My understanding is that a third party company "rents" the 0845 number to the Bank / Local Government Office etc.
The 0845 number provider then "piggybacks" the 0845 number onto the Bank's existing geo. line.
The Bank still pays the service provider geo. line rental.
Presumably, the service provider then pays the 0845 number provider each time the number is dialled and the 0845 number provider then shares the money (or not) with the Bank etc.
So the additional cost over calling a standard telephone number is the money paid to the 0845 number provider.
Sky, for example, include the connection fee and call fee costs to geo. lines in their package, so if Sky charge 10.92p (excl. VAT) connection charge and 5.525p per min. (excl. VAT) call charge to call 0845 numbers, then I wonder how much Sky actually pay to the 0845 number provider.

Welcome to the forum and well done with what you have laid out.

It may help to offer some standard terminology which is used to describe who is who.

Service Provider (SP): the person / organisation called - the "bank / Local Government Office" in your example.
Originating Communications Provider (OCP): the caller's telco - Sky in your example.
Terminating Communications Provider (TCP): the SP's telco - the "third party company" in your example.

Once the 0845 call has been terminated at the exchange, it may be routed in any number of ways. Using a line rented from another telco is but one of many possibilities. This phase of the operation obviously has to be paid for in some way.

With each type of non-geographic number an arrangement exists between the OCP and the TCP as to how money changes hands. This is however done on a standardised basis. In the case of all 0845 numbers, every OCP pays every TCP around 2p per minute. It is then for the OCP to decide how much of this to recover from the caller through its call charge.

At present, this 2p per minute, or whatever is the rate for the particular type of number, represents an addition to the "termination fee" which is paid, in the same way that it is hidden within the call charge. When Ofcom introduces the "unbundled tariff", these amounts will be further standardised and brought into the open.

The 2p per minute (in this case) will be known as the "Service Charge" and will have to be declared by the SP.
Whatever is added to give the call charge will be known as the "Access Charge" and will have to be declared by the OCP.
Ofcom intends that there be only one "Access Charge" per tariff, covering all types of number to which it applies.

Ofcom refers to this as "Simplifying Non-Geographic Numbers". Having two separate elements to consider, rather than one, may seem to be more complicated, however the inherent complexity of this arrangement is presently hidden from view - prompting the question which you posed and the answer which has been provided.


How the TCP "shares the revenue" with the SP is a matter between them. One must assume that the benefit derived by the TCP is somehow reflected in the cost to the SP. Any SP which claims that it is not must explain why it is allowing itself to be "ripped off" by its telco.


At the caller's end one would expect the value of the "Service Charge" to be a surcharge on the cost of calling a geographic number, however things are not that simple.

Calls to geographic numbers are now generally included in Call Plans and Bundles and thereby not normally subject to a call charge. Those who call geographic numbers outside the terms of their Call Plan or Bundle incur a "penalty charge". In some cases this "penalty charge" may actually be greater than the call charge for calling some numbers that are subject to a "Service Charge".

The issue is further complicated where the OCP includes calls to some (generally only 0845) such numbers within the terms of its Call Plan. In this case they are currently collecting the Service Charge from all subscribers to the plan.


I will not go further into detail here, however I will comment that certain special arrangements presently apply to BT as a OCP, on top of the general case which is described above. These will be lifted as part of the Ofcom "Simplifying Non-Geographic Numbers" project. In fact, Ofcom has no choice, as BT's share of the calls market has long been below the level where such special regulation could be sustained under the law. Regulation of BT's charges for geographic calls was lifted years ago.

---

To address the specific points made, in the light of the above:

In this context, the term "Service Provider" is formally used to refer to "the bank", rather than to any provider of telephone service (there is nothing wrong with the use of the term to refer to a telco in standard English).

Once the 0845 call has been terminated at the "0845 exchange" it may be delivered in any number of ways.

The difference in the call charge for a 0845 number and a geographic number is what emerges from two separate elements of a telephone tariff. It will generally be positive, but may be zero or even negative.

One may analyse that difference with respect to the "Service Charge", however the level of the Service Charge is constant for the type of number called, regardless of the call charge levied.

(The term "revenue sharing", alongside some aspects of the unique BT regulations, have naturally given rise to the idea that the amount paid to the person called is determined as a proportion of what the caller pays. There is some truth in the underlying idea, but that is not how it actually works.)

I hope that this is helpful. I also hope that this will all become clearer to everyone once Ofcom has made its definitive announcement about how the "unbundled tariff" will work, early in the New Year. The concept of the "unbundled tariff" should be easy to grasp; the problem will be in relating it to the hideously complicated situation that exists at present.

Hello and welcome to the SayNoTo0870.com forum.


All users of 084 numbers receive benefit from their use. They can choose a 03 number if they don't wish to benefit but require a non-geographic number.

The Unbundled Tariff, which Ofcom is expected to announce soon as being the way forward, will expose the situation as it stands now.

Call providers have a "termination charge" levied on them for connecting calls and this is imposed by the telephone provider of the destination number. For 084 (and 0871/2/3 and 09 numbers) the termination charge is inflated so as to pass a subsidy to the provider of the number (and therefore its customer for whom it is acting as an agent). This is the "benefit" I refer to and under the proposals it is referred to as the "Service Charge".

Each call provider (Sky Talk, BT, TalkTalk etc) will be required to publish their "Access Charge" for these numbers and this will be the amount they add on to the Service Charge (different Service Charges apply for different 08/09 numbers).

It will then be clear to see how much each call provider adds to these calls (the Access Charge) and how much each Service Provider (user of 084 number) benefits (the Service Charge). That is, the two will be separated for all to see.


What happens to the Service Charge is irrelevant as far as the customer of the user of the 084 number (e.g. customer of the bank) is concerned.

However, where revenue is paid directly to the Service Provider (e.g. bank), this comes out of the Service Charge. Thus, the amount that the phone provider of the 084 number retains is the Service Charge less that revenue payment. So in fact the revenue payment isn't something that is "shared" as such, but it is what is left over of the Service Charge once the 084 provider has taken its cut for provision of the service to its customer.

Thank you for your replies.
Most enlightening.
It is a great pity that these explanations are not more widely available.

rao wrote on Dec 7^th, 2012 at 8:39am:

Thank you for your replies. Most enlightening. It is a great pity that these explanations are not more widely available.

We must hope that Ofcom will be effective in what it is genuinely trying to do.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Dec 7^th, 2012 at 1:07pm:

rao wrote on Dec 7th, 2012 at 8:39am: Thank you for your replies. Most enlightening. It is a great pity that these explanations are not more widely available. We must hope that Ofcom will be effective in what it is genuinely trying to do.

Ofcom is only interested in silencing consumers. Early consultations attracted hundreds of responses from the general public. More recent ones attracted very few. The regulator has therefore succeeded. It created this monster and it could, if it wished, get rid of it just as quickly. It will not as there are too many vested powerful interests. We can debate service charges, access charges and call cost verbiage as much as we like, but it still brings us no closer to resolving the core problem - the public is subsidizing telephone systems through premium call rates to regular numbers where no such premium is warranted.

idb wrote on Dec 8^th, 2012 at 1:58am:

… the public is subsidizing telephone systems through premium call rates to regular numbers where no such premium is warranted.

Exactly. The essence of the unbundled tariff is to cause the person who choose to impose this premium, and benefits from it, to declare it.

Does this not offer some hope of unwarranted premiums being withdrawn?

Similarly, the telcos who take advantage of the premiums by applying their own unjustifiable markup will be required to declare that separately.

Ofcom will not slay the monster - that is not its intention. The monster is too well liked by telcos, which can use it to sell cheap systems to businesses, who may well not even be aware of its true nature. Ofcom intends only to make the monster more visible, so that it may be subject to "market forces". It is for us to ensure that those of its tentacles which cannot bear exposure to light are caused to whither or be cut off.

When faced with the message "Call us now on 0842 789 7890 (service charge of 3 pence per minute applies, plus your standard network access charge)" I guess that at least initially, most people will dismiss the access charge as likely to be only a couple of pence, and not look it up, when in fact it can be anything up to about 35 pence per minute from mobile phones.

The parallel here is that voting for contestants on TV shows, entering competitions, and donating by text is already done in a similar way: "Text the word 'donate10' to 12345. The text message will cost you 10 pounds plus your standard network charge", but here the "network charge" is a small amount (perhaps 10 to 12 pence) compared to the main payment amount. For phone calls to 084 and 087 numbers it's the other way round: the benefit to who you are calling is only about 1 to 5 pence per minute for a total call price of up to 41 pence per minute.

As well as the consumer being ripped off, the companies employing 084 and 087 numbers for their customers to contact them have themselves been ripped off by the telecoms companies adding the huge access charges on top of the service charge while using terms like "lo-call" rate to try to hide that fact from all parties. I do hope the new way that call prices will have to be publicised pushes those call prices down once it becomes clear to the paying public who is making what out of these types of calls. Most people would assume that the called-party are the ones taking the major share of the money, when in fact that is not the case when calling from a mobile phone.

As a result of the replies I received on this forum I addressed the following question to SkyTalk, who are my call provider.

"Many organisations are now forcing their existing customers to use 0845 numbers.
These organisations are getting wise to the well known website “sayno to 0870.com” and blocking all the listed geographical line numbers, referring the caller to an 0845 number.
Even the “call from oversees” geo. numbers are blocked to UK callers.
These organisations often claim that these calls are at “local rate”.
Certain call providers, eg BT and TalkTalk, include 0845 calls in their call package.
I recently tried to call Santander Bank without using an 0845 number.
I failed.
I currently have a Sky Talk Anytime package which excludes calls to 0845 numbers so this prompted me to find out how much a 10 minute call to Santander using an 0845 number would cost.
Sky will charge me 13.1p connection fee and 6.63p per minute making the cost of the 10 minute call 79.4p
I believe that the Terminating Communications Provider, who receive the 0845 call and route it to Santander on the Santander geographical number, charge approximately 2p per minute.
As I have a SkyTalk package that is basically free to geographical numbers, then my understanding is that any connection fee is part of the free call.
So this is how I believe (although I could be wrong) the cost of the 10 minute call is split.
Terminating Communications Provider/Santander 20.0p
VAT man 13.2p
Sky 46.2p
If this breakdown is correct, then the chances of Sky including 0845 numbers in their call package is not very great. My problem is that I am finding it more and more difficult to find geographical numbers to call organisations and believe me more organisations are going down the 0845 route and blocking goegraphical numbers.
I have two questions for Sky.
Why do you apparently charge your call package customers so much to make 0845 calls when your additional cost only seems to be 2p per minute
Also, do you have any plans at all to include these numbers in your call packages, as I’m sure there are many of your customers who will be forced to migrate to an alternative call providers who do include such numbers."

Reply
"These numbers are chargeable because they are premium rate numbers. Unfortunately there are no plans at the moment to include this through our calls package."

So, Sky consider 0845 calls as premium rate calls.
I also contacted Santander who emphatically informed me that 0845 numbers were a local call and they had no intention of releasing geographical numbers especially since 0845 calls were free with BT.
It was very interesting to find out that very few people seem to know (or care) that the call providers benefit the most. Most people assume (as I did) that the beneficiaries of 0845 numbers are the service providers.
Even if OFCOM do introduce new rules regarding cost transparency, I have a horrible feeling that this situation will become the norm. as more organisations transfer to 0845 numbers.
SAYNOTO0870 can only work if the geographical lines remain accessible. Is my Santander experience only the start.

Including in packages calls to numbers that carry a premium (or benefit) to the user is not the answer. This simply means that all subscribers to the provider in question cover the cost of the premiums run up by some customers. It also gives users of these numbers an excuse to make out that they don't benefit by citing the exceptions such as Santander. This is a practice which really annoys me as they are actively trying to cover up the fact that they benefit rather than being open about it, which is the point of the Unbundled Tariff.

There's no way that premium rate calls can be included in call packages, unless the price of the package is massively inflated or the cost is spread across all customers, otherwise phone companies would make a loss on those calls passing on a larger premium than they charge customers for placing the call.



While 09 numbers are controlled "Premium Rate Services", 084 and 087 numbers are also effectively "premium rate" due to the revenue share arrangements.

Only 0870 has any real chance of being charged the same rate as 01 and 02 numbers from landlines, as this prefix no longer allows revenue share. There was a point when it looked like 0845 might also go the same way, but that's very unlikely to happen now.

0871 and 0872 (and 0873) numbers are now also regulated by PhonepayPlus, in the same way that 09 numbers are.

(0842 and) 0843 and 0844 are revenue share numbers, generally charged at a lower rate than 087 numbers when called from landlines.

From landlines and from mobiles, 084 and 087 numbers (with the exception of 0870 sometimes) cost more to call than calling geographic numbers.

It's looking likely that 0870 will revert to revenue share and also be PhonepayPlus regulated next year. Whether 084 numbers will also become PhonepayPlus regulated is anyone's guess.

Regulation that keeps the price of 084 and 087 numbers down when called from BT landlines ends soon; prices can only go up.

The public are confused for many reasons:
- there's 4 types of numbers: 0842,3,4 - 0845 - 0870 - 0871,2,3;
- companies have been allowed to get away with falsely calling these things "local rate" and "national rate" for nearly a decade;
- this fascination with telling the public that "calls cost x pence from a BT landline" when the majority of calls are made from landlines other than BT and from mobiles.

Eventually the ASA might get their act together and make companies give sensible pricing announcements. None of this "other providers may cost more" garbage. My preference is for "calls cost up to 15 pence per minute from a landline and up to 42 pence per minute from mobiles", which is more like the truth for 084 and 087 numbers.

It's looking like phone companies will have to tell you how much the access charge will be and advertisers will have to tell you what the service charge will be. Having to declare their "cut" may be enough for some companies to drop these numbers.

The whole business is very complicated, and indecision and misdirection from Ofcom for many years hasn't helped - but is belatedly being addressed in some of the changes that might be coming up next year.

The Consumer Rights Directive will make a lot of current 084 and 087 users shift to using 03 numbers.

I do hope that itemised phone bills will separately show the connection fee, access charge and service charge for each call, not just show you the total.



I do wonder what will happen to pricing, especially from mobiles. Currently all calls to 084 and 087 numbers will be, for example, 35 pence per minute when called from network A and 41 pence per minute when called from network B.

A caller calling a particular 08 number will cause their mobile network to pass perhaps 5 pence per minute on, while calling another number might cause 10 pence per minute to be passed on. This effectively means that the access charge varies for the number called as well as the service charge varying; with both adding up to a total of 35 pence for customers of one network and 41 pence for customers of the other network.

The current situation is that after the service charge is taken out, the callers network retains the difference. If a business chooses a phone number with a lower service charge, that reduction is not passed on to the customer, the callers network retains it as extra profit. The benefit (if it can be called a benefit) of the current situation is that you know that calls to 084 numbers are going to be 35 pence per minute.

When the new pricing arrangement comes in next year, if all 084 numbers have a fixed access charge per provider and a variable service charge, it will cost a different amount per minute for each 084 number called, varying as the service charge varies. Unless this is properly explained there's going to be a heck of a lot of confused customers out there.

Will the total call price be capped, or will it be (individually) the service and access charges that will be capped?

For the mobile network currently charging 35 pence per minute for 08 calls and passing 5 to 10 pence per minute on, they currently retain 25 to 30 pence per minute depending on the actual number called. Will they in furture set their access charge at 25 or at 30 pence per minute for all calls? That will make the calls cost 30 to 35 pence OR 35 to 40 pence on the customers bill, instead of the current situation of a fixed 35 pence per minute for all those calls.

Or will the current situation prevail, where the access charge will continue to vary for different 084 numbers?

Will the new regime cause bills to generally rise or fall?

The following comments and answers are based on the latest declared Ofcom position.

The forthcoming statement, expected in January, will represent the final position on many points.


catj wrote on Dec 15^th, 2012 at 10:05pm:

While 09 numbers are controlled "Premium Rate Services", 084 and 087 numbers are also effectively "premium rate" due to the revenue share arrangements. … 0871 and 0872 numbers are now also regulated by PhonepayPlus, in the same way that 09 numbers are .… It's looking likely that 0870 will revert to revenue share and also be PhonepayPlus regulated next year. Whether 084 numbers will also become PhonepayPlus regulated is anyone's guess.

PhonePayPlus only regulates services provided on numbers that are classified as being for the provision of "Premium Rate Services". This includes 0871/2/3. It is assumed that 0870 will readopt a similar level of Service Charge and therefore (re-)join this group.

It would make little sense for 084 numbers (with the present level of use) to be regulated by PhonepayPlus. This is not what is proposed.

My personal view is that the 084 range will have to be re-assessed after we have seen the actual effect of the requirement for Service Charge declaration. It is my belief that the vast majority of 084 users could not sustain this use with the Service Charge declared. (I can see only very few situations where a Service Charge of less than 10p per minute could be justified, given the true cost of handling a voice telephone call.) Ofcom does not share this view, however it is adamant that the Service Charge declaration must be effectively enforced.


catj wrote on Dec 15^th, 2012 at 10:05pm:

I do hope that itemised phone bills will separately show the connection fee, access charge and service charge for each call, not just show you the total.

Ofcom is determined that this information be given on bills. It may be that the relevant rate of Access Charge will be shown separately, with the calls to which it applies being marked, although showing only the total call cost.

My view is that the emphasis needs to be on the Service Charge and Access Charge being clearly known by the caller BEFORE they decide to make a particular call. So long as the relevant elements can be checked and extracted from the information given on a bill, I am content.

(N.B. Ofcom is strongly opposed to the use of a connection fee and a rate per minute together. It sees a flat connection fee as only being applicable as an Access Charge alongside a fixed fee Service Charge. Where the charge is per minute, Ofcom is prepared to tolerate a minimum duration as the only means of covering the costs incurred in connecting the call.)


catj wrote on Dec 15^th, 2012 at 10:05pm:

Will the total call price be capped, or will it be (individually) the service and access charges that will be capped?

The Service Charge will be set for all calls to the number, within limits for each group of numbers, e.g. 0845, 0844/3, 087.

The Access Charge will be set for all calls under the terms of a particular tariff.

The problem with "caps" on prices that are otherwise set in a market is that they readily become the fixed charge. If a cap were to be set on the level of the Access Charge, so as not to restrict the potential for a new mobile provider to enter the market, then this could swiftly become the level charged by everybody. Service Providers would refer to the Access Charge as being up to xx pence per minute, setting an expectation which anyone wishing to charge less would find hard to overcome.

Ofcom has now clearly stepped away from caps as a preference. I think it likely, and right, that the option to apply caps be held back until one sees how they may perhaps need to be applied to cover specific aspects of the market position that develops.


catj wrote on Dec 15^th, 2012 at 10:05pm:

For the mobile network currently charging 35 pence per minute for 08 calls and passing 5 to 10 pence per minute on, they currently retain 25 to 30 pence per minute depending on the actual number called. Will they in furture set their access charge at 25 or at 30 pence per minute for all calls?

Ofcom is determined that there be only a single Access Charge, although I believe that it may permit a dual system, with a higher rate of Access Charge for the higher rated PRS numbers.

The present absurdly high rates of Access Charge for lower rated ranges on mobiles are a feature of the bundled tariff and a desire to have only a small number of charge bands. Given that retail providers will only have to worry about setting their Access Charges, and there will be no more than two of them, this particular issue will go away. I believe that Access Charges will be sufficiently visible to ensure that they are set at reasonable levels.

(continued …)

(… continued)


catj wrote on Dec 15^th, 2012 at 10:05pm:

Will the new regime cause bills to generally rise or fall?

In the present shrinking market with high inflation, the real cost of telephone services is currently on the rise. This will inevitably be reflected in every price revision that occurs whilst these circumstances pertain. It is also inevitable that Ofcom will be blamed, whenever there is an opportunity to do so.

One would expect the most marked effect to be with BT prices, given that regulation which restricts its prices is to be lifted. This will also affect those who shadow BT rates.


Given that there is a genuine competitive market in effect only covering some aspects, and that the changes will open up market effects in places where they have not been seen, it is hard to predict how far competition will bear on the situation. The levels of Service Charge will essentially remain at the present (bundled) levels. No telco has given any indication of the likely levels of Access Charge. It is possible that Access Charges may be offered (or compulsorily included, as advocated by some) within Call Plans and packages.

Implementation of these changes will coincide with the final stage of the reduction of the mobile termination fee. This will mean that the cost of providing a call from a landline to a mobile will be broadly the same as that to a landline. This will open up the possibility of unlimited (or bundled) calls to mobiles being commonly offered within Call Plans. It is therefore highly likely that a major reconfiguration of Call Plans will take place.


There is no doubt that there will be a major effect on the market for provision of business services, given that the hidden subsidy offered by 084/087 numbers will no longer be hidden. The cost of 080 numbers will also increase, due to the increased volumes and higher unit costs caused by making calls free to mobile callers. I believe that business telephony users will (, in some cases, choose to) incur higher costs, providing an excuse for raising their own prices.

I am personally of the view that those who cannot justify a Service Charge must swiftly move to 03 or geographic numbers. More controversially, I believe that a justifiable Service Charge must represent a reasonable proportion of the cost of handling a person to person telephone call; this is not achieved by a rate of less than 10p per minute.


Telcos will feel pinched from many sides. In such situations any business will look to see where it can recover lost revenue with the minimum effect on its competitiveness. One soft target will have been removed from the list of such opportunities, so others will have be used. This will undoubtedly have an effect on telephone bills, but it is impossible to say where or what.


In a flat economy with inflation, price rises are a simple fact of life, as businesses struggle to survive. Separating the true cause from the reason given is a game that we can all play. There is no question that aspects of the changes leave them open to being blamed. This will happen. Those who oppose the transparency have already attacked the effect of increased prices in their consultation submissions (I refer, in particular, to Citizens Advice and NEG).

It is an issue of timing. The changes being introduced are essential to improve transparency and equity. I would not wish to suggest that Ofcom delayed the changes until the situation of the economy was such that they would be less likely to be blamed for higher bills.


The above is in response to the question about the overall effect. There will be many call charges that will plummet. There will also be increases that are unfairly blamed on the changes.

Wow.
Having innocently started this thread in order to understand the situation, I now feel I have intruded on a private conversation.
Anyhow, fascinating reading and very informative. Thank you again.
As it it obvious to me that my knowledge level is "Conference" and most of you guys are "Premier League" then allow me to make a few points, perhaps on behalf of the silent majority.
I always believed that premium rate numbers were introduced to allow service based companies to carry on their businesses over the telephone or via a broadband connection.
These were 0870 numbers.
However, the new breed of manager now running UK companies decided that their companies could become more efficient by centralising their telecommunications functions, adopting the call centre concept and providing their customers with an 0845 number, which had somehow been accepted by most people as making a "local call" from anywhere in the country.
If this was in fact true, then fine.
However, the premium rate number providers then discovered that they could "sell" the "local call" concept to many diverse organisations, such as doctors surgeries, dentists, government departments et al.
The selling proposition seems to have been call revenue sharing or "free telecoms equipment".
It then seems that call providers decided they would like to "eat at the trough" and 0845 numbers quickly premium rate numbers but with the attraction of being able to be "sold" to the public as "lo-cost" or even worse "local calls".
Why does it always seem that the UK has become "rip-off" capitol of the world. Why do I have to phone a premium rate number to talk to my local library.
Why, when I buy into the concept of on-line banking, do I now find that I an forced to phone the equivalent of premium rate numbers if I have a problem.
Reading the posts it seems to me that an acceptance of the situation is developing. A bit like the drip feed techniques used by government departments.
Please don't get me wrong, I am not criticising the previous posts or the contributers.
It is just that apparently, I naively believed that this website and forum was about getting rid of premium rate numbers.
Perhaps it is and I just don't understand.
All I want to do is to be able to make telephone calls and pay a fair and correct rate to my selected call provider.

Quote:

Having innocently started this thread in order to understand the situation, I now feel I have intruded on a private conversation.

Not at all. In the replies from Dave and SCV you have answers from two of the UK's foremost experts on the subject matter. By publishing the information in a forum, the answers are available to a wide readership.  :)


Quote:

I always believed that premium rate numbers were introduced to allow service based companies to carry on their businesses over the telephone or via a broadband connection. These were 0870 numbers.

It depends what you mean by "premium rate".

09 numbers are Premium Rate Services (PRS) with heavy regulation.
084 and 087 numbers where revenue sharing is allowed are "premium rate" with a small "p".

0870 used to exist as 0345 and 0645 in the 1990s. Back then, calling a local landline e.g. 0303 (now 01303) based on your own location was cheap but calling a distant landline e.g. 041 (now 0141) was expensive.

The non-geographic "local rate" numbers were brought in so you could ring your bank head office or the gas or electric board at the other end of the country for the same price as a local call. This was a Good Thing.

Number prefixes got switched around in 1995 and 2000 but several years later (2005?) landline companies
1. stopped charging different rates for 01 and 02 numbers based on distance called.
2. introduced "inclusive packages" where calls to 01 and 02 numbers during the evenings and weekends were free, and charged per minute during the day,
3. and latterly introduced packages where all calls to 01 and 02 numbers are free at all times. The latter option rapidly became the most popular.

Now that most people pay nothing for 01 and 02 calls, and now that "local rate" doesn't exist, all 08 numbers that have a revenue-share arrangement are "premium rate" (small p) numbers. That's 0842,3,4, 0845 and 0871,2,3.

0870 was "premium rate", but the revenue share was stopped in 2009 or so and some landline providers now allow 0870 in with inclusive calls.


Quote:

However, the new breed of manager now running UK companies decided that their companies could become more efficient by centralising their telecommunications functions, adopting the call centre concept and providing their customers with an 0845 number, which had somehow been accepted by most people as making a "local call" from anywhere in the country. If this was in fact true, then fine.

0845 was "local" in the early days - but not true since 2006.


Quote:

However, the premium rate number providers then discovered that they could "sell" the "local call" concept to many diverse organisations, such as doctors surgeries, dentists, government departments et al.

By the time the mass-sell of "local rate" numbers began, these numbers were no longer "local rate". There's a number of complaints to the ASA about this in 2006 and they were all upheld. A cursory Google search will show the vast majority of providers of 084 and 087 numbers still advertising them as "get a local rate number for your business".


Quote:

The selling proposition seems to have been call revenue sharing or "free telecoms equipment".

It does, with the hiding of the true costs to callers by the use of meaninglass and illegal "local rate" and "national rate" nomenclature, as well as the weazel words "other operators and mobiles may charge more" when the truth is "will" instead of "may" and "a lot more" in place of "more".


Quote:

It then seems that call providers decided they would like to "eat at the trough" and 0845 numbers quickly became premium rate numbers but with the attraction of being able to be "sold" to the public as "lo-cost" or even worse "local calls".

Any number with revenue share is by definition "premium" (small p). I'm sure that most businesses that advertise their number as "local rate" do so because that is what they believe they have signed up for, and what the number provider told them they were selling.


Quote:

Why does it always seem that the UK has become "rip-off" capital of the world?

Because we have huge amounts of regulators who either do nothing, or take ages to take action.


Quote:

Why do I have to phone a premium rate number to talk to my local library. Why, when I buy into the concept of on-line banking, do I now find that I an forced to phone the equivalent of premium rate numbers if I have a problem?

The Consumer Rights Directive should force most of these cases to migrate to an 03 number. 03 numbers cost the same as 01 and 02 from mobiles and from landlines.


Quote:

Reading the posts it seems to me that an acceptance of the situation is developing.

There's little "acceptance" by the public of being ripped off. The Consumer Rights Directive will be a Good Thing - if it is enforced.


Quote:

It is just that apparently, I naively believed that this website and forum was about getting rid of premium rate numbers. Perhaps it is and I just don't understand.

Different people here have different agendas. There's no way that anyone is going to be able to "get rid of premium rate numbers". There are certain businesses where the caller should be paying extra for the call. There are many where this is not acceptable.

Some responsible companies have woken up and swapped to 03 or to 01/02 numbers. For those that haven't, this site acts as a  clearing house for the sharing of numbers where the caller is not ripped off.

rao wrote on Dec 16^th, 2012 at 12:24pm:

Wow. Having innocently started this thread in order to understand the situation, I now feel I have intruded on a private conversation.

rao

Please forgive the direct question and answer approach which created the effect of a private conversation. The questions and answers were for the benefit of all. The issues have been covered at a more basic level elsewhere in the forum. They are also covered at the following link - http://www.fairtelecoms.org.uk/ofcom-reform-of-non-geographic-numbers.html.

Your summary of the history is excellent. There is, of course, much more to it. It appears that catj (another expert campaigner) will be covering this shortly - see #14.


The important current point is that the Ofcom changes will address the situation in three vital respects:
[list bull-blackball]

Those who benefit from Service Charges will have to declare them
 

The telcos will have to declare their own Access Charges separately
 

BT will no longer be in a special position, which can be exploited to give misleading general price indications
When this is announced as a reality, rather than simply as proposals, probably in January, campaigners must ensure that the message is clearly communicated and prompt action is taken by those who are affected. The new regulations and requirements will have a long "lead time", giving up to 18 months for organisations to prepare. During this time, those who are unable to justify their Service Charge will have to change their arrangements.

Some contributors to this forum, now presenting as the fair telecoms campaign, have long been pressing "invalid" users of 084/087 numbers to change their arrangements. Publication of alternative numbers is only truly proper as a way of saving money by avoiding properly imposed Service Charges. (It is valuable, but only a partial answer, in respect of improperly imposed Service Charges and can divert campaigning energy away from the need for change.)

Once the forthcoming requirements are formally announced, 084/087 users will have to face the prospect of having to justify their Service Charge, as it will have to be declared openly. We will seize on this opportunity to ram the point home.

I've noticed in various threads on the forum that there seems to be an assumtpion that, after the Consumer Rights Directive comes into force, those companies using 084/087 numbers for customer services & lower rate numbers for eg sales and other departments will abandon the 084/087 numbers in favour of 03 or 01/02.  However, what is to stop them just moving their cheaper sales numbers to 084/087 as my understanding that the CRD prohibits the use of numbers for customer services which are more expensive than are used for other departments so they could harmonise their numbers at the higher rate?  I do appreciate there might be business reasons why that might not be wise although that hasn't stopped organisations using all 074/087 numbers and then spouting a lot of nonsense about "local" rate etc.   Have I misunderstood the CRD in that it might be better than I think?

CRD refers to callers "paying no more than a basic rate call" which should be clarified to mean "no more than a call to an 01 or 02 number".

In that case, only 01, 02 and 03 numbers can be used for these services.

If 0500, 0800 and 0808 numbers become free calls from mobiles, they could also qualify.

It is clear that 070, 084, 087 and 09 numbers should not qualify.

That leaves only 055, 056 and 07 mobile numbers to consider.


There is an unintended issue with this very broad wording. What of a very small company that offers only a mobile number for contact? It seems to imply that they must also publish an 01, 02 or 03 number (mainly because 07 numbers are not "inclusive" from landlines).

I have no idea how you guys are going to get your message across and/or how to publicise what has happened and what it is hoped will happen.
I have done a straw poll of my contemporaries, my children and some of their contemporaries ( I stopped at the grandchildren because they think mobile phones are issued at birth).
Not one person had any idea about what has been discussed here.
A significant majority believed 0845 numbers were charged at BT local rate.
A significant majority also believed that 0845 numbers were included in their mobile/geo. call package because BT include them (the power of marketing).
What was most alarming was that no one was really bothered.
We seem to be sleepwalking into having yet another de-regulated service industry, which will inevitably result in significantly higher charges to the consumer.
We do have history here.

catj, thanks for the clarification.

rao wrote on Dec 16^th, 2012 at 2:46pm:

I have no idea how you guys are going to get your message across and/or how to publicise what has happened and what it is hoped will happen. I have done a straw poll of my contemporaries, my children and some of their contemporaries ( I stopped at the grandchildren because they think mobile phones are issued at birth). Not one person had any idea about what has been discussed here. A significant majority believed 0845 numbers were charged at BT local rate. A significant majority also believed that 0845 numbers were included in their mobile/geo. call package because BT include them (the power of marketing). What was most alarming was that no one was really bothered. We seem to be sleepwalking into having yet another de-regulated service industry, which will inevitably result in significantly higher charges to the consumer. We do have history here.

A lot of what we are talking about has come about because of the privatisation and introduction of competing providers in telecommunications services.

Despite this, unfortunately people still seem to think and talk as if we still had a single nationalised system.

Thinking that 0845 numbers are charged at "BT local rate" irrespective of which provider one calls from is obviously nonsense as each provider sets its own rate.

With telecommunications services today, subscribers are "consumers". In a consumer-driven market, price is one factor.

A single phone call connects two consumers (parties). The Unbundled Tariff is designed to indicate the cost of each party's choice of service. Thus, one party cannot pass off the cost of its own service as being part of the other party's. So users of 084 numbers won't be able to paint a picture of receiving no benefit simply by citing BT's prices which are abnormally low and callers will know how much their own provider adds on rather than incorrectly thinking that higher call prices mean that the organisation being called benefits more.

Quote:

I have no idea how you guys are going to get your message across and/or how to publicise what has happened and what it is hoped will happen.

Some heavy advertsising by Ofcom and ASA would seem to be in order. The quickest way would be to include some details on every business phone bill.


Quote:

Not one person had any idea about what has been discussed here.

Little is known of these changes out there in the wider world because they haven't been formally announced. They'll be announced in 2013 and businesses will probably be given several years to comply.


Quote:

A significant majority believed 0845 numbers were charged at BT local rate.

Unsurprising. The term "local rate" gets used a lot but it is, in itself, completely meaningless.


Quote:

A significant majority also believed that 0845 numbers were included in their mobile/geo. call package because BT include them (the power of marketing).

Also not surprising. Do BT include 0845? I do know that 0870 is included with BT. Where things go badly wrong is that many people incorrectly assume that 0844/0843 and 0871/0872 are also included because the numbers "look similar".


Quote:

What was most alarming was that no one was really bothered.

Have any of them ever used a mobile phone to phone a bank or power company? Five quid buys you 12 minutes and 12 seconds - less than the average queue time for most of these types of numbers. With a contract phone, calls to 01, 02 and 03 would be inclusive. From a pay as you go phone you'd get almost double the time for calling 01, 02 and 03 as you get for calling 08 numbers.


Quote:

We seem to be sleepwalking into having yet another de-regulated service industry, which will inevitably result in significantly higher charges to the consumer.

Telecoms was deregulated some years ago - but some caps were applied to BT pricing which will soon end. Consumers are conned when companies quote those capped call costs as if they are the norm - and companies have been allowed to get away with doing that for far too long.

Imagine if in the shop a sign said "bread is 80 pence per loaf", but you were charged two quid for it at the till, you'd go nuts. The shop's response might be "oh we only show the price for the Acme mini loaf and none of the others". That's the sort of garbage that companies are getting away with when it comes to declaring the price of calling them by telephone.

So, you can unhappily substitute "has already" in place of "will". For example, the 1200 GPs using 084 numbers have collectively caused their patients to over-spend on their phone bills by about one billion quid over the last seven years.

Add in banks, power companies, travel agents, department stores, and others and it's tens of billions.

Barbara wrote on Dec 16^th, 2012 at 2:21pm:

I've noticed in various threads on the forum that there seems to be an assumtpion that, after the Consumer Rights Directive comes into force, those companies using 084/087 numbers for customer services & lower rate numbers for eg sales and other departments will abandon the 084/087 numbers in favour of 03 or 01/02.  However, what is to stop them just moving their cheaper sales numbers to 084/087 as my understanding that the CRD prohibits the use of numbers for customer services which are more expensive than are used for other departments so they could harmonise their numbers at the higher rate?  I do appreciate there might be business reasons why that might not be wise although that hasn't stopped organisations using all 074/087 numbers and then spouting a lot of nonsense about "local" rate etc.   Have I misunderstood the CRD in that it might be better than I think?

The CRD requirement that existing customers don't pay more than the basic rate is likely to mean users switching away from 084/087 to 03. This in itself will make people more aware of the 03 range and more likely to recognise its neutrality as against 084/087 which carry premiums.

rao wrote on Dec 16^th, 2012 at 12:24pm:

Reading the posts it seems to me that an acceptance of the situation is developing. A bit like the drip feed techniques used by government departments. Please don't get me wrong, I am not criticising the previous posts or the contributers. It is just that apparently, I naively believed that this website and forum was about getting rid of premium rate numbers. Perhaps it is and I just don't understand. All I want to do is to be able to make telephone calls and pay a fair and correct rate to my selected call provider.

Banning all premium rate numbers is obviously one possibility. But I don't see premium rate numbers per se as being the issue; it is the way in which the system currently doesn't work.


There is also the fact that from a campaigning perspective calling simply for the outlaw of premium numbers is a much much much bigger thing than calling for changes to the way in which the numbers work.

There are two developments that are expected in the coming few years:

1. The introduction of the Unbundled Tariff for clarity of who benefits from (or incurs cost of) what.

2. The introduction of the Consumer Rights Directive (CRD) into UK law which will see many businesses banned from using 084/087 numbers for post-contract service helplines.


With number 2, there will be great in-roads made into stopping those who shouldn't be using 084/087 numbers. This won't require any great consumer understanding other than 03 is as good as 01/02 and 084/087 is not allowed for customer service lines. So people who believe that premium rate numbers should not be permitted will find that there are far fewer of them that they "have" to dial.

For those 084/087 numbers which continue to exist (and not prohibited by CRD), then those who wish to call them will find the system in number 1 in place.

Some quick points, on returning to see a lively conversation over the last hour.

• The CRD will not prevent companies from soliciting sales enquiries on numbers for which they have to declare a Service Charge. Those interested in cultivating a very exclusive customer base may be ready to declare that they charge a fee for sales enquiries.

• A very large and increasing amount of business/consumer and government/citizen contact is now done via the internet, rather than by telephone. This has a bearing on many of the points made.

• Up until 2005, the cost of a BT call to a 0845 (not 0844) number was tied, by regulation, to the "local rate" on its "Standard" tariff. Technically this is still true and this is still reflected in the official National Numbering Plan. In 2005 BT started to withdraw its "Standard" tariff from residential customers. BT reports that this exercise is now complete.

There is other regulation in force which keeps BT call charges for all "NTS" numbers (including 084, 087, 09 and 118) unnaturally low. All of this will be lifted.

• The fair telecoms campaign has established relationships with the media. When the official Ofcom announcement is made, every opportunity will be taken to ensure maximum coverage. This exercise will have to continue throughout the lengthy period of implementation, especially towards its conclusion in the Summer of 2014. Every significant case of a move away from 084/087 will be celebrated and used as a model for others - see this recent example.

We are delighted to welcome supporters who may be ready and able to assist with this effort in any way. Support is also invited from those unable to make any such commitment - see http://www.fairtelecoms.org.uk/supporters.html.

rao wrote on Dec 16^th, 2012 at 2:46pm:

I have no idea how you guys are going to get your message across and/or how to publicise what has happened and what it is hoped will happen.

I have thought further about rao's quoted comment.

Many things in life are understood on differing levels by different people. It is accepted by people that when a light switch is turned on that the light lights. Most do not understand the physics behind it. The same goes for the inner workings of the motor car.

In this thread we've talked about TCPs and termination charges and so on which obviously form part of the solution (but in the background as it were).

However, what needs to happen is that the parts of the Unbundled Tariff need to be accepted by consumers in general.

At the present time they try and relate the cost of calling back to one provider which is bound to fail. Users of these numbers either don't give call charge information at all or give that of one atypical provider.

With the split or Unbundled Tariff, users of 08 numbers will have their part to play in getting the message across in the form a pricing message.

The aim, therefore, is that Service Charge (set by the Service Provider) plus Access Charge (set by the caller's phone provider) will become the accepted way of how these numbers are charged. There will be no need to understand the intricacies.

Just a light hearted highlight in rao's post


Quote:

( I stopped at the grandchildren because they think mobile phones are issued at birth).

At birth when attaching the first nappy - "Oh here is your Mobile Phone."

At present kids have to have them almost surgicaly removed at 15, or on getting the first Job.

Unfortunately this is the way of the world nowadays - 5 year olds are more adept on Computers than many of the much Older Generation.

Hopefully this young generation will be more aware as Adults to sort out this scam culture in Business in the future - it will still be there, or just maybe Business will learn the lesson that they get more trade by being Customer Aware.

Unfortunately, as they don't know anything of life before premium rate number abuse, they mostly seem to accept these charges as "normal".

Quote:

2. The introduction of the Consumer Rights Directive (CRD) into UK law which will see many businesses banned from using 084/087 numbers for post-contract service helplines.

1. On the CRD Exemptions List has there been any news on removing 'Medical Services' which would probably include GPs.

2. Should't GPs come under the Contractly part - although the PCT pays for Registered Patients, surely that is a Contract for a Service. As the RAC Membership Subscription is a 'Contract' for a Service, also you have a 'Contract' when you buy a Product and have to make contact regarding the 'Product/Service'.

3.Is this going to be another unenforced Regulation, similar to how all the 0844 GPs and Number Provider Companies that openly advertise 'local and Lo-call rate' on Websites and on Adverts and ASA does absolutely nothing unless individually complained about.

How is the ASA likely to react if I assembled a list of say 15 Providers advertising 0844 as local/Lo-call rate and complained? Also likewise a list of GPs advertising local rate for 0844 ?

I might just try it to see what happens.

rao wrote on Dec 16^th, 2012 at 2:46pm:

I have no idea how you guys are going to get your message across and/or how to publicise what has happened and what it is hoped will happen.

Great front page article in the Daily Mail today about HMRC and premium rate charging.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2249713/Hanging-phone-taxman-costs-millions-Taxpayers-query-premium-rate-bills-wait.html

Perhaps this article will get the ball rolling.

Lots of coverage on BBC Radio about the article.
Not one of the "bright young things" who ask the questions asked why HMRC was using a premium rate number as it's only contact number.

With regard to the article it states:
"The HMRC contract is operated by the telecoms giant Cable and Wireless. HMRC does not receive a share of the money."

I wonder what sort of contract that could be then?
If they don't receive any money then why do it in the first place? I could suggest stuff but I don't want to go there.

Just heard the HMRC thing discussed on 5Live Drive.
The so called BBC money "expert" was asked by a listener "who gets the money from the premium rate calls?"
His reply was to say he didn't really know but probably it goes back to the tax payer.
Believe me, nobody cares anymore.
Don't let the facts get in the way of a good story.

I see several people in the Daily Mail comments saying "0845 is not premium rate. It's a local rate call charged at 5 pence per minute". Several also say "Tough luck if you're on a mobile, use a landline".

There's a few mentions for sayNOto0870, so that's a good thing. There's 360 comments so far, haven't had time to read them all.

Another comment says "National 0870 and Local 084 numbers are not premium rate. I despair at how much ignorance there seems to be on this subject. No wonder people mistakenly think they are being fleeced when they have no idea how the world around them actually works."

I'm guessing that person has never looked at their phone bills - or never phones 084 or 087 numbers.

There's several people posting the right information, but they appear to have been drowned out by numerous people falsely claiming that "0845 is local rate" .

Is this some wierd variation of "Stockholm Syndrome"; one where people being ripped off claim that they are not?

I'll guess that the changes coming next year will be a bit of a shock!

catj wrote on Dec 18^th, 2012 at 6:39pm:

I'll guess that the changes coming next year will be a bit of a shock!

We will be hard pressed to convince some people that the changes will be improving the situation by making what happens at present transparent.

Those who believe some of the lies being put about at present will see the changes as being intended to make calls more expensive. Those who believe Ofcom's motives to be evil will naturally assume that there is some catch.

Do not be disheartened by reading Daily Mail comments; in the course of this campaigning I have encountered many who have been able to switch their strongly held views by 180º. It just takes time.

If Daily Mail readers typify the general public, things do indeed look bleak.

Luckily that's not the case.   :)

Surely the whole point is that the very people who are tasked with reporting the facts appear not to have the first idea about the facts they are reporting.
Contributors to forums and newspaper comment sections are inevitably the very people who are sufficiently knowledgeable and motivated to "put pen to paper".
Isn't this known as preaching to the converted?

Over the past few months I have spent too much of my time communicating (or trying to communicate) with the complaints departments of organisations utilising an 0845 telephone operation. In most cases the people handling the complaint had been brainwashed into believing that the 0845 number was a local call and that they were in fact doing their customers a favour.
It remains my contention that the majority of people in the UK either don't know of don't care and the media is quite simply reinforcing these beliefs.
Contributors to this forum are "believers" and as such are not representative of the public in general.
Remember, if the media says it's OK then it's OK

The reporter on this story does appear to be clued up on the terminology and the issues. So often, stuff like this is mis-reported. Perhaps someone decides to dumb it down and simplify the terminology and thereby ends up introducing errors.

rao wrote on Dec 18^th, 2012 at 10:01pm:

Surely the whole point is that the very people who are tasked with reporting the facts appear not to have the first idea about the facts they are reporting. … It remains my contention that the majority of people in the UK either don't know of don't care and the media is quite simply reinforcing these beliefs.

I would not wish to challenge the experience reported or the general contention that we have a lot more work to do.

None of the general media coverage of this specific NAO announcement published so far has made any direct reference to the fair telecoms campaign. I cannot therefore offer any evidence in support of my assertion that we were consulted by the media in preparing their material and our published information appears to have been used.

Our blogging on this story contains a list of many extracts from the coverage which fairly reflect the cost of calling 0845 numbers. The news release contained there includes reference to a number of previous engagements on this issue.

Campaigning success is not immediate, nor total; it is however achieved. I often say that I engage with these matters, rather than those which are far more important, or none at all, simply because my efforts are seen to have a positive effect. I urge others to share this view and join with us in the fair telecoms campaign.

Is my understanding correct that the Consumer Rights Directive will make it illegal for organisations to use 084, 087 and 089 numbers for customer service and complaints?
As I suspect that many non-local organisations will switch to 03 numbers, is there anything in the proposals that will prevent call providers, who currently include 03 numbers in their call packages, claiming that as they are non-geographical numbers they can  therefore be excluded from call packages?
If 03 numbers remain in call packages then presumably the cost of call packages themselves will have to increase in order to compensate the call providers for loss of revenue.

rao wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2012 at 2:41pm:

Is my understanding correct that the Consumer Rights Directive will make it illegal for organisations to use 084, 087 and 089 numbers for customer service and complaints?

The Consumer Rights Directive bans charges above the "basic rate", which means that 084, 087 and 09 should be banned.



rao wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2012 at 2:41pm:

As I suspect that many non-local organisations will switch to 03 numbers, is there anything in the proposals that will prevent call providers, who currently include 03 numbers in their call packages, claiming that as they are non-geographical numbers they can  therefore be excluded from call packages?

There are other regulations which require that call providers charge 03 inline with 01/02, including them in bundles/packages on the exact same basis.



rao wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2012 at 2:41pm:

If 03 numbers remain in call packages then presumably the cost of call packages themselves will have to increase in order to compensate the call providers for loss of revenue.

It is the nature of packages that calls that are zero-fee must be covered by the subscription cost.

Presumably providers have to assess the number of call minutes being made and hence their expense as far as connecting those calls against the charges they impose on customers, whether on call packages or other services.

I guess the definition of "customer services" could become contentious.
For example, asking for information about a bank account is very different to online banking when the bank is asked to perform a function.

rao wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2012 at 4:52pm:

I guess the definition of "customer services" could become contentious. For example, asking for information about a bank account is very different to online banking when the bank is asked to perform a function.

Providing information about a bank account is a function and online banking performs the same function.


"Customer services" is a paraphrase. The Directive (PDF) states:


Quote:

Article 21 Communication by telephone Member States shall ensure that where the trader operates a telephone line for the purpose of contacting him by telephone in relation to the contract concluded, the consumer, when contacting the trader is not bound to pay more than the basic rate. The first subparagraph shall be without prejudice to the right of telecommunication services providers to charge for such calls.

It is post-contract lines that can't charge more than the basic rate.

The official wording is very dry and crusty and somewhat cryptic.

"Customer service and complaints" is a useful equivalent, but I'm sure that many companies will test the limits of exactly what is covered, seeking to minimise what they move over to non-revenue-share numbers.

We already see the proliferation of 0800 to signup, 0844 for day to day business and 0871 when there's a problem that needs solving. A lot of that will be reigned in, and not before time.

It is important to understand that the introduction of the unbundled tariff and the CRD regulations will come in together.

This will help businesses to focus on which telephone services they wish to charge for. Many of them quite genuinely do not understand that they are imposing a Service Charge by using a 084 number. I do not seek to excuse that ignorance, but to explain that many businesses will be put in a difficult position because they have not deliberately set out to rip-off their customers.

The subsidy obtained, even from a 087 number, represents only a modest proportion of the cost of operating a call centre. The increased cost caused by the loss of subsidy will however appear to be a significant expense. It is vital that the telecoms industry recognises that it will have to compete hard for business, as it will no longer be able to use misleading indications of call costs as a way of offering good deals.

Although there are undoubtedly rip-off merchants out there, nobody is operating a call centre on a 084/087 number in order to make money - they are only offsetting their costs. When that option is removed, it may be that call centres will be scaled back, leading to greater waiting times and callers hanging up. In some cases telephone access may be withdrawn altogether, so that customer service functions are only provided online.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2012 at 8:18pm:

It is important to understand that the introduction of the unbundled tariff and the CRD regulations will come in together. This will help businesses to focus on which telephone services they wish to charge for. Many of them quite genuinely do not understand that they are imposing a Service Charge by using a 084 number. I do not seek to excuse that ignorance, but to explain that many businesses will be put in a difficult position because they have not deliberately set out to rip-off their customers. The subsidy obtained, even from a 087 number, represents only a modest proportion of the cost of operating a call centre. The increased cost caused by the loss of subsidy will however appear to be a significant expense. It is vital that the telecoms industry recognises that it will have to compete hard for business, as it will no longer be able to use misleading indications of call costs as a way of offering good deals. Although there are undoubtedly rip-off merchants out there, nobody is operating a call centre on a 084/087 number in order to make money - they are only offsetting their costs. When that option is removed, it may be that call centres will be scaled back, leading to greater waiting times and callers hanging up. In some cases telephone access may be withdrawn altogether, so that customer service functions are only provided online.

Reading this post somehow makes me feel uncomfortable.
It seems sometime, somehow, the goalposts moved.
My understanding is that premium rate calls were introduced to allow businesses such as chat lines, to trade by providing a service over the telephone line. This was their only source of revenue and the customer paid for the service via the call charge.
Other businesses provided customer support to backup their primary activites and these calls were either freephone or geographical lines.
The proliferation of call centres, which were introduced for efficiency reasons (more profit and/or lower product cost), seems to have given these businesses a golden opportunity to jump on the premium call charge bandwagon. Now, even the local plumber has one.
I do not believe for one minute that these businesses did  not know what they were doing. (You only have to read the selling propositions on a TCP website.)
I cannot agree that it is ever acceptable for a business to subsidise its customer support by using premium call phone lines. Customer support should always be built into the product cost. How can it be right that, for example, Direct Line sells its insurance and then charges customers for support.
Furthermore, businesses who use 0845 numbers facilitate the opportunity for call providers to load the cost even more. Am I seriously expected to believe that simply making the telecomms industry be more transparent over “who gets the money” will force the call providers to reduce their charges?
I really hope that this legislation will sort out the premium rate call charge debacle, but history tells me not to hold my breath.

rao wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2012 at 11:00am:

I do not believe for one minute that these businesses did  not know what they were doing. (You only have to read the selling propositions on a TCP website.)

I believe that you underestimate the selling capabilities of telephone service providers and the degree of confusion about call charges amongst non-specialists.



rao wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2012 at 11:00am:

I cannot agree that it is ever acceptable for a business to subsidise its customer support by using premium call phone lines. Customer support should always be built into the product cost.

There will be some who resent paying (through product costs) for services which they never use. Many would prefer to conduct their relationship with a provider online. The problem for them and others is in the recognition that use of a 084 telephone number probably provides only a 1% subsidy towards the costs of running a call centre. Its only serious effect is in making the charge for the network telephone service appear cheaper than alternative bids.


if I may anticipate the forthcoming comments from catj - I see the distinction as being between those who actually make a living by soliciting calls to published numbers and those whose telephone companies are able to offer reduced price service by virtue of a subsidy at the expense of callers.

With a few exceptions, this division falls between the 09 ranges and the 084/087 ranges. Ofcom muddied the waters three years ago by bringing the 087 range within the definition of being used for "Premium Rate Services".

The confusion is that there are (at least) two types of "premium rate" number in the UK.

There is "Premium" as in "PRS" and "premium" as in "revenue-share".

Designated "Premium Rate Services" (PRS) use 090, 091 and 098 prefixes. These are your chatlines, competition lines, and so on. There are strict rules governing their use. Certain services must, by law, use 09 numbers; and adult services must use 098. These tend to be "quite" expensive. The whole point of the number is to extract a payment.

Then there are "premium rate" numbers where a revenue-share "subsidy", "service charge", "service fee", call it what you will, is applied. These are your 084 and 087 numbers. These numbers are used for a purpose such as customer services but also extract an additional fee from the caller along the way. These numbers shouldn't be used for many of the purposes that they are currently used for.


However, it's worth looking at history to see how we got here.

In the 1980s when there was only BT, calling a geographic number that was at the other end of the country cost a fortune, but "local" calls were cheap. "Local" was defined as your own area code and those that were immediately adjacent.

National organisations could arrange to have an active number in about 100 of the 650 UK area codes to allow all their customers to be able to contact them via a local call (in their own or in an immediately adjacent area code). That organisation then had to pipe the call to their central office at their own expense.

Alternatively, they could arrange to overlay a "local rate" 0345 or 0645 or a "national rate" 0541 or 0990 number on top of their head office number. Now they only needed to publicise one number nationwide.

The call price of these numbers was tied to your provider's (BT, or Cable and Wireless) local and national rates. The caller was not disadvantaged. The company had an easier life explaining how to contact them.

In general, this was a Good Thing.

In 1997, the 0845 and 0870 prefixes came into use. The other, older, prefixes were merged into those in the Big Number Change in 2000. The call prices were still tied to BT's local and national rates.

If you look at early online services such as Prestel, AOL and Demon, you'll see they originally had local access numbers all over the country. The availability of 084 and 087 overlay numbers was a godsend for them. These internet lines had slightly different call rates (parts of 0845 and 0870 were reserved for internet access).

In 2000, the 0844 and 0871 prefixes came into use, and latterly 0843 and 0872. These were not tied to the price for local or national calls but merely designated as "revenue share up to 5p/min" (084x) and "revenue share up to 10p/min" (087x). So now we're reached the point where there's not one rate for 084x or for 087x numbers, but several rates - each depending on the exact number called.

At the same time, deregulation of the telecoms industry meant that there were now hundreds of suppliers of phone services to businesses. Each of these claimed a block of 0844 and 0871 numbers and set the amount of premium they wanted to charge. There were multiple suppliers of phone lines to the public and each of those added their own access charge for each number block - differing per block depending on how the calls would be routed. Suddenly the pricing is quite complex.

Each prefix is divided into 1000 blocks of 10 000 numbers and each block is assigned one of hundreds of tariff codes. Looking up the price is not simple as you first have to find the tariff code in a big table (e.g. 0844 477 is "g6") and then look in another table for the price for that tariff (e.g. "g6" is 14.4p/min). The price consists of the service charge plus whatever your provider adds - and they usually specify only the total of those two items. The "premium" amount might be only 5p/min but that fact is hidden away in a long list somewhere on Ofcom's website - and not mentioned by your provider (who don't want you to know they marked up the call) or by the called party (who don't want you to know they receive a premium).



(cont'd...)

(...cont'd)


Ordinary geographic (01 and 02) landline calls had continued to be charged at local or national rate throughout these changes, but in 2005 "local rate" was scrapped by BT, and by other providers shortly after. Now there was only one rate: "geographic rate". At the same time, or shortly after, BT and other providers started offering "packages" covering "weekend", "evening and weekend" and "anytime" time periods. These packages didn't include 084 and 087 numbers.

Suddenly the users of 084 and 087 numbers were at a disadvantage - people had to pay extra to call these numbers. To fix that, 03 numbers were introduced in 2006. 03 numbers are non-geographic, but are charged at the same rate as 01 and 02 numbers (and revenue share isn't allowed). 03 numbers are inclusive in call packages. Businesses were told to "swap to these or we'll pass a law to make you swap".

GPs and the NHS in general were told to stop using numbers that cost more than 01, 02 and 03 numbers in 2006 (and almost annually after that) and it was written into their contacts in 2010.


The word that "local rate" had been scrapped didn't seem to register with many people. Most providers selling 084 and 087 numbers still promote them as "get a local rate/national rate number for your business". Vast numbers of websites using 084 and 087 numbers still claim their calls are charged at "local rates". They also conveniently forget to mention that these calls are not inclusive in packages. They often say "they may be inclusive". They also often forget to mention they cost a fortune from mobiles.

They either have no idea that "local rate" has been consigned to history or simply cannot admit their numbers are "premium rate with revenue-share" (small p). Many simply have no idea what callers are paying and most have never bothered to look or think.

When users of 084 and 087 revenue-share numbers state "we don't receive a payment for your call" they are ignoring the fact that whether or not they receive it, the caller still pays it (as well as paying an inflated access charge to their own provider) and that someone else in the chain pockets it as extra profit.

When businesses take up the offer of a "free 08 number for your business" or "discounted phone equipment for your surgery" they also ignore the fact that someone else (the caller!) is funding it.

Many businesses find themselves in a contract that was likely sold to them as "get a memorable number for your business where your customers can call you at local rates" but now find that they have a "memorable number charged at premium rates" (small p) or using SCVs words... "a number where call prices include an out-of-bundle penalty fee".

In addition, you can't ignore the rise of the mobile phone. Hardly anyone had a mobile phone when the original 0345/0645 and 0541/0990 numbers were invented. Nowadays many people have only a mobile phone.

Rules governing 084 and 087 call prices have applied only to BT, so mobile phone companies have cashed in by adding access charges of up to 35 pence per minute on top of the "premium" or "service charge" they have to pass on. Mobiles give "free" (contract) or "cheap" (pay as you go) calls to 01, 02 03 and 07 numbers but always charge for 084 and 087 calls (there have been a few rare exceptions where 0870 has been inclusive and more rarely 0845 - but 0844, 0843, 0871, 0872, etc are never inclusive).

If mobile and other operators gave revenue-share 084 and 087 calls away for free, they would have to find the money to pay the onwards "premium" from somewhere else.

We've reached the situation where instead of the original idea of "local rate" and "national rate" numbers being provided to either "save you money" or ensure that you "don't pay any more", the reverse is now true: you are nearly always penalised for calling 084 and 087 numbers.

Most landline users now have an "anytime" inclusive package for 01, 02 and 03 numbers.

With a pricing system that makes comparing gas (or electric) providers child's play, the time has come to do things a different way.


Companies that really do need a national contact number can use an 03 number. The pricing for these meets the same aims (well, at least "similar" aims) as those when 0345/0645 and 0541/0990 numbers were first invented: to cost no more than local or national geographic numbers. Indeed, for most callers (most landlines and all contract mobiles), calls to 03 numbers are effectively "free".

The 030 and 033 ranges are for new users (with only specific organisations able to use 030 numbers). The 034 and 037 ranges are reserved for users to migrate their 084 and 087 numbers to the equivalent new number merely by changing the "8" to a "3". Users can do that within existing phone service contracts; they don't have to wait to the end of their contract.


(cont'd...)

(...cont'd)


In future, if a company chooses to use a number with a service charge element in the call price, they will have to declare that service charge up front wherever they advertise the number. Certain types of business lines will be barred from having numbers that impose a service charge on the caller.

The crazy huge tables of call tariff codes (e.g. 0844 477 = "g6") and call prices (e.g. "g6" = 14.4 pence per minute) will disappear. Your telecoms company will merely say "calls to 084 numbers have an access charge of 7 pence per minute".

The hidden-away-on-Ofcom's-website lists of the service charge element of call pricing (e.g. 0844 477 = 5p/min) will still exist but each business will have to declare the amount next to their phone number.

Hopefully, your own provider will also have a copy of the list so that you can look up the service charge when a company fails to declare it. Or parhaps Ofcom will do more to highlight these charges or provide some sort of online tool to allow them to be looked up more easily (given the record of UK Government and anything to do with IT, that's unlikely).


One complication in all these definitions of "premium" is that Ofcom extended the rules for PRS (i.e. 09 numbers) to also cover 0871, 0872 and 0873 numbers, will probably extend to include 0870, and may well extend again to cover 084x in the long run.

The other complication is the scrapping of revenue share on 0870 in 2009. Ofcom now realise that was a mistake. They'd already invented 0370 numbers that do not allow revenue share. So, while some landline callers have benefitted from reduced call costs to 0870 since 2009, the change didn't help mobile callers - whereas a shift to 0370 numbers would help all callers.


The "unbundled tariff" ("show me the premium you are benefitting from for this call" and "show me the access charge for this call so I can compare providers") and the Consumer Rights Directive (use a number without a premium for certain types of call) will put all of these things right.



Correction: I have been advised that BT stopped the local and national distinction for geographic call charging purposes in 2000, not in 2005.

As an example of the level of ineptitude out there, read this gem...

http://www.nhs.uk/Services/hospitals/PatientFeedback/DefaultView.aspx?tag=Telephone&id=1750


Quote:

[quote]What could have been improved Disgraceful use of premium phone line - shameful is the only word that springs to mind.

The hospital replied on 14 Sep 12
The Trust is sorry to hear about your concerns regarding the cost of telephone calls. We are assuming that you refer to the use of the 0844 number. The 0844 8118111 is the non-geographic local rate number for the switchboard services of the three acute hospitals’ of Hexham, North Tyneside and Wansbeck as well as the smaller hospitals of Alnwick, Berwick, Blyth and Morpeth. Our Contact Centre also uses a non-geographic local rate number 0844 8118118. The 0844 numbers are charged a local rate of 4p per minute at all times from BT fixed lines; however, other telephone providers such as mobile phone companies are free to set their own charges. We reduced the cost from 5p per minute to 4p per minute in 2010 and have since held the price steady unlike other operators i.e. BT who increase their prices yearly. The reason we use a non-geographic number is that our hospitals cover a very large geographic area and if we advertised the 0191 number then callers from Haltwhistle. Hexham, Alnwick & Berwick etc. would have to pay the higher national rate for the calls.[/quote]

This demonstrates a shocking lack of knowledge about phone systems:


Quote:

"0844 8118111 is the non-geographic local rate number"

No it is not. "Local Rate" does not exist. There is only "geographic rate" and "premium rate" (small "p").


Quote:

"The reason we use a non-geographic number is that our hospitals cover a very large geographic area and if we advertised the 0191 number then callers from Haltwhistle. Hexham, Alnwick & Berwick etc. would have to pay the higher national rate for the calls."

Local call discounts haven't existed since 2006. No-one pays for their landline calls by distance covered any more.


Quote:

"We reduced the cost from 5p per minute to 4p per minute in 2010 and have since held the price steady unlike other operators i.e. BT who increase their prices yearly."

WOW! The hospital is now a phone services operator and sets prices! What absolute garbage.

and, finally, a shocking disregard for "the arrangement as a whole" part of Department of Health regulation on the use of phone numbers in the NHS:

Quote:

"The 0844 numbers are charged a local rate of 4p per minute at all times from BT fixed lines; however, other telephone providers such as mobile phone companies are free to set their own charges."

or try:

Quote:

[quote]What could have been improved This is the only major hospital Tyneside to charge premium phone call rate - why? Any other comments I've already paid my taxes to use this hospital so why do I have to pay extra to call 0844 when such numbers are not included in most 'all inclusive' phone tariffs

The hospital replied on 07 Sep 12
We are sorry to hear you have concerns about the call rates. In August 2007, we created a central switchboard to allow us to have all of our hospitals, including community hospitals, on one switchboard which operates 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

As we are geographically one of the largest trusts in the country, our hospitals are not within one dialling code area. Our patients, their families and friends regularly call hospitals which are not within their dialling code so would be charged national rates for these. We charge a lower rate of 4p a minute for our 0844 number which on many occasions is cheaper.

We try to give our patients the option of using a local number where possible by having direct dial local numbers for most wards and departments. This means if someone is calling to enquire about a relative on a ward or to check an outpatient appointment and they live locally they could use the local rate number.[/quote]
Complete garbage written by the terminally clueless.


Or try this one:

http://www.nhs.uk/Services/GP/PatientFeedback/DefaultView.aspx?id=36479&nacs=36479&pageno=7&sort=1&recordpp=0&tag=Telephone


Quote:

[quote]What could have been improved The practice now uses an 0844 number - it states that this costs the same as a local call, but in fact it is more expensive with my telephone provider. Additionally it cannot be included in the free call allowance available with many mobile phone contracts - mine charges 40p a minute to call 0844 numbers!"

The GP practice replied on 19 Apr 10
Thank you for your positive comments regarding the new telephone system and on-line booking. I am sorry your telephone provider makes charges to 0844 numbers and I have been onto our telephone supplier to see if there is anything you can do. They suggest ringing your provider and explaining the situation, very often they will add it as a free call number whne you explain it is a surgery - the issue with the mobiles however is not so simple and all we can suggest is try and ring from a landline.[/quote]
So, you're saying that if I ring BT, Sky or Virgin and ask them to make a particular 0844 number "free", they'll do that. Really? Of course not.

That is typical of the gargabe that has to be overcome.

Starting afresh with a simpler system, one that reveals things that are currently hidden, is the way forward. There are many benefits for the consumer.

Quote:

Complete garbage written by the terminally clueless.

Quote:

WOW! The hospital is now a phone services operator and sets prices! What absolute garbage.

I agree completely cjt and these are the Administrators that are running some of our Hospitals, no wonder many are in a mess financially if they cant be trusted to get their Phone System right. They are just conned by Big Business Bandits.

Some of these Administrators will be selecting Private Companies to provide future health services. God Help us All.

The excellent preceding exposition enlightens all of us. We must be most grateful as we offer wishes for a Happy Christmas to all who contribute to and read this forum.

In a spirit of goodwill to all (people), we may ask ourselves whether the rightly criticised idiots are simply repeating lies that have been told to them by those who they rightly expect to understand more about these issues than they do.

I cannot believe that the authors of the recent quotes were deliberately and knowingly providing false information, whereas this is what has been alleged earlier in this thread. I strongly believe that, as always, those in command of the industry will steer it to suit their own interests in response to individual consumer pressure.

As we look forward to 2013, we place great hope on the Ofcom announcements which will (we are told) be made in January. I hope that we will all be able to contribute to ensuring that (whatever weaknesses there may be, and they will be very many points worthy of criticism) the essential message is conveyed and understood as widely as possible.

While I'm sure that many statements are merely the repetition of lies and half-truths that were spouted by over-zealous sales people when phone systems were sold, it appears that most of the people currently giving out patently false information never look at their own phone bills, nor the price lists of their own telecoms suppliers. Had they done so, they'd soon realise that reality vastly differs from their warped perception.

I offer the preceding text for anyone to use as they see fit in furthering the education of the masses. It started off as a couple of paragraphs and suddenly morphed into something more weighty.

In the case of the NHS, it would take one circular letter explaining a few salient points to put right a whole legion of misconception. One can only hope that suitable guidance on the new system will be given out when the time comes, if not sooner.



Correction: I have been advised that BT started selling some price plans with no local or national distinction for geographic call charging purposes in 1999/2000.

Of course, this doesn't explain why the idiots who spout the garbage absolutely refuse to believe any of us when we explain the truth!!!!!!!!!!!!   I get sick & tired of these people disbelieving with me when they have no idea what they're talking about, they never even have the courtesy to go away & seek confirmation!!!

Anyway, happy Christmas to all.

Thank you, catj, for the history lesson  ;)

Thanks for the time spent setting out that summary.  I have learnt a lot from that.

Let's hope that some of the idiots referred to can be educated as a result.

Thanks again for that  :)

An interesting summary of the history of revenue sharing numbers, catj.   You seem to have a good deal of knowledge of the subject and it leads one to wonder if perhaps you work, or have worked, in the telephone service industry in some capacity?


catj wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2012 at 4:36pm:

(...cont'd) In future, if a company chooses to use a number with a service charge element in the call price, they will have to declare that service charge up front wherever they advertise the number. Certain types of business lines will be barred from having numbers that impose a service charge on the caller.

Could you expand on this information and say which types of business lines, (or is it businesses?) will be barred from imposing a service charge on a caller?   Or are you referring to the new EU directive?

catj wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2012 at 4:36pm:

(...cont'd) Or parhaps Ofcom will do more to highlight these charges or provide some sort of online tool to allow them to be looked up more easily (given the record of UK Government and anything to do with IT, that's unlikely).

I wouldn't hold out too much hope of Ofcom doing that judging by the complete lack of publicity offered by Ofcom when they introduced 03 numbers.   They made their own announcements and notified the industry but did absolutely nothing to advertise or publicise 03 and the associated regulations to the general public.  As far as I know, they never offer any on-line tools to the public to assist in the public understanding or use of telephone services.   They leave all that to the service companies to do as they want in that regard.   It seems to me that Ofcom do not see that kind of service as part of their remit.   Their role seems to be, as they perform it, to set the rules, regulate and consult.



catj wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2012 at 4:36pm:

(...cont'd) The other complication is the scrapping of revenue share on 0870 in 2009. Ofcom now realise that was a mistake.

Hardly a mistake.  Surely that was the first good thing they had done in years!   Their mistake was not to ban revenue sharing on all the other 08 numbers.


catj wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2012 at 4:36pm:

(...cont'd) The "unbundled tariff" ("show me the premium you are benefitting from for this call" and "show me the access charge for this call so I can compare providers") and the Consumer Rights Directive (use a number without a premium for certain types of call) will put all of these things right.

Whether these things will put things right is highly questionable.   Simply saying "show me the premium" is just encouraging phone companies to continue exploiting premiums?   Most of the people who use "saynoto0870.com" do so in order to find a normal phone number and to avoid the premium numbers.  They are still going to need to do that.   These proposed rules look like they are just kicking the can down the road and may end up making the problem worse.

Quote:

... which types of business lines, (or is it businesses?) ...

Well, I originally thought "businesses", but it now seems obvious that a business might have some phone lines that can continue with revenue share while others cannot.


Quote:

I wouldn't hold out too much hope of Ofcom doing that...

Me neither, but they do have several guides: http://consumers.ofcom.org.uk/guides/
including this one: http://consumers.ofcom.org.uk/files/2010/01/numbering.pdf
which cover some of the salient points in a fairly easy to understand manner.


Quote:

[quote]The other complication is the scrapping of revenue share on 0870 in 2009. Ofcom now realise that was a mistake.

Hardly a mistake. Surely that was the first good thing they had done in years!   Their mistake was not to ban revenue sharing on all the other 08 numbers.[/quote]
When I originally saw SCV say "banning revenue share on 0870 was a mistake" I did a doubletake. I was going to heartily disagree. Surely a ban on revenue share is a good thing? However, I have since changed my mind on this one.

So, yes. A mistake. There was always the complication that 0845 was previously tied to "local" rate and 0844/0843 has never been so; likewise, 0870 was previously tied to "national" rate, but 0871/0872 has never been so. Now, none of them is tied to anything. Additionally, 084 has a revenue share of up to 5 pence per minute and 087 (except 0870) has a revenue share of up to 10 pence per minute. There's four types of numbers in there: 0842/0843/0844 - 0845 - 0870 - 0871/0872/0873.

Public perception of how these numbers work is heavily tainted: "08 is rip-off", "09 is double rip-off". Originally, I wanted to see revenue-share scrapped entirely, but there are certain businesses where this payment model is entirely appropriate, but they aren't the norm. Scrapping revenue share on 0870 has made calls from landlines cheaper but not from mobiles. Scrapping it on other 08 numbers would also not help mobile users.

Ofcom have come up with a far better (in the long run) scheme: 034 and 037 guarantee a low call rate from both landlines and mobiles. Shifting 087 users that are no longer allowed to have revenue-share to 037 (and 084 to 034) seems like a far better plan. That's what CRD will do.


Quote:

Simply saying "show me the premium" is just encouraging phone companies to continue exploiting premiums?

Yes and no. At present, companies use 084 and 087 phone numbers that cost up to 20p/min from landlines and up to 41p/min from mobiles and yet can promote them with "calls cost 5p/min from BT landlines, other providers and mobile operators may charge more" although many use the completely illegal "calls are charged at the local rate". In future they will have to say "this number has a service charge of 5 pence per minute" (but for the most part they will have been forced to use an 03 number so talk of service charges will be largely irrelevant). That's what the "unbundled tariff" will do.

Presently, companies cannot tell you exactly what you are going to pay to call them on their 084 and 087 numbers, because they don't know which provider you are with (different providers have a different access charge and the access charge varies depending on the number called - as does the premium) and they want to hide the fact there's a premium.

Your provider can show you the total call price but it's complicated to look it up using two tables: one to find the tariff code, and the other to convert that to a price. Additionally, there seems to be a trend to show 0845 and 0870 prices in a standard price list along with prices for calling 01, 02 and mobile numbers, and to put 0843/0844/0871/0872 numbers in a different document, because of the long look-up tables. I guess that a lot of people look at the 0845 price and simply assume it also applies to 0843 and 0844 (likewise for 0870 vs. 0871/0872). The new way will be single "0844 numbers have 7p/min access charge".

Companies that had an 0345(+6 digits) number back in the 1990s could be called at "local rate". Now they could find themselves back on an 0345(+7 digits) number with the majority of their customers able to call for "free". That's certainly a "win" for the consumer. And, if the business use of the number can justify revenue share then they'll stick with 0845(+7 digits) and have to declare that charge.


Quote:

Most of the people who use "saynoto0870.com" do so in order to find a normal phone number and to avoid the premium numbers.  They are still going to need to do that. These proposed rules look like they are just kicking the can down the road and may end up making the problem worse.

Many of them will have no need to look up an alternative for 084 and 087 numbers as the companies will have swapped to an 01, 02 or 03 number for one of several reasons:
- they are forced by CRD to do it, or
- they aren't forced by CRD, but the sheer act of having to declare the previously hidden service charge means they move anyway.

Consumers and consumer perception will have influence. Faced with two companies asking customers to call, one having a number with an advertised premium and the other number being effectively "free" will give consumers a real choice.

There will still be occasions where people will be looking for alternatives so this site will still be useful, but there will be many more occasions where the forced or voluntary use of an 03 number means the customer is already served.

catj wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2012 at 2:11pm:

Ordinary geographic (01 and 02) landline calls had continued to be charged at local or national rate throughout these changes, but in 2005 "local rate" was scrapped by BT, and by other providers shortly after.…

BT Standard was scrapped on 1st July 2004 and it was on this tariff where local and national calls were charged at different rates. This was effectively the "pre-competition" tariff.

At that time BT Together had been around for a few years, and this was BT's offering which competed with other providers in the fledgling market; it was BT's "post-competition" plan. In the preceding year or two, BT didn't publicise BT Standard and marketed BT Together heavily. (BT Together Options have since become BT Calling Plans.)

Despite this, when competitors advertised their services, they liked to compare their rates with those of BT. However, comparisons were always with BT Standard rather than BT Together which made them look better than they were (than if they had been compared with BT's main offering and competing plan, BT Together). This was clearly a disadvantage to BT and so wanted rid of BT Standard.

A year or two before the abolition of BT Standard, BT Together local and national call rates became aligned. I would be interested to know for certain what other providers were doing around that time with regards to differences in local and national rates. I suspect that they followed BT and where generally aligned not later than 2002/3.

So differing local and national call rates had been disappearing since before July 2004. It was at this time that the final nail went into the coffin of those rates for some nine million subscribers to BT Standard. Hence, saying that differing rates were abolished in 2004 is being generous as in practice I think that they started to disappear a few years prior to that.


If you think about it, BT needed rid of BT Standard for marketing reasons (because competitors' comparisons were against it), yet providers of 0845 numbers have continued to market and talk about their services as if BT Standard still existed (the "local rate" claim).



catj wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2012 at 2:11pm:

…To fix that, 03 numbers were introduced in 2006.…

03 numbers were introduced in February 2007.



catj wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2012 at 2:11pm:

When users of 084 and 087 revenue-share numbers state "we don't receive a payment for your call" they are ignoring the fact that whether or not they receive it, the caller still pays it (as well as paying an inflated access charge to their own provider) and that someone else in the chain pockets it as extra profit.

Because we have a free-market in telecommunications services, callers and receivers can use different providers, but the two providers must interconnect. There is therefore a demarcation point between the two from the point-of-view of revenues.

The provider of the number receives the same level of payment from the caller's phone company (that is the amount passed over at the demarcation point), irrespective of how much it pays to its customer (the user of the 08 number) in "revenue share" payments.

Any user of such a number that chooses to waive any revenue share payments is thereby allowing its provider to enjoy unearned profit. The Unbundled Tariff will expose these organisations as it will make them confront the fact that they gift their Service Charges to their providers (who act as their agents).



catj wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2012 at 2:11pm:

We've reached the situation where instead of the original idea of "local rate" and "national rate" numbers being provided to either "save you money" or ensure that you "don't pay any more", the reverse is now true: you are nearly always penalised for calling 084 and 087 numbers.

We passed it years ago!

Thank you for the clarification of when the separate local rate charges disappeared. As expected, the reality is somewhat more complicated than my simplified timeline.

Someone else informed me that BT started selling price plans that charged the same amount for local and national calls in 1999/2000. There's also Nynex, Cable and Wireless, NTL, Telewest, and others.

So, price plans with no differentiation started in 1999/2000 and price plans with separate charges stopped in 2004/2005. At some point between those dates, the current situation became the norm for the majority.

We were all around at the time, but everyone seems to have a slightly different recollection of what happened. Additionally, it's only a decade ago but there's not all that much about it on the web.


As for the date for 03 numbers, there's a mixture of dates: Ofcom announcements, newspaper articles about the new numbers, and Ofcom's table of allocations. They all seem to differ by a number of months. I guess they started being used at some point after all of those. I can't remember which one I picked. History is damn tricky to pin down.


Please feel free to fill in any other gaps you find. Thanks again! :)



Quote:

Any user of such a number that chooses to waive any revenue share payments is thereby allowing its provider to enjoy unearned profit. The Unbundled Tariff will expose these organisations as it will make them confront the fact that they gift their Service Charges to their providers (who act as their agents).

Indeed. I'm sure that service providers are extatic at the extra windfall from all such customers. It must run to billions of pounds per year. This point also came up recently when it was revealed that HMRC chose a phone number that is not cheap to call, one that carries a revenue-share "premium" in the call price, and then let their provider keep the tens of millions of pounds per year "premium" that is generated.



Quote:

We passed it years ago!

Let's hope it's all fixed before we have to send it a tenth birthday card.

Is this the worst deal for customers calling 08 numbers?


Revenue share for 0844 242 numbers: 4.20 pence per call.

Call charge from virgin mobile: 41 pence per minute.


A ten minute call costs 4 quid of which 4 pence is the revenue share premium.