments made, but will do so in conjunction with launching a further consultation with (we hope) specific proposals and timescales for action, early in 2012.

Without repeating detailed arguments presented previously, my view is that this change must happen, but it would be pragmatic to wait a little while longer, until call recipients can be confident of paying little or no more to receive calls from mobile networks. I predict major changes in mobile charging - it would be unnecessarily complicated for Ofcom to bring this particular item forward too soon.

Thanks SilentCallsVictim for that clarification, I will look out for the response from Ofcom. I took place in the survey so I assume that all participants will be notified in due course

thanks very much for this,

Does anyone know if talktalk make a charge for  'free' 0800, 0808 or 0500 numbers

alyon wrote on Dec 31^st, 2011 at 10:20am:

thanks very much for this, Does anyone know if talktalk make a charge for  'free' 0800, 0808 or 0500 numbers

I am not aware of a residential landline provider that charges for these calls.

TalkTalk doesn't charge for calls to these numbers as its website shows (click landline rates).

As far as I understand Ofcom regulation telco providers are not able to charge for 0800 0808 0500 numbers from land lines.

If any member knows different I would appreciate it if they notify me

bazzerfewi wrote on Nov 21^st, 2011 at 10:23pm:

Can any member update me in regard to the use of 0800 - 0808 numbers for mobiles. The consultation that was sent to Ofcom should be well on the way by now. I have contacted Ofcom but they do not appear to know much about it. I guess I am talking to the wrong person.

Just as a matter of information, I've been using Giffgaff mobile now for three months and everybody on Giffgaff gets free calls to 0800 and 0808 numbers

poppasmurf wrote on Feb 5^th, 2012 at 5:25pm:

Just as a matter of information, I've been using Giffgaff mobile now for three months and everybody on Giffgaff gets free calls to 0800 and 0808 numbers

Along with unlimited phone based internet use, unlimited texts and 200 minutes of any network mobile calls per month for just £10 per month.

As GiffGaff is a a very low profit network (albeit nominally on the O2 mobile platform) this suggests the real costs of providing free access to 0800 calls is negligible and that the other mobile networks have simply been ripping customers off for calling them. :o >:( >:( >:(

The only way I can fault GiffGaff is for not also having a £5 per month 1Gb of internet use with 100 minutes of calls plan too because to be honest that is all I need and I would only be using the internet on a mobile phone on a handful of days each month.

There is a report today from The Independent:

Number may be up for costly 0800 and 084 calls


Quote:

Ofcom is now beginning a consultation with the mobile industry which is intended, according to the Communications minister, Ed Vaizey, to overhaul the regulation of "non-geographic calls. "Ofcom's proposals include the recommendation that 0800 should be free from all phones (fixed and mobile)," said the minister in a recent debate. Further details are due from Ofcom when it launches its consultation, probably next month. Ofcom is expected to announce the final plan in September this year, with implementation coming in 2013 and early 2014. While it clearly wishes to make 0800 numbers free, it needs to check first that the law of unintended consequences does not prohibit such a move in such a complicated technological area. Other aims Ofcom will bring forward include making the charging structure for calls more transparent.

The report makes a very valid point; that we should not rush into making 0800 numbers free to call from mobile phones without considering all the issues.

Whilst we may all wish to see a day when they are free, we cannot overlook the higher cost of transferring calls mobile phones which has yet to be addressed.

Calling for "freephone" numbers to be free to call from mobile phones now would leave the mobile operators to offset the lost revenue on other services or would require users of 0800 numbers to pay more for calls from mobiles. It is fanciful to think that mobile operators would make 0800 numbers free without these consequences, while ever the cost of termination of incoming calls is so high with respect to that of landline destinations.


We hear doctors saying that telephone companies should not charge extra for calling their Business Rate numbers. They believe that they should not be passing on the "Service Charge" to individual callers and should instead load it on customers in general. Essentially, their position is that someone else should pay whilst perhaps painting the picture that no one will pay and that it's someone else's fault that callers do pay more.

There are parallels between these doctors and with users of mobile phones who are calling for 0800 calls to be free, without acknowledging that this can only be so when the cost of termination issue is reduced. They made the choice to use a mobile phone in just the same way as the doctors opted for their phone systems. Both parties don't like it when the costs for those choices are put on themselves.

If calls from mobile telephones to 0800 / 0808 / 0500 numbers were forced to be "no charge to caller" (and therefore by definition, "paid for by the recipient") various charities that operate such numbers would no longer be able to afford to do so.

There are plenty of unintended consequences to such a change.

Perhaps another 080x number range should be brought into use for those organisations that do wish to go that route?

I strongly believe that 0800 and 0808 numbers should be FREE from mobiles I think for years mobile users have been discriminated.

In reply to the comment in regard to charities the simple solution is to use an 03 number this will enable charities to control the cost of the calls

bazzerfewi wrote on Feb 25^th, 2012 at 7:37pm:

I strongly believe that 0800 and 0808 numbers should be FREE from mobiles I think for years mobile users have been discriminated. In reply to the comment in regard to charities the simple solution is to use an 03 number this will enable charities to control the cost of the calls

And now you're forcing the charity to change all their stationery and take on additional advertising commitment.

Who's going to pay for that?


Don't forget 0500 numbers. They are the same type as 0800 and 0808.

On the scale of things the charity expenses are a drop in the ocean, although I do sympathise with their plight but mobile phone users are being ripped off to the tune of millions and something needs to be done about it.

It will be interesting to see what ideas Ofcom has come up when it presents its latest proposals in a few weeks time. It has pondered on the responses to the 2010/11 consultation and looked into this matter further for around a year.

My own view on this issue is that it should wait until the issue of who pays the costs of connection to the mobile networks has been resolved. The gradual reduction in the termination fees which place this cost burden on callers to the mobile networks has some stages to go through yet - see the detail. Once that burden is carried by the Mobile Companies and their customers, there will be no problem in expecting uses of 080 numbers to bear the (essentially equal) cost of calls from all networks. As stated by others above, this is problematic whilst there is a significant difference.

This will have an effect on the volume (and perhaps quality) of calls received by users of 080 numbers, however I do not believe that this presents an adequate case for offering a different range of "freephone" numbers for those who may choose to refuse calls from mobiles.


The fact that a very large majority of callers pay for calls to 01/02/03 numbers through unlimited inclusive packages, rather than through a call charge, thereby making the marginal cost of any such call zero, diminishes the need for 080 numbers. It makes less sense for a call recipient to pay to receive every call if a significant majority of callers would not pay to call on a 03 number.

There is however the question of mobile PAYG customers and the future of this arrangement. It is they who would be the beneficiaries of use of a 080 number, however it is their number which is likely to be reduced as a result of the effect of the removal of the subsidy of their network connection cost by those who call them. Those who pay for a sizeable calls bundle or unlimited package could be seen to be already paying towards the cost of their network connection, for PAYG customers any such charge would be a new item.

I do not fully understand all the tarrifs and cost of connection charges and I do appreciate that the cost will be have to be paid. The only problem I have with the whole Free Phone issues is that the caller should not have to pay for 0800 0808-0500 calls when they have been free since their inception.

It is very simple as far as I can see 0800,0808, and 0500 have been free to the caller for years and mobile users should be provided with the same service.

The mobile sector is very profitable and time should be spent enforcing the fact that these numbers should always be free to the caller as they have always been.

Dave wrote on Feb 25^th, 2012 at 2:57pm:

There is a report today from The Independent: Number may be up for costly 0800 and 084 calls

This article addresses issues which are relevant to a number of other threads and sections of the forum.

I have added online comments on a number of points:
[list bull-redball]

The issues in general

Vodafone charges for calls to JobCentre Plus. DWP and HMRC in general

111 - misrepresentation and other important relevant points

Alleged evidence from Which? that understates the problem with GPs

Cost of calling 084 numbers from mobiles

Citizens Advice - on the wrong side of the argument Discussion of the relevant issues may be best undertaken in an appropriate thread.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2113448/Mobile-networks-face-ban-charging-customers-0800-calls-weeks.html

Mobile networks face ban on charging customers for 0800 calls within weeks

    Currently, mobile users pay up to 40p a minute to dial the numbers, which are free to call from a landline
    They are used by many public bodies, including councils and the NHS

By Sean Poulter

PUBLISHED: 23:26, 11 March 2012 | UPDATED: 07:32, 12 March 2012


Ofcom is to ban mobile phone firms from charging customers who call 0800 numbers.

Currently, mobile users pay up to 40p a minute to dial the numbers, which are free to call from a landline and are used by many public bodies, including councils and the NHS.

The regulator is due to ban the practice within weeks and introduce rules to clarify other charges for so-called non-geographic numbers beginning with 08 or 09.
Currently, mobile users pay up to 40p a minute to dial the numbers, which are free to call from a landline and are used by many public bodies, including councils and the NHS

Currently, mobile users pay up to 40p a minute to dial the numbers, which are free to call from a landline and are used by many public bodies, including councils and the NHS

Such changes will help reveal the true cost of taking part in phone votes for reality TV shows such as Britain’s Got Talent.

Phone companies will be required to inform customers of the standard cost of calling an 09 premium number, while TV companies running the polls will have to show additional charges on-screen.

Ofcom is also planning to clear up the confusion surrounding the cost of using 118 directory enquiry services.

Scandals involving such services include one customer receiving a bill for £350 after he was connected to the number he wanted, while another was charged £62 after being put through to NHS Direct for medical advice.

As with 09 numbers, phone companies will be required to spell out the standard charge for calling a 118 service under Ofcom’s proposals.
Revealing: Such changes will help reveal the true cost of taking part in phone votes for reality TV shows such as Britain¿s Got Talent

Revealing: Such changes will help reveal the true cost of taking part in phone votes for reality TV shows such as Britain's Got Talent

Directory enquiry firms will also have to advertise what charges they apply on top of this figure.

The plans were first outlined at the end of 2010. Following a consultation, Ofcom is set to announce its decisions imminently.

The regulator’s chief executive, Ed Richards, has highlighted the need for change, saying: ‘There is clear evidence of widespread uncertainty and confusion about the cost of calling these numbers.

‘Consumers need to have far more transparency about the price they are going to pay for calls so that they can make more informed choices and so competition can work more effectively.

‘Making 0800 free from a mobile and giving people clarity about what they are paying for 118 directory enquiry services will improve transparency, improve competition and enhance trust in these important services.’

Quote:

The plans were first outlined at the end of 2010.

Doesn't seem like Ofcom have given it high priority if it's taken 18 months to get this far.

catj wrote on Mar 13^th, 2012 at 12:27am:

Quote: The plans were first outlined at the end of 2010. Doesn't seem like Ofcom have given it high priority if it's taken 18 months to get this far.

I fully agree, it shouldn't have taken anything like as long as it has but at least the powers that be appear to be doing something constructive.

I also believe that this forum and the members have played a part in this outcome

bazzerfewi wrote on Mar 13^th, 2012 at 4:21am:

catj wrote on Mar 13th, 2012 at 12:27am: Quote: The plans were first outlined at the end of 2010. Doesn't seem like Ofcom have given it high priority if it's taken 18 months to get this far. I fully agree, it shouldn't have taken anything like as long as it has but at least the powers that be appear to be doing something constructive. I also believe that this forum and the members have played a part in this outcome

The key point is that this situation should not have dragged on for as long as it has - when were mobile licences first issued?

The issue that needs to be resolved is over the call cost to be incurred by the user of the 080 number (the negative termination rate). Whilst the mobile companies inflate their termination rates to include costs that should be carried by their customers, rather than the other party to the call, receiving calls from mobiles to 080 numbers could be a very expensive business.

The termination rates for calls to mobiles are currently undergoing a process of phased reduction. I have argued that Ofcom should wait until this process is complete, so that the cost of receiving a 080 call from a mobile is very similar to that for receiving one from a landline, before going ahead with the change to regulation.

I argue that this will make it possible to shame those who withdraw their 080 numbers or block calls from mobiles when the change is introduced.

One must remember that the mobile companies currently waive their charges on callers to registered 080 helplines. There is the opportunity other users of 080 numbers to make arrangements for the charges for calls to their numbers to be waived in the way that DWP has done. If Ofcom went ahead with high negative termination fees, this would severely disadvantage providers of 080 helplines who would incur an increase in their costs without there being any new benefit to their callers.

Unable to reach the Ofcom web site all day, so can't look at the details. Perhaps someone can try from the UK:

http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/consultations/simplifying-non-geographic-no/?utm_source=Media-updates&utm_medium=Media-email&utm_campaign=non-geo-no-mediaNR


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-17610232

4 April 2012 Last updated at 07:10 ET

<<
Mobile phone users could get free 0800 calls

Free calls to 0800 telephone numbers will be extended to anyone using a mobile phone, under plans announced by the regulator, Ofcom.

The vast majority of these calls are charged at up to 21p a minute for mobile users, under current rules.

But Ofcom wants to make these 0800 calls free, as they are from landlines.

A consumer watchdog said many callers already thought these calls were free for everyone and were hit with a shock when their bill arrived.

"This could be particularly frustrating if they have been kept on hold or on the line for a long time when dealing with a complaint to a company, on a number that is described as freephone," said Adam Scorer, of Consumer Focus.

"Many households living on low incomes - who can least afford the charges - only have access to a mobile phone. They are hit hardest by the cost of 0800 numbers from mobiles.

"Changes to make this part of the market simpler are long overdue. We would like to see them brought in as quickly as possible."

A final decision by Ofcom on the proposed new rules will be made by early 2013.

Ofcom said that the proposed changes were aimed at helping consumers "regain trust" in these phone numbers.

"By making calls to 0800 numbers free from all phones, we will clear up any uncertainty about making calls, especially from mobiles, to the benefit of consumers and service providers alike," said Ed Richards, chief executive of Ofcom.

Ofcom is also proposing to clarify and simplify charges to 08, 09 and 118 numbers, which include information, banking, directory inquiry and entertainment services.

Unless they are using a BT line, callers do not know how much the charges for such calls.

Non-geographic numbers can be used to call businesses and government agencies like HM Revenue and Customs and NHS Direct, make payments for services, and vote on television shows.

However, Ofcom said research had shown many people were confused about what non-geographic numbers were for and how much they cost, resulting in a lack of confidence and trust in the services.

As a result, consumers made fewer calls to these numbers, providers were discouraged from using them and there was less innovation that might benefit consumers.
>>

The BBC news article said:
Quote:

"Many households living on low incomes - who can least afford the charges - only have access to a mobile phone. They are hit hardest by the cost of 0800 numbers from mobiles.

The BBC failed to mention that 0800 (and 0808 and 0500) numbers are free to call from a BT public telephone.

at the start of march I complained to ofcom about 0845 (mainly due to a £30 bill I got for calls to the DWP).  I then got what looked like a copy and paste reply which stated 0845 is no longer advertised as local rate and they dont see a big issue with it.

I then proceeded to use an application to search google for 0845 and "local rate" and came up with 100s of hits, and forwarded it onto ofcom.  It seemed a coincidence within a few weeks they announced this for 0800 and 08xx numbers.

They did claim tho they were already leaning no the government to move all public services to 03xx from 08xx.

The suggestions I made to ofcom were.

0845/0870/0871/0844 etc. should be advertised as premium rate because thats effectively what they are on a lot of phone providers.
call rates should no longer only account for BT charges and ignore other networks.
Anyone who doesnt frequently move should use a geographical number. since 0845 is supposedbly to allow companies to redirect calls.
0845 should be included in all call allowances that include geographical numbers.

Although I didnt mention 0800 so this announcement may well have have been nothing to do with me and just coincidence :)

funny they call it confusion tho.

the situation is so bad that virgin media now actually charge more for 0845 than 0870.

ihate0845 wrote on Apr 10^th, 2012 at 1:41pm:

the situation is so bad that virgin media now actually charge more for 0845 than 0870.

Hello and welcome to SayNoTo0870.

On 1st August 2009 the regulations with respect to 0870 numbers changed. The service charge or benefit to the receivers (or number users) was removed thereby meaning that call providers no longer incurred an additional charge in connecting calls over that of 01, 02 and 03 numbers. What wasn't put in place though was a rule to ensure that call providers brought their 0870 prices into line with 01, 02 and 03 (making them inclusive where applicable).

Virgin Media is one of the later landline providers to reduce the cost of calling 0870 numbers and include them in packages.

There is a service charge associated with 0845, albeit a modest few pence per minute, so one would expect in general for telephone companies to pass this cost back to their customers (the callers).

The industry is moving towards including 0845 etc within inclusive call packages as Virgin now includes 0845 etc within their business call unlimited plans

isnt 0845 primarily used by consumers ringing up companies?

I cant see 0845 been inclusive on residential packages for a long time unless its either forced by regulation or companies stop using the number.  They will all lose too much revenue.

ihate0845 wrote on Apr 14^th, 2012 at 1:54am:

I cant see 0845 been inclusive on residential packages for a long time unless its either forced by regulation or companies stop using the number.  They will all lose too much revenue.

0845 already is inclusive on many residential packages, e.g. BT, Plusnet, no doubt others.

The inclusion of 0845 numbers in residential packages is a perverse glitch brought about by BT wrongly second guessing Ofcom's intentions in 2010.

BT assumed that Ofcom would be dealing with 0845 in the same way as it had then set in place for 0870 - i.e. removing revenue sharing. BT anticipated the change to 0870 by 7½ months, taking a revenue hit in the process. It was able to gamble on the same thing happening (perhaps within a year or so) with 0845. BT terminates a high proportion of 0845 calls itself and, due to the regulation which applies to it alone, suffers little loss of revenue on passing 0845 calls to other operators without charging callers.

Some of those who compete directly with BT on call cost have chosen to follow this move, as they also tend to mirror BT's perversely low prices for non-inclusive 0845 calls. This has nothing to do with fairness, it is simply about marketing.


BT's guess about Ofcom is now seen to have been wrong. Ofcom has now clearly decided that 03 is going to be the only range of numbers tied to geographic call rates - the restriction on 0870 will be lifted, now that the plan to close the range has been dropped.

We have yet to see what BT will do when the special regulation on it is removed and (assuming that Ofcom's plans for the unbundled tariff go ahead) 0845 calls have to be charged with a "Service Charge" included. Perhaps in theory BT could retain the staus quo by having a negative "Access Charge" for inclusive 0845 calls and a zero "Access Charge" for non-incusive 0845 calls. This would however cut across the idea of having a single "Access Charge" and BT is unlikely to voluntarily deny itself the right to levy an "Access Charge" having threatened legal action in order to get the present regulations, which prohibit this lifted.


I am sorry that this complex issue cannot be presented more simply. What has to be remembered is that where revenue sharing calls are covered by packages all subscribers are paying the recipients of these calls whether or not they call them. All things being equal, package prices would be much lower if these calls were not included.

I believe that if call recipients are to benefit from subsidy at the expense of callers then this must be declared and only paid by those who call them. This means that I have to see the inclusion of 0845 calls in packages as a bad thing, as a point of principle. It is also dangerous because it adds to the confusion about 084 calls in general.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Apr 14^th, 2012 at 3:26pm:

I believe that if call recipients are to benefit from subsidy at the expense of callers then this must be declared and only paid by those who call them. This means that I have to see the inclusion of 0845 calls in packages as a bad thing, as a point of principle. It is also dangerous because it adds to the confusion about 084 calls in general.

It is hard to argue with this in principle; in practice I was very glad to be able to call an 0845 number yesterday evening without charge, as I was unable (and not terribly motivated, given the lack of charge from my Plusnet landline) to find a viable alternative!

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Apr 14^th, 2012 at 3:26pm:

I believe that if call recipients are to benefit from subsidy at the expense of callers then this must be declared and only paid by those who call them. This means that I have to see the inclusion of 0845 calls in packages as a bad thing, as a point of principle. It is also dangerous because it adds to the confusion about 084 calls in general.

I agree that the subsidy (or "Service Charge" which is the official Ofcom-proposed term) cannot ever form part of inclusive bundles. This has the potential to cause confusion, as Service Providers (e.g. banks) will be giving the message that calls incur a Service Charge of, say 5 pence per minute. Clearly this won't be so for those where the charges are inclusive! It also has the affect that all customers of call providers that do include these charges pay for them.

But what about the inclusion of Access Charges in packages? Call providers will have the freedom to set Access Charges as they see fit, in much the same way that they can set the charge rates of any call.  :-?

It is very common (and readily understood) for non-premium calls to be covered by inclusive bundles or inclusive packages. But the unbundled tariff with Access Charge and Service Charge concept is new, so the potential of a advising that an Access Charge will be levied when it may not be does have the potential to cause confusion.

Whilst a prohibitation of Access Charges being inclusive would have the advantage of avoiding the potential for such confusion, the downside would be a degree restriction on the proposition that call providers can offer.

I have not decided where I stand on this one. Have I missed something?

Another possibility is that inclusive Access Charges be prohibited with a view to keeping it under review and at some point possibly allowing them to be inclusive.

kasg wrote on Apr 14^th, 2012 at 4:16pm:

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Apr 14th, 2012 at 3:26pm: I believe that if call recipients are to benefit from subsidy at the expense of callers then this must be declared and only paid by those who call them. This means that I have to see the inclusion of 0845 calls in packages as a bad thing, as a point of principle. It is also dangerous because it adds to the confusion about 084 calls in general. It is hard to argue with this in principle; in practice I was very glad to be able to call an 0845 number yesterday evening without charge, as I was unable (and not terribly motivated, given the lack of charge from my Plusnet landline) to find a viable alternative!

I myself feel a little uncomfortable making inclusive calls to 0845 numbers, under the terms of my BT Unlimited Anytime package. I re-assure myself by knowing that the package would be cheaper if these were not included.


Dave wrote on Apr 14^th, 2012 at 5:29pm:

… Another possibility is that inclusive Access Charges be prohibited with a view to keeping it under review and at some point possibly allowing them to be inclusive.

I see no good reason why "Access Charges" should not be inclusive or bundled.

I have not yet checked to see what view Ofcom takes.

It will also be interesting to know how the Telcos see this. If they want to do it, I cannot see any very good reason for Ofcom standing against it.

kasg wrote on Apr 14^th, 2012 at 2:58pm:

ihate0845 wrote on Apr 14th, 2012 at 1:54am: I cant see 0845 been inclusive on residential packages for a long time unless its either forced by regulation or companies stop using the number.  They will all lose too much revenue. 0845 already is inclusive on many residential packages, e.g. BT, Plusnet, no doubt others.

BT own plusnet so I wouldnt assume others have also done it.  Certianly I cant think of any providers who treat 0845 as inclusive.

ihate0845 wrote on Apr 19^th, 2012 at 2:34pm:

kasg wrote on Apr 14th, 2012 at 2:58pm: ihate0845 wrote on Apr 14th, 2012 at 1:54am: I cant see 0845 been inclusive on residential packages for a long time unless its either forced by regulation or companies stop using the number.  They will all lose too much revenue. 0845 already is inclusive on many residential packages, e.g. BT, Plusnet, no doubt others. BT own plusnet so I wouldnt assume others have also done it.  Certianly I cant think of any providers who treat 0845 as inclusive.

T mobile  do.   See here

http://www.saynoto0870.com/cgi-bin/forum/YaBB.cgi?num=1330660098/5

trust you to find one :)

isnt t-mobile got some relation to BT as well?

ihate0845 wrote on Apr 19^th, 2012 at 2:34pm:

Certianly I cant think of any providers who treat 0845 as inclusive.

Post Office phones do. See para at bottom of this page: http://www.postoffice.co.uk/broadband-phone/home-phone-broadband/home-phone/price-list

There are a fair few that do include 0845 in landline residential deals . EG :

http://sales.talktalk.co.uk/product/phone/

http://www.thephone.coop/residential/packages

http://www.madasafish.com/talk/

http://www.idnet.net/solutions/home/phone/

https://home.auracall.com/rLinesCalls-en.aspx?prod=opt4

and i believe utilitywarehouse has just added them back to there packages.

bigjohn wrote on Apr 20^th, 2012 at 9:43am:

There are a fair few that do include 0845 in landline residential deals . EG : …

We must understand that this is nothing more than a competitive reaction to what BT is readily able to do because of the effects of the regulation that is currently in force.

This regulation will be removed and the whole system blown apart by the changes which Ofcom is currently proposing. We must see this as a temporary blip. It is even worse for users of 0845 numbers to be subsidised by all package subscribers, rather than just those who call them.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Apr 20^th, 2012 at 10:07am:

bigjohn wrote on Apr 20th, 2012 at 9:43am: There are a fair few that do include 0845 in landline residential deals . EG : … We must understand that this is nothing more than a competitive reaction to what BT is readily able to do because of the effects of the regulation that is currently in force. This regulation will be removed and the whole system blown apart by the changes which Ofcom is currently proposing. We must see this as a temporary blip. It is even worse for users of 0845 numbers to be subsidised by all package subscribers, rather than just those who call them.

where do I see the changes ofcom are proposing?

and it sounds like you prefer callers of 0845 to pay more rather than the cost spread out across more people.  I already find 0845 calls extortionate.

Ok I think I found the porposals to me they seem a joke.

If I understand right ofcom is proposing its ok to charge an arm and a leg for a call as long as you tell the person first at the start of the call, oh dear.

I sent a long email to them just now asking why they so soft and care so much for not damaging profits.

ihate0845 wrote on Apr 21^st, 2012 at 9:17am:

and it sounds like you prefer callers of 0845 to pay more rather than the cost spread out across more people.  I already find 0845 calls extortionate.

I too would rather see a situation where the cost of connecting 0845 calls (which is to the benefit of the users of these numbers) be paid for by those who call them rather than by callers in general.

I also very seriously support Ofcom's proposal to make this cost of connecting 0845 calls clear. I agree with all those who say that it has taken too long to reach this stage, but we are where we are.

The Ofcom proposals would mean that DWP, HMRC, banks and insurance companies would have to say that the cost of calling their number attracts a 2 pence per minute Service Charge, for example.

That would mean that it is clear to see that these organisations are imposing such a charge. They will either be happy to defend it or give it up and move to 03 numbers.



ihate0845 wrote on Apr 21^st, 2012 at 9:17am:

Ok I think I found the porposals to me they seem a joke. If I understand right ofcom is proposing its ok to charge an arm and a leg for a call as long as you tell the person first at the start of the call, oh dear.

The proposal is to remove the regulation on BT which forbids it from adding its own Access Charge to calls to 08 and 09 numbers.

Such regulation does not apply to any other provider. Other providers, particularly the mobile ones, add hefty Access Charges. Ofcom's proposals not only mean that Service Providers will have to notify of their Service Charges, but they also mean that call providers will also have to set and notify their customers of their Acess Charges for calling these numbers. For example, at the present time a mobile provider that charges 40 pence per minute to ring 0845 numbers imposes an Access Charge of around 38 pence per minute.

I must emphasise that the removal of the regulation on BT therefore is not intended to increase the price of calling from other phones. It is simply intended to bring BT into line with the rest.

It will also stop giving users of 084 and 087 numbers a perverse rate to quote in their material. That is, at the moment a lot of users give the BT call rates which are perversly low due to the regulation and therefore the exception. I believe that this has fuelled a lot of the use of these numbers. I cannot see how anyone who is against these numbers could support such regulation or perhaps support its extension to other call providers.

ihate0845 wrote on Apr 21^st, 2012 at 9:17am:

where do I see the changes ofcom are proposing? … Ok I think I found the porposals …

They are discussed and linked to in this thread - Ofcom 2012 consultation on non-geo numbers.

The principle that those receiving telephone calls may benefit from a premium paid by callers extends from the most expensive 09 numbers (at the rate of £1.50 per minute) down to 0845 (at 2p per minute).

Some would argue that this should be stopped altogether, or prohibited below the limits currently in place - up to 5p per minute for 084 and 10p per minute for 087.

Ofcom argues that it should continue, but that this level of "Service Charge" must be declared by the user of the number and that the telephone companies must clearly declare the "Access Charge" that they add to give the total cost for the call.


Whilst I agree that such a system is open to abuse, I believe that much of this would be halted if both parties had to declare their charges. I believe that few organisations would think it worthwhile to have a charge of less than 5p per minute, if they had to declare it.



ihate0845 wrote on Apr 21^st, 2012 at 9:17am:

it sounds like you prefer callers of 0845 to pay more rather than the cost spread out across more people.  I already find 0845 calls extortionate.

You understand me correctly.

I see the fact that in some cases the Service Charge is paid by all those who subscribe to a particular package as unfair. Furthermore, this distorts the view of what is going on in cases where the call cost is extortionate.

Spreading the cost does ease the burden, but it also helps to hide it.

When ("low level") revenue sharing was originally introduced, with what we now know as 0845 and 0870 (in the latter case before the 2009 changes) and when BT had a near monopoly, the cost was hidden and spread so as to promote use of "enhanced telephony". The situation is so different now; there is no longer any basis for the cost being hidden.



ihate0845 wrote on Apr 21^st, 2012 at 9:17am:

… to me they seem a joke … If I understand right ofcom is proposing its ok to charge an arm and a leg for a call as long as you tell the person first at the start of the call, oh dear. I sent a long email to them just now asking why they so soft and care so much for not damaging profits.

Ofcom has very belatedly come to address a situation that has got totally out of hand.

Its statutory duty is to regulate an independent, profit-making telecoms industry. Its powers of enforcement are relatively weak, as any intervention takes a very long time and requires an excessive amount of effort.

The scope of Ofcom's regulation has recently been increased as a result of implementation of a EU directive. There may be arguments for the re-nationalisation of the telecoms industry (to remove the profit motive) or the introduction of legislation to permit stronger regulation (perhaps to cover users of telephone services, rather than just the providers). I cannot however see these being adopted as policy by any party likely to win control of the UK parliament in the foreseeable future.


Ofcom is not generally in favour of "pre call announcements". I agree, believing that the time when a caller needs to be aware of the rate of charge for a call is when they are deciding to make it, not after they have dialled the number with the intention of making the call.

I believe that use of PCAs should be reserved for cases where the caller is likely to have underestimated the cost of the call and needs to have the chance to abandon it when they learn the true cost (e.g. chargeable calls to 080 numbers from mobiles). Such situations should be kept to an absolute minimum; I see it as a systemic failure if the progress of a telephone conversation is interrupted by the insertion of possibly worthless messages.


Ofcom proposes to address the "arm and leg" issue by having limits on the level of Service Charge that can be applied to each group of numbers, e.g. 084 / 087 / 09, and also limiting the wide range of "Access Charges" that telcos currently apply to a single figure for each tariff. It will however be consulting separately on the possibility of lifting the upper limit of £1.50 per minute, so that part of the torso may be added to the cost of a call.

sorry guys I disagree with your opinions, obviously I appreciate the replies tho.

at the end of the day if someone is ringing an 0845 number which is usually used for government departments or company support then it probably means at least a 90% chance the person 'has' to make that call, most people are unaware of this site and as such will be unware alternative numbers can exist, so in my opinion it will probably affect only 1-2% of calls and the rest will proceed with the call anyway. I think you both niave as well as ofcom if you genuinly think most people think 0845 isnt more expensive than normal, its just people put up with it because they have no choice.  They will of course know when they get their phonebills.

I proposed the following to ofcom which I think is more reasonable.

1 - cap 0845 etc. to max of 4p a minute. 5p a minute or over is 09xx premium rate.
2 - require ringback after 2 minutes wait.
3 - make it illegal to use profitable numbers such as 0845 when the company already gets revenue of the callers.
4 - standardise the cost of 0845 across all call providers including mobile (achieved by doing the max 4p regulation)
5 - fine 10x call revenue for misadvertising the number, eg. if barclays make 30 million a year from 0845 calls and advertised as local rate, fine 300million to remind companies you wont take lightly.

#3 eg. all government would be banned as they already get tax revenue, and companies like sky would be banned as they already get monthly subs.
To further the point on #3 I mean if eg. someone rings up to report a problem with their sky service, sky shouldnt be profiting of a fault, likewise if someone is ringing up the DWP to try and resolve a benefit issue (that person is very likely poor and cash strapped) then they shouldnt be footing the full cost of that call it should be taxpayer funded at least to the point it can be geographical rate.

I would find 0845 reasonable eg. for an advise line where the service otherwise has no monthly income.

ihate0845 wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2012 at 6:00pm:

sorry guys I disagree with your opinions, obviously I appreciate the replies tho.

ihate0845 wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2012 at 5:51pm:

it seems the new regulation isnt going to change much tho, as I udnerstand it ofcom are just proposing a message is added at start of calls to give the true cost. there is going to be little to no action I see it from ofcom to force or at least motivate people to stop uusing these numbers. eg. if I ring up someone on 0845 who has no alternative and then get told the call is about to cost me a fortune, its hardly going to stop me ringing is it.

You seem to have read a very different version of Ofcom's proposals from that which I have read. At the risk of being accused of denying you the right to hold a different opinion, I must suggest that you have wholly misunderstood what is proposed.


ihate0845 wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2012 at 6:00pm:

I think you both niave as well as ofcom if you genuinly think most people think 0845 isnt more expensive than normal, its just people put up with it because they have no choice.  They will of course know when they get their phonebills.

I regret that there are many people who do believe that 0845 calls cost the same as geographic calls or less. They either have service from BT or look only at BT tariffs, thinking that other call service providers are simply profiteering by charging more.

The Ofcom proposal to remove the NTS condition from BT will address this.



ihate0845 wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2012 at 6:00pm:

I proposed the following to ofcom which I think is more reasonable. 1 - cap 0845 etc. to max of 4p a minute. 5p a minute or over is 09xx premium rate. 2 - require ringback after 2 minutes wait. 3 - make it illegal to use profitable numbers such as 0845 when the company already gets revenue of the callers. 4 - standardise the cost of 0845 across all call providers including mobile (achieved by doing the max 4p regulation) 5 - fine 10x call revenue for misadvertising the number, eg. if barclays make 30 million a year from 0845 calls and advertised as local rate, fine 300million to remind companies you wont take lightly.

Your proposals are essentially reasonable and are very close to the effect which the Ofcom proposals are intended to achieve.

#1 is essentially what is currently in place, although it only applies to BT. PRS includes 087x. #4 (and #1) is what is proposed in terms of the "Service Charge".

Because Ofcom has to allow for competition it is unwilling to force all providers to make the same charge. If it simply set a maximum that had to be advised, there would be little incentive for operators to charge less, unless there was intense competition for business in this area. With the "Service Charge" fixed across all operators, it proposes that each is able to set a single "Access Charge".

#2 seems attractive but has many problems.

#3 would probably demand a designation of the type of service being offered on the line. As stated, it would outlaw Directory Enquiry services from phone service providers.

#5 (along with #2 and #3) would require a change to legislation for Ofcom to have these powers.


I believe that Ofcom is right to attempt to remove the clouds of doubt and confusion that cover this area, so that the relationships between the caller, their telephone company and the "Service Provider" (user of the number) are clear to see. I believe that when "Service Charges" have to be declared, it will make a difference.

If you continue to hold the opinion that this is not what Ofcom is proposing, then there is little point in us continuing to exchange views on the matter.

interesting you found them reasonable, although I admit #5 may have been over the top.

I told ofcom tho in my view only regulating BT is very wrong, BT is no longer the majority player now and accounts for significantly less than half of consumer calls.

I also think its more important to do consumer protection than competition.

However dint you indicate the current regulation was to be removed so BT prices will jump up rather than the others jumping down to match BT? or are you saying they all going to meet somewhere in the middle?

ihate0845 wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2012 at 4:32pm:

interesting you found them reasonable, although I admit #5 may have been over the top. I told ofcom tho in my view only regulating BT is very wrong, BT is no longer the majority player now and accounts for significantly less than half of consumer calls. I also think its more important to do consumer protection than competition. However dint you indicate the current regulation was to be removed so BT prices will jump up rather than the others jumping down to match BT? or are you saying they all going to meet somewhere in the middle?

It is argued, not entirely without reason, that an open competitive market does benefit consumers! In some cases this is more effective than regulation - especially when it comes to pricing.

The current price regulation on BT is going to be removed, for exactly the reason that you give. As this essentially denies BT any revenue when originating calls to non-geographic numbers on other networks, it is absurd to think that anyone would choose to operate in this way.

It is far too soon to assess exactly what effect the new regime will have on prices in general. It will be a major shake-up to the system and I hope that a large number of current 0845 users will move to 03 or geographic numbers. Because it will be some time before it will come into effect - Ofcom plans to announce the final plan at the end of this year - the telcos have not given any indication of what they will do about their "Access Charges".

With charges for calls to mobiles due to come down to the same rate as those to landlines, I see the prospect of an all-inclusive package covering calls to mobiles, landlines and the access charge element of calls to non-geographic numbers. This would mean that the only call charges on a telephone bill would be the service charges passed on to service providers and international operators.

I would see such an arrangement as essentially fair - the only downside being the fact that those who make relatively light use of telephone services would be paying a proportionately high price for the benefit they receive.

That is maybe the case already, I am very concious of pricing but I pay for calls unlimited on our Virgin services. It is a fact that customers will pay an excess for the convenience of paying equal monthly payments.

Example Calls Unlimited  £13.25 per month
Virgin landline to mobile 59 minutes all inclusive calling
118180 ten calls a day all inclusive
50 mobile minutes to Virgin landlines and mobile all inclusive

The chances are that some months I do not use all my free minutes and I have to use in ecess of 150 minutes a month from my landline to a Virgin mobile to gain value for money for the £13.25 a month fee that I pay.

In most cases convenience is king

In addition to the monthy rental fee there is an additional charge for the call unlimited package, this will also increase the overall cost of a call.

Conveniene wins over cost in most circumstances

well this is it.

its not fair to just make them inclusive, the actual prices need to also come down a lot.

for me to go to a unlimited package on my VM line would be just stupid as the thing is barely used, I then only serve to throw money away.  I am even considering cancelling the line completely.

also people with low income I expect are much less likely to take a package that has a higher base price so will be more vulnerable to what is called here 'penalty charges'.

All I can do as you say is wait although I have no idea why ofcom need the entire year to decide something, they seem extremely slow at what they do.

to add a further point here, it seems irresponsible to change regulation when the outcome is unpredictable perhaps this is why ofcom so frequently get caught with their pants down.