This is an extremely simple question with an extremely complicated answer, why did Ofcom switch their 10p a minute 0870 revenue sharing number to 0844, so the businesses had to spend millions changing their exchanges and stationery, customers continue to get ripped off, and nothing's changed?

Ofcom's move against 0870 was part of the piecemeal approach it was following at that time. This inevitably caused many to migrate to 0871/2/3 or 0844.

The next target was to be 0845, which many thought would be subjected to similar treatment. Ofcom however changed its approach to hit the whole topic of "Simplifying Non-Geographic Numbers".

After 18 months and three consultations we are expecting the next stage to begin early in the New Year. We understand that this will be formal notice of the specific new regulations which will be put into effect around the middle of 2014.

The essence of the new approach is to leave the ranges largely as they are - indeed 0870 will be returned to its former status. The main difference will be that the two elements which are currently bundled together to create the charge for calling revenue sharing numbers 084/087/09 will be separated.

---

The over-simplistic answer is that Ofcom recognises that this was the wrong approach and is now doing things differently.

One could say that part of the problem was a well-known website which, by its title, suggested that 0870 was the only issue. That would however be unfair.

But the harm of revenue share number ranges (084 and 087) sharing the same two number prefix as 080 Freephone numbers will absurdly remain along with the harm of the 070 PNS number range that looks like a mobile phone number.

And most members of the public will continue to believe 0845 is "local rate" and 0871 is "national rate" mainly because the complacent careerists at Ofcom have deliberately done nothing to cause them to be educated this is not the case.

I didn't bother to respond to the last couple of Ofcom consultations on this matter as I knew there would be absolutely no point.  Whatever the public said Ofcom would continue with the cosy deal it had struck with the telcos and call centre operators in secret before it launched the consultations and any input from members of the public would be resoundingly ignored as per usual. :o >:( :'(

There is no reason to even have 0870 and 0844 as we have the 0330 numbers now

There are some businesses and business models where it is quite appropriate that callers should be charged a premium for their call; at present that is probably true for much less than 1% of the companies that currently use 084 and 087 numbers.

The problem arises that everyone hopped on it as a cash cow for penalising customers needing customer service or needing to complain - both of which should not incur additional charge.

That problem will end when the Consumer Rights Directive comes into force and 03 numbers will have to be adopted for those services.


Customers are confused by numbering. The numbers 0842/3/4 - 0845 - 0870 - 0871/2/3 each have different pricing and rules. Simplification to 084 and 087 (with perhaps both under the auspices of PhonePayPlus) looks likely when the problem is addressed by Ofcom in 2013 or 2014, and that process will be long overdue.

catj wrote on Dec 9^th, 2012 at 5:02pm:

The problem arises that everyone hopped on it as a cash cow for penalising customers needing customer service or needing to complain - both of which should not incur additional charge.

I believe it is fair to say that, in many cases, this was done unwittingly.

When offering a telephone service to a business, a telco is able to present a more competitive proposition if a 084/087 number is used. A buyer will naturally be drawn to the cheapest offer and may be reassured about the consequences, in terms of the cost to callers, in ways which (shall we say) "look on the bright side". A lot of the garbage about call costs found on web sites is unthinkingly reproduced from unreliable sources.

Many of the people I speak with are genuinely unaware of what they are doing to their callers. Of course that is an unacceptable failure in their duty, so it in no way lets them off the hook. It does perhaps give us hope that when they are forced to acknowledge what is going on, they will have to recognise that they must change their ways.

This is not easy. There are very few people who, when realising that they have unintentionally been ripping people off, would immediately own up to it and put the situation right by proposing that their business allows its costs to increase. It may not be possible to distinguish between the well-meaning, but irresponsible, incompetent and the deliberate rogue.

When they are forced to consider the likely reaction to declaring a "Service Charge", that could be the tipping point.