Rip off Britain yesterday mentioned TPS, (Telephone Preference Service),and called their number, 0845 0700707, "local rate", link to the comment:- http://www.bbc.co.uk/i/b01n2qdr/?t=39m34s

I wonder why they never mentioned the freephone number? 0800 398893.

.

derrick wrote on Sep 27^th, 2012 at 10:53am:

Rip off Britain yesterday mentioned TPS, (Telephone Preference Service),and called their number, 0845 0700707, "local rate", link to the comment:- http://www.bbc.co.uk/i/b01n2qdr/?t=39m34s.

The item also went on to state that the regulator which deals with failures to comply with the regulations based on the TPS is Ofcom.

This is untrue - it is the Office of the Information Commissioner.

>:( / :'( ? - :-/

And they are now calling 0370 "local rate from a landline", on Points of View, http://www.bbc.co.uk/i/b01n5y4k/?t=14m12s

.

derrick wrote on Oct 1^st, 2012 at 11:08am:

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Sep 30th, 2012 at 10:34pm: Any other suggestions?

(see the discussion there)


The difficulty at present for the BBC is finding a simple term that will effectively convey the correct message to listeners and viewers:


Quote:

The call will cost no more than whatever you pay (if anything) to call your neighbour on their landline, given that such a call would not be subject to some exceptional discount.

Which of the following best conveys this message?[list bull-redsq]

local rate

national rate

geographic rate

UK rate

countrywide rate Whilst the third is Ofcom's preference, it is potentially undermined by the possibility of there being a difference between the first two. None of the last three are sufficiently familiar to inspire confidence. The second, and thereby the third, is generally (if mistakenly) understood to be more expensive than the first.

Given that there are no currently known cases where the first is untrue, it is hard to object!

Quote:

Which of the following best conveys this message?[list bull-redsq] local rate national rate geographic rate UK rate countrywide rate Whilst the third is Ofcom's preference, it is potentially undermined by the possibility of there being a difference between the first two. None of the last three are sufficiently familiar to inspire confidence. The second, and thereby the third, is generally (if mistakenly) understood to be more expensive than the first. Given that there are no currently known cases where the first is untrue, it is hard to object!

In my opinion none of these descriptions are correct or complete in their present form.

What the BBC need to say is something like "calls to this number are charged at standard BT geographic rates and will therefore also be treated as inclusive minutes within any landline or mobile phone inclusive calls bundles covering calls at that time of day".

However as even my above suggestion may be thought too complicated or confusing what is really needed is an active and ongoing public information campaign by Ofcom to educate people about different types of telephone number code and those number codes which qualify as standard minutes within calling plans and those which do not.

Ofcom also need to make an effort to educate people that where they make a call outside a call bundle that the cost of the call is becoming ever more expensive.

Of course on their latter point it was their own stupid mistake at Ofcom in totally deregulating BT prices on the incorrect basis that they no longer had Significant Market Power that has led to the current disgraceful abuses of Connection fees designed to blackmail customers in to taking a monthly calling package.  This abuse of connection fees is unfortunately a European wide problem although in Spain it manifests itself more frequently on mobiles where connection fees are now between 17 cents and 25 cents a call (depending on provider) in order to try and blackmail phone users in to subscribing to a monthly calls package.

All of these moves to introduce connection fees are in my opinions disgracefully uncompetitive (as with the ripoff Easyjet booking Administration fee that discriminates against solo passengers and one way travellers) and so should be banned by the OFT.

Can you imagine the fuss for instance if petrol stations were allowed to introduce a £5 per tank filling charge to any customer who had not contracted to buy 2,000 litres of petrol a year from that company's forecourts but this in effect is what the telephone companies are being allowed to do.

NGMsGhost wrote on Nov 5^th, 2012 at 3:32pm:

What the BBC need to say is something like "calls to this number are charged at standard BT geographic rates and will therefore also be treated as inclusive minutes within any landline or mobile phone inclusive calls bundles covering calls at that time of day".

This statement is only relevant to calls made from one particular provider. Stating call charges of one provider is anachronistic.

Dave wrote on Nov 5^th, 2012 at 3:46pm:

This statement is only relevant to calls made from one particular provider. Stating call charges of one provider is anachronistic.

I think my suggested statement still works if you drop BT from it.

Also please note it was Ofcom and not me who invented the idea of doing price comparisons with BT's calling prices.

Quote:

Calls to 03 numbers cost the same as to 01 and 02 numbers and all are included within "inclusive minutes" bundles from landlines and mobiles".

NGMsGhost wrote on Nov 5^th, 2012 at 3:32pm:

In my opinion none of these descriptions are correct or complete in their present form.

That was essentially my point.

It has taken a long time for the general position of seeing 084 numbers as being equivalent to “local rate”, and that term having any meaning, to come under doubt and suspicion - the SayNoTo0870 campaign has made a terrific contribution to that, but people (on both sides) are very slow to pick up the point.

Ofcom has, finally and far too late, decided to take on the job of simplifying non-geographic numbers and will have to come up with some simple and memorable terms to describe the various categories. It may then be many more years before these come to be adopted and understood.

Given the plural nature of the telecoms market, any attempt to give a comprehensive description of the cost of calling a number will either be inaccurate, incomplete, complete nonsense or all three (see “up to … an additional charge may apply” here). If one has to use more than a few simple words, then one might just as well show a cost hazard warning symbol, because that is all that is being achieved for the vast majority.

The question is - will Ofcom succeed?

I think that when marketing elements come into play, adding meaningless junk to the message is commonplace to baffle the customer.

There's a current TV advert that says "...up to 100% utilisation" or somesuch. Meaningless twaddle. Similarly, "... kills up to 100% of known germs", and other such garbage.


Ofcom will have to come up with a list of recommended wordings for each number range. They'll probably say it's not a part of their remit. Even if they do come up with such wording, they'll have no power to enforce it.

catj wrote on Nov 5^th, 2012 at 11:57pm:

Ofcom will have to come up with a list of recommended wordings for each number range. They'll probably say it's not a part of their remit. …

Not so - see the table of graphics and words in this summary of its latest proposals.


catj wrote on Nov 5^th, 2012 at 11:57pm:

… Even if they do come up with such wording, they'll have no power to enforce it.

Let us not get too hung up on “enforcement”. The first step is to offer an easy route for those who are keen to “do the right thing” - even they are in a terrible muddle at present.

Interesting! That's a good start but not without problems.

The graphics are inconsistent, some with numbers and some with words. The one with "08" and then charge details is problematical: 0800 numbers are also 08 numbers. 08 should be broken down into 080, 084 and 087 for clarity.

catj wrote on Nov 6^th, 2012 at 7:52am:

Interesting! That's a good start but not without problems. The graphics are inconsistent, some with numbers and some with words. The one with "08" and then charge details is problematical: 0800 numbers are also 08 numbers. 08 should be broken down into 080, 084 and 087 for clarity.

There is no problem-free way of doing this.

What is interesting from our perspective is that 084 and 087 are grouped together. It was previously proposed that they be described as "Business Rate".

It is of interest to compare the Ofcom 2010 proposals with those from 2012.

View this image

The issue is still open. Informal representations are still being made to Ofcom.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Nov 6^th, 2012 at 11:41am:

View this image

What happened to 070 in that graphic? Bit of an omission.

kasg wrote on Nov 6^th, 2012 at 11:49am:

What happened to 070 in that graphic? Bit of an omission.

Good point - I could have explained.

The various 05s and 076 are also missing. These are being covered by consultations which are separate from those from which the graphics were taken, although all within the same project. Whatever remains of these ranges will have to feature in the final version.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Nov 5^th, 2012 at 8:28pm:

[quote author=NGMsGhost link=1348743194/4#4 date=1352129553]Ofcom has, finally and far too late, decided to take on the job of simplifying non-geographic numbers and will have to come up with some simple and memorable terms to describe the various categories. The question is - will Ofcom succeed?

The answer is NO, Ofcom will not succeed.   The current Ofcom thinking, as you SCV have indicated elsewhere, is to call 084/7 numbers "business rate" and to impose/allow a two component pricing structure for these numbers.  These components, as curently proposed by Ofcom, are named "Access Charge" and "Service charge".    :'(   This is NOT simplification, it is complication and will undoubtedly allow the industry scope to cause even more confusion and bafflement to callers when they are introduced.   

The Ofcom suggested wording (2012 version) to which you have provided a link states "For these numbers, the total cost is made up of an access charge that goes to your phone company PLUS a charge that goes to the organisation receiving the call." and "The charge for these numbers will be no morethan 7p per minutefor 084 numbers and 13p per minute for 087 numbers PLUS your phone company's standard access charge."   These kind of statements illustrate the confusion and duplicity in Ofcom's own thinking.   They are now inventing a new concept of "standard access charge" which does not currently exist and will give BT and all the others further scope to confuse their customers.   This Ofcom confusion and complexity is caused by their refusal to relinquish the idea and practice of charging the cost of 084/7 calls to callers instead of charging the organisations using and benefitting from these numbers.  This concept is clearly unfair to callers and should be abandoned. 

If I may say, I think your Fair Telecoms Campaign should be opposing these Ofcom proposals and pressing for a real simplification in numbering and charging.

loddon wrote on Nov 9^th, 2012 at 8:49am:

The answer is NO, Ofcom will not succeed.   The current Ofcom thinking, as you SCV have indicated elsewhere, is to call 084/7 numbers "business rate" and to impose/allow a two component pricing structure for these numbers.  These components, as curently proposed by Ofcom, are named "Access Charge" and "Service charge".    :'(   This is NOT simplification, it is complication and will undoubtedly allow the industry scope to cause even more confusion and bafflement to callers when they are introduced. The Ofcom suggested wording (2012 version) to which you have provided a link states "For these numbers, the total cost is made up of an access charge that goes to your phone company PLUS a charge that goes to the organisation receiving the call." and "The charge for these numbers will be no morethan 7p per minutefor 084 numbers and 13p per minute for 087 numbers PLUS your phone company's standard access charge."   These kind of statements illustrate the confusion and duplicity in Ofcom's own thinking.   They are now inventing a new concept of "standard access charge" which does not currently exist and will give BT and all the others further scope to confuse their customers.   This Ofcom confusion and complexity is caused by their refusal to relinquish the idea and practice of charging the cost of 084/7 calls to callers instead of charging the organisations using and benefitting from these numbers.  This concept is clearly unfair to callers and should be abandoned.  If I may say, I think your Fair Telecoms Campaign should be opposing these Ofcom proposals and pressing for a real simplification in numbering and charging.

The name "Business Rate" did not appear in Ofcom's latest consultation so it appears that it has been dropped.

The separate Access Charge and Service Charge elements are simply the unbundling of the charges as they are now. We can put forward different suggestions of what the names of these two charges should be, but the fact is that they exist where the receiving party derives benefit.

Even if 084/087 numbers were to be either abolished or have their Service Charges removed and brought in line with geographic call charges, then there would still need to be a system of pricing 09 Premium Rate Service numbers.


The point is that in a free market, providers must be allowed to vary and set their prices. If only a single communications provider existed, then only its call rates would need to be quoted and there would perhaps be no need to indicate the benefit to the receiving party because it would be clear to see by comparing a normal call rate and premium call rate. For example, if a geographic call cost 5 pence per minute and a particular 09 number cost 25 pence per minute, then the premium would be 20 pence per minute.

It could also be said that many different tariffs and packages cause confusion, but likewise that is an expected outcome of the multi-provider system we have. The same is true in any area, whether it be telecommunications, energy, insurance or whatever.


Perhaps those who don't support the Unbundled Tariff could highlight the part in their response to the Ofcom consultation where they outlined what they would do instead.

In response to your points, Dave :---

I wonder why the term “business rate” has been dropped?   Probably as a result of lobbying by the industry which doesn't want it described more closely for what it is. 

The “unbundling” of charges in the way that Ofcom proposes is hardly simplification and does not reduce the harm to callers.   I am surprised that you seem to favour this aspect of Ofcom's proposals.    Take note of what Antelope Consulting say about this.

I have not commented on 09 numbers and they seem to be way outside the scope of this thread.

I agree “that in a free market providers must be allowed to vary and set their prices”.     However, competitors should be required to operate within bounds set by the regulator and the regulator should ensure that the rules are clear and simple enough to allow callers/customers to understand the market without being scammed or bamboozled.   It is interesting to see that the energy regulator is currently addressing, belatedly, the issue of the multitude and complexity of confusing tariffs in that industry which has only six major suppliers so I see no reason why Ofcom cannot act similarly.   The requirement of true simplification would not imply a reversion to a single supplier and should enable sharper and more beneficial competition to take place.

I am content to see “different tariffs and packages” from competing suppliers and would welcome a framework of regulations which allow healthy competition without suppliers being licensed for ripping-off the consumer.

I am pleased to respond to your invitation to highlight relevant parts of previous responses to Ofcom's consultation on this topic with the following extracts :---

“An easy way for Ofcom to protect the interests of the public would be to stipulate that the call charges for use of  084 and 087 numbers must be charged to the user Organisations and not to callers, in a similar way to the operation of 03 numbers. Callers should still pay the proposed access charge but this charge should be no more than their normal geographic call charge, inclusive in packages, and similar to the access charges to 03 numbers. “
http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/consultations/simplifying-non-geo-numbers/responses/Kennedy_Mr_M_G.pdf

Summary
My suggestion is that any extra costs for use of 084 and 087 numbers must be paid by the Organisation which chooses to use those numbers and NOT the callers.

“Callers should pay their normal geographic call price from their own call service supplier as their access charge. Ofcom should ensure that they design the system in such a way that the interests of the calling public are protected, call costs are minimised and that overall efficiency of the phone service is improved in the national interest.”
http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/consultations/simplifying-non-geo-numbers/responses/KennedyMr_M_G.pdf

This extract is from the response by Antelope Consulting which are completely in agreement with my proposals :---

“The distinction between access charges and service charges will not come easily to many people, no matter what names the charges are given. Various possible modifications should be examined (especially if they let people make simplistic but comprehensible distinctions between network costs and information costs). In particular, we favour requiring the access charge to be no greater than the charge for a call to a geographic or mobile number; all non-geographic numbers other than free-to-caller numbers could then be described by one set of rules (as an 03 number would simply be tariffed with the access charge and have a service charge of zero).

More fully, access charges for calls would be no greater than the lowest charges for calls to the majority of assigned 01 or 02 numbers and the majority of assigned 07 numbers in the same circumstances (having the same duration and using the same package with the same prior usage at the same time but ignoring any reduction for local calling). This proposal is like that in Les services à valeur ajoutée: tarification de détail et déontologie (Conseil Général des Technologies de l’Information, October 2008) at http://www.arcep.fr/uploads/tx_gspublication/Rap-CGTIsurSVA.pdf, where the access charge is no greater than the charge for a call to an “interpersonal” number.” 
http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/consultations/simplifying-non-geo-numbers/responses/Antelope_Consulting.pdf

In response to the points by Loddon.


loddon wrote on Nov 11^th, 2012 at 6:20pm:

I wonder why the term “business rate” has been dropped?   Probably as a result of lobbying by the industry which doesn't want it described more closely for what it is.

The replacement "08" is totally meaningless. "Business Rate" was a perfectly acceptable proposal (in the absence of anything clearer). There is no good reason why it could not be adopted, once the final form of the proposals is presented. Ofcom has not yet engaged with representatives of the consumer side in its working groups - this must come along shortly!


loddon wrote on Nov 11^th, 2012 at 6:20pm:

“An easy way for Ofcom to protect the interests of the public would be to stipulate that the call charges for use of  084 and 087 numbers must be charged to the user Organisations and not to callers, in a similar way to the operation of 03 numbers.”

In effect, this is a proposal that use of the 084 and 087 ranges be regulated in the exactly same way as 03; there is no apparent distinction made. Ofcom proposes regulation to be essentially the same as that for the 09 ranges, although with lower limits on the level of the Service Charge and proportionately less regulation of the manner of use.

Ofcom claims that there is significant demand for numbers which offer a Service Charge of less than 10p (or perhaps 13p) per minute. I have my doubts, and believe that use of these ranges will diminish considerably once there is a recognised requirement to declare the Service Charge. (If that requirement may be evaded, then we are in a different situation!)

Ofcom has also stated that simplification is achieved by there being only one non-geographic range (03) which is guaranteed to be charged at the same rate as a call to a geographic number. This thinking probably influenced the decision not to re-classify 0845, and perhaps 0844/3, in the same way as 0870, although with greater force than was applied when 0870 was re-classified, before Ofcom acquired the stronger powers that it now holds. The principle of Simplification demands that all 084 and 087 ranges are treated in the same way. That is why 0870 is to be returned to its former position.



loddon wrote on Nov 11^th, 2012 at 6:20pm:

“Callers should still pay the proposed access charge but this charge should be no more than their normal geographic call charge, inclusive in packages, and similar to the access charges to 03 numbers.”

It is important to understand that the "Access Charge", as currently proposed, ONLY applies when there is also a Service Charge. This is not the term to apply to the call charge incurred when there is no Service Charge, even though some argue that the two should be equivalent.

We have yet to learn how the telcos will treat the Access Charge. There is a major battle going on over call set-up fees, which Ofcom wishes to outlaw. This begs the question about what Ofcom should do if it is able to succeed in respect of Access Charges, but not the penalty charges imposed for, otherwise inclusive, "out of plan" calls.

There is also the question over whether the fees for Call Plans and Packages should have to cover the Access Charge element of calls to numbers with Service Charges. This is especially relevant to the case of the higher cost 09 numbers, where it is proposed that the Access Charge covers the provision against the cost incurred by telcos having to write off disputed charges for calling Premium Rate Services.

There is a strong argument for saying that those who never call numbers with Service Charges should not have to pay for such calls through their Call Plan or Package subscription. I am not inclined to favour a provision which demands that they do so. It may well be that telcos end up following this approach, by making some or all Access Charges inclusive.

We still have some way to go, with Service Charges being treated as inclusive in some cases - thereby paid by all subscribers. This may eliminate premium charges, however it is hard to suggest that it is equitable for them to be simply distributed across the costs incurred by all.

(continued …)

… continuing a response to the points made by Loddon.


loddon wrote on Nov 11^th, 2012 at 6:20pm:

This extract is from the response by Antelope Consulting which are completely in agreement with my proposals …

From the quote offered, Antelope seems to support the concept of the unbundled tariff, although with concerns about the way in which it is understood. It stresses the importance of the difference between the two components being recognised.

Antelope clearly favours the Access Charge being equivalent to the rate for a geographic call, and thereby presumably subject to the same terms for inclusion in Call Plans and Packages. Indeed, unless it is also proposing a change to the 03 regulations, it proposes that the same term be used to describe the cost of a call to a geographic number.

The quote then extends the issue even further to address the forthcoming situation where the inflated termination fee for calls to mobile (07) numbers will disappear. Ofcom has no current proposals to intervene in respect of the retail pricing implications of this move, but this may have to follow.

Antelope proposes that the Access Charge also equate to the charge for calling a mobile number. I have not investigated the circumstances which pertain in the francophone country referred to, however I suspect that they are much simpler than the present situation in the UK. Ofcom would have a great deal more to do before anything approaching the degree of simplicity sought could be achieved.



loddon wrote on Nov 9^th, 2012 at 8:49am:

The question is - will Ofcom succeed?

If we have doubts about whether Ofcom will be successful in presenting the various categories of types of number effectively, we may be stretching ourselves to give serious consideration to the possibility proposed by Antelope and (apparently) Loddon.

It is proposed that every tariff, mobile and landline, offers a single charge rate for calls to all 01/02/03 and 07 (presumably excluding 070 and 076) numbers, which is also the only charge to the benefit of the call originating telco on calls to 084/087/09/118 (and other) numbers. This is indeed simplicity, but is it desirable, and could Ofcom achieve it?