Which? is being announced as today having launched a campaign to get banks to cut out use of 084 /087 numbers and to offer 0800 numbers -
Which? calls on banks to cut out costly calls

The fair telecoms campaign is joining Which? in doing broadcast media on today's story, but with a very different slant -
Two major banks to stop using 084 numbers.

Details of news coverage will be available on the fair telecoms news feed in due course.

The Telegraph reports today that some of the largest banks are dropping premium rate phone lines with this item:---

RBS and Barclays drop premium rate lines as watchdog shames financial sector

"RBS, which also owns NatWest, last night vowed to act by offering basic rate numbers for general enquiries and a freephone number for complaints by the end of the month.

Barclays has also pledged that it will introduce a freephone or basic rate number for all customer helplines. The pledge also covers Barclaycard. "

The Telegraph adds this encouraging rumour :---


"There were rumours that Legal & General, one of Britain's biggest insurers, may also follow suit. "


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/consumertips/household-bills/10452964/RBS-and-Barclays-drop-premium-rate-lines-as-watchdog-shames-financial-sector.html

The is absolutely momentous news and cause for real celebration by all us campaigners.   :) :D :D

This could be the major breakthrough we have been working for during the past several years.  Truly amazing !!!  :o :o :) :D

SCV and loddon,

Hopefully all it will take is one or two banks to change their contact numbers to standard/basic rate 03 numbers and then with enough complaints and publicity the others will follow suit...

I have already complained to the Co-Operative Bank over it's use of an 0845 number and then it's change to an 0844 number.

So far they still publicise both!

After the banks it will be the transport network that will could do with being convinced!

Some more good news from First Direct and HSBC this time. :)

"  A spokeswoman for First Direct and HSBC, says: ‘Many of our customers now bank with us online or via our mobile app as their first option. However, we are looking at our telephone service, and as part of that we are working towards switching our 0845 numbers to 0385 numbers, which are covered within the inclusive minutes offered on both mobile and landline phone packages."


Read more: http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/saving/article-2508341/Banks-building-societies-charge-40p-minute-helplines.html#ixzz2kvaeHhrX
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

bigjohn wrote on Nov 17^th, 2013 at 6:12pm:

Some more good news from First Direct and HSBC this time. :) "  A spokeswoman for First Direct and HSBC, says: ‘Many of our customers now bank with us online or via our mobile app as their first option. However, we are looking at our telephone service, and as part of that we are working towards switching our 0845 numbers to 0385 numbers, which are covered within the inclusive minutes offered on both mobile and landline phone packages."

Great news again!!!

I assume the 0385 was a typo, and should of been 0345?

Otherwise that's an interesting number.....


EDIT: Having read the article.. their typo not yours!

CJT-80 wrote on Nov 17^th, 2013 at 9:14pm:

bigjohn wrote on Nov 17th, 2013 at 6:12pm: Some more good news from First Direct and HSBC this time. :) "  A spokeswoman for First Direct and HSBC, says: ‘Many of our customers now bank with us online or via our mobile app as their first option. However, we are looking at our telephone service, and as part of that we are working towards switching our 0845 numbers to 0385 numbers, which are covered within the inclusive minutes offered on both mobile and landline phone packages." Great news again!!! I assume the 0385 was a typo, and should of been 0345? Otherwise that's an interesting number..... EDIT: Having read the article.. their typo not yours!

I thought originally it was a typo,but then i thought perhaps they have secured a new numbering range. :-/

Quote:

I thought originally it was a typo,but then i thought perhaps they have secured a new numbering range. :-/

It seems they once existed: http://www.ofcom.org.uk/static/archive/oftel/publications/1999/consumer/qanum999.htm

Do a Control F search and type in 0385

CJT-80 wrote on Nov 17^th, 2013 at 9:35pm:

Quote: I thought originally it was a typo,but then i thought perhaps they have secured a new numbering range. :-/ It seems they once existed: http://www.ofcom.org.uk/static/archive/oftel/publications/1999/consumer/qanum999.htm Do a Control F search and type in 0385

Yes i have noticed it was originally an old mobile number range.So i am now leaning towards a typo. As 03456 100 100 for First Direct sounds better then 03856 100 100.  :)


In Loddons post i see Legal and General are mentioned. They in fact have already converted their 0870 numbers to 0370 ones and are already using a 0345 number so that looks promising as well for the remainder of the 0845 ones to go to 0345.

See: http://www.legalandgeneral.com/existing-customers/contact-us/

IIRC FirstDirect started their business with 0345 100 100 back in the days (c1990) when this was a real advantage to most customers by giving them a local rate number from anywhere in the UK. They also make no secret of their 0113 2345678 number. It's printed on all their cards and some other places as their "international" number. I agree that a change to their headline numbers from 0845 (back) to 0345 would be welcome.

bigjohn wrote on Nov 17^th, 2013 at 6:12pm:

Some more good news from First Direct and HSBC this time. :) http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/saving/article-2508341/Banks-building-societies-charge-40p-minute-helplines.html#ixzz2kvaeHhrX Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

So now HSBC have announced that they are switching from 0845 to 03 numbers !!   How much more good news can we take?/   ;) :)

Barclays, RBS and now HSBC -- this is three of the four big banks which dominate the UK banking market. Incredible!!!   We only need LLOYDS Bank to make a similar announcement and we will have a full set!!   We now look for the others to follow suit such as Santander, Halifax, Nationwide, Yorkshire bank, Allied Irish, Bank of Ireland, Clydesdale, Co-op Bank et al.

There are already some good guys including First Direct(?) and Standard Chartered which uses normal geo numbers as does MBNC the credit card company.

An interesting reader comment below the "ThisisMoney" article :---

"Anahoor, London, United Kingdom, 17 hours ago
It is not just banks and building societies; try phoning: MARKS & SPENCER JOHN LEWIS CURRYS SKY TALK TALK They all use these numbers and most are proud of their customer services. Hypocrites "

The major retailers need to look at their policies on this issue very carefully.

loddon wrote on Nov 18^th, 2013 at 9:21am:

… The major retailers need to look at their policies on this issue very carefully.

They will have to do so when details of the final version of the provisions to implement the Consumer Rights Directive are announced shortly. There is however still a chance for someone looking for good PR to get ahead of the game, as these banks have done, and be seen to have done the right thing, rather than being compelled to do so.

The fair telecoms campaign is behind any pressure being applied to likely candidates.

Both myself and my Mum bank with Nationwide and she also banks with Co-Operative... so I am happy to contact them to add my weight to them reverting their 0845 numbers over to 0345 equivalents....

Equally we now need to get the transport providers at National Rail Enquiries (who I have badgered before) to start amending theirs!!!! It's not hard for them to do it if the banks etc can do it!

We CAN do this, if we all stand together  :) :)

Although they mention it First Direct dont actively promote their geographical number as such see http://www2.firstdirect.com/1/2/contact-us so to get them to switch the 0845 numbers to 03 would be good.

I am a customer they certainly dont mind you using the 0113 geographic number. :)

TSB are another candidate for change but they actually say   If you need to call us from abroad, or prefer not to use our 08459 number, you can also call Telephone Banking on +44 (0) 2032 841 575.

Talk Talk mentioned above have offered a geographical alternative  020 3441 5550 for some considerable time now.

bigjohn wrote on Nov 18^th, 2013 at 11:45am:

Although they mention it First Direct dont actively promote their geographical number as such see http://www2.firstdirect.com/1/2/contact-us so to get them to switch the 0845 numbers to 03 would be good. I am a customer they certainly dont mind you using the 0113 geographic number. :) TSB are another candidate for change but they actually say   If you need to call us from abroad, or prefer not to use our 08459 number, you can also call Telephone Banking on +44 (0) 2032 841 575. Talk Talk mentioned above have offered a geographical alternative  020 3441 5550 for some considerable time now.

Talk Talk do indeed offer one, except that seem to not be able to put it in the correct format...

Here is the text copied from their technical support "call us" page...

24 hours a day 365 days a year. Please make sure you have your account details to hand when you call.

Free from your TalkTalk landline: 0870 444 1820

Mobile friendly: 0203 441 5550

I have (as a customer) mentioned it twice that the correct number is 020 3441 5550 as bigjohn has pointed out.

Still at least they have one  :)

Whilst some are unduly obsessed with the issue of "consumer choice" and provision of alternative numbers is a major function of saynoto0870.com, the fair telecoms campaign does not see the process of offering dual numbers as generally being desirable or helpful.

For basic telephone contact we believe that every organisation should present a clear geographic rate number.

Some may wish to also offer a 080 number for landline users or perhaps some other number for those on particular tariffs who could benefit from a lower call rate. Such offers must however be secondary and the situations when they should be used clearly explained.

(The only exception which comes to mind is "101", which offers advanced routing and is highly memorable. Local geographic alternatives for specific Police services are secondary.)

Once 080 numbers become "free to caller" in all cases, they will become acceptable for presentation as the primary number.

Where a chargeable telephone access service is offered, i.e. on a 084/087/09 number, then presentation of this chargeable service is subject to a wholly different set of rules.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Nov 18^th, 2013 at 5:09pm:

Whilst some are unduly obsessed with the issue of "consumer choice" and provision of alternative numbers is a major function of saynoto0870.com, the fair telecoms campaign does not see the process of offering dual numbers as generally being desirable or helpful.

For those of us outside UK borders, access to alternative / dual numbering is absolutely essential for the reasons that are self-evident and have been previously well-described. We have to be 'obsessed' with this choice as the feckless regulator refuses to do its job. It has shaped a numbering framework that is not fit-for-purpose and refuses to correct it, and I'm fed up with hearing that it just 'doesn't have the necessary powers'. It is the regulator and it should correct its prior mistakes. It will not do so so we have to waste time in seeking alternatives.

idb wrote on Nov 18^th, 2013 at 11:57pm:

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Nov 18th, 2013 at 5:09pm: Whilst some are unduly obsessed with the issue of "consumer choice" and provision of alternative numbers is a major function of saynoto0870.com, the fair telecoms campaign does not see the process of offering dual numbers as generally being desirable or helpful. For those of us outside UK borders, access to alternative / dual numbering is absolutely essential for the reasons that are self-evident and have been previously well-described.

Apologies, I was not aware that 03 numbers could not be accessed from outside the UK, as this is what presumably has been previously described as being the reason for continuation of published dual numbering. (I regret that this was not evident to me.)

Any service on a 03 number that requires access from overseas, must then offer a 01/02 alternative specifically for international access. In some cases this is likely to provide a different form of service. This must however be identified as a specific exceptional condition, especially if a different service is provided.

Providing access to chargeable services from overseas cannot be guaranteed through the "Service Charge" mechanism, as 084/087/09 numbers are not accessible from all countries. Some other means of collecting the charge must be used.

We are now entering the period when all "premium charge" telephone numbers are coming to be recognised for what they are. Alternatives to these will come to be seen as a money-saving trick, rather than a way of gaining proper access to services that should not be subject to a charge from the provider.

I hope it is not too much of a disappointment for long-standing forum members to learn that the long-sought-for change is finally starting to happen. There is still a very long way to go, but the course now looks set. We are moving to a place where alternative numbers will only be necessary for certain very specific cases - I apologise for overlooking international callers in my previous posting.

loddon wrote on Nov 17^th, 2013 at 9:09am:

The Telegraph reports today that some of the largest banks are dropping premium rate phone lines with this item:--- RBS and Barclays drop premium rate lines as watchdog shames financial sector [...] The is absolutely momentous news and cause for real celebration by all us campaigners.   :) :D :D This could be the major breakthrough we have been working for during the past several years.  Truly amazing !!!  :o :o :) :D

This is indeed excellent news.

I've always considered that what the campaign needs is large well-known organisations to come off 084 numbers and to move to 03 numbers. This will set an example to others as well as increasing public awareness of 03 numbers.

Much of the misuse of 084 and 087 numbers has come about "because others do it". When questioned the reason given is often that it is standard industry practice.

The tide is now turning and big organisations such as HMRC, Barclays and RBS have, or will soon, abandon their 084 numbers in favour of 03 ones which don't carry a Service Charge.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Nov 19^th, 2013 at 2:50am:

idb wrote on Nov 18th, 2013 at 11:57pm: SilentCallsVictim wrote on Nov 18th, 2013 at 5:09pm: Whilst some are unduly obsessed with the issue of "consumer choice" and provision of alternative numbers is a major function of saynoto0870.com, the fair telecoms campaign does not see the process of offering dual numbers as generally being desirable or helpful. For those of us outside UK borders, access to alternative / dual numbering is absolutely essential for the reasons that are self-evident and have been previously well-described. Apologies, I was not aware that 03 numbers could not be accessed from outside the UK, as this is what presumably has been previously described as being the reason for continuation of published dual numbering. (I regret that this was not evident to me.)

Although I have not experienced any particular difficulty or increased cost (compared with 01/02) with originating 03 calls from the United States, I suspect there will still be many anomalies and exceptions, both here and elsewhere. Indeed, NGMsGhost has already stated that his 03 calls from Spain have been charged at near extortion rate and significantly more than the equivalent geographic rate. This does not surprise me and I'm sure that the feckless regulator is at least partially to blame. Whenever faced with an 03 number, I will generally perform a test call for a minute and see how much I am billed before going ahead. The situation with 0800 here is pretty dire - these are generally charged at mobile or 087/084 rates. The only non expensive way to originate calls to such numbers is to use a UK VOIP provider or Skype.

Until the UK adopts a handful of charge bands rather than the zillion that currently exist, then I am suspicious of anything that does not start with 01 or 02. Any visitor to these parts, who may typically use a $10 or $20 calling card, will soon find the value exhausted if they attempt anything other than a true geographic call.

As I have stated on many occasions, the UK numbering system is a disgrace and the feckless regulator should address its incompetence. It should stop producing consultations that run to thousands of pages of pure BS nonsense and fix the underlying problem - 'normal' calls should be charged at regular rates. It is done here so why not there?

These are Skype rates. I have absolutely no idea what 'Premium Customer Support' and 'Premium UK Government Services' refer to in terms of phone numbers, and there appears to be no way of finding out. Each direct and indirect provider (and there are hundreds, if not thousands in this country alone) will have similar, confusing, inconsistent and incorrect tables. The poor consumer, who often will not have access to such lists, may find his/her call cut off after five minutes of holding for Heathrow Airport as the credit has expired.

This is why those of us who live, work or travel overseas will only trust 01 or 02.

United Kingdom

Calling - per minute 1

excl. VAT

United Kingdom2

2.3¢

United Kingdom - London2

2.3¢

United Kingdom - Mobile - Hutchison3G

25.9¢

United Kingdom - Mobile - O2

25.9¢

United Kingdom - Mobile - Orange

25.9¢

United Kingdom - Mobile - Others

25.9¢

United Kingdom - Mobile - T-Mobile

25.9¢

United Kingdom - Mobile - Vodafone

25.9¢

United Kingdom - Premium Airlines

$1.43

United Kingdom - Premium Customer Support

$1.43

United Kingdom - Premium International Consular

$1.74

United Kingdom - Premium UK Government Services

48¢

United Kingdom - Shared Cost - 0844

12¢

United Kingdom - Shared Cost - 0845

13¢

United Kingdom - Shared Cost - 0870

19¢

United Kingdom - Shared Cost - 0871

23.5¢

United Kingdom - Shared Cost-0843

12¢

United Kingdom - Shared cost - 0872

23.2¢

United Kingdom - Toll Free3

0¢

idb wrote on Nov 20^th, 2013 at 12:51am:

… I'm sure that the feckless regulator is at least partially to blame. … As I have stated on many occasions, the UK numbering system is a disgrace and the feckless regulator should address its incompetence.

It would be good to read (or perhaps read again) just how Ofcom is to blame for the excessive rates charged by overseas providers for calls to +443 numbers. There is nothing in the UK regulations to provide any justification for this discriminatory profiteering.

On reading the reply to my previous response it seems that the requirement for 01/02 alternatives for overseas callers is to cover this odd behaviour by overseas providers, rather than a problem with access to +443.

It is perhaps uinderstandable that overseas callers would like to be able to pay Service Charges at a recognisable series of rates, but I cannot see how this may be achieved, even when the charge bands are simplified under the forthcoming measures. The unbundled tariff provisions will not necessarily apply to overseas providers as they are not bound by UK General Conditions, as I understand it. I am sure that we would all be grateful if someone well acquainted with the issue could explain how international regulation in this area works.

It would also be interesting to read proposals for how the facility of international freephone calls may be provided, and to have some idea of the extent of the demand for this service. Clearly anyone offering a UK freefone number (even when these are fully in place) would need to offer an alternative access number / service for international callers.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Nov 20^th, 2013 at 1:36am:

idb wrote on Nov 20th, 2013 at 12:51am: … I'm sure that the feckless regulator is at least partially to blame. … As I have stated on many occasions, the UK numbering system is a disgrace and the feckless regulator should address its incompetence. It would be good to read (or perhaps read again) just how Ofcom is to blame for the excessive rates charged by overseas providers for calls to +443 numbers. There is nothing in the UK regulations to provide any justification for this discriminatory profiteering. On reading the reply to my previous response it seems that the requirement for 01/02 alternatives for overseas callers is to cover this odd behaviour by overseas providers, rather than a problem with access to +443. It is perhaps uinderstandable that overseas callers would like to be able to pay Service Charges at a recognisable series of rates, but I cannot see how this may be achieved, even when the charge bands are simplified under the forthcoming measures. The unbundled tariff provisions will not necessarily apply to overseas providers as they are not bound by UK General Conditions, as I understand it. I am sure that we would all be grateful if someone well acquainted with the issue could explain how international regulation in this area works. It would also be interesting to read proposals for how the facility of international freephone calls may be provided, and to have some idea of the extent of the demand for this service. Clearly anyone offering a UK freefone number (even when these are fully in place) would need to offer an alternative access number / service for international callers.

Anything the feckless regulator touches, at least in terms of telecommunications, is a complete disaster and I have no reason to believe that it has fulfilled its obligations in advising the appropriate international bodies that 03 numbers have equivalency to geographic numbers for rate purposes.

I am not the slightest bit interested in debating access charge, service charge or GC. These are artificial creations by the feckless regulator which has decided that 'normal' calls should attract a premium payment which is not in the public interest. This nonsense needs to stop. Any call, other than a genuine premium call (sex lines, horoscopes and telephone voting) should simply attract a payment for the conveyance of the call. That is what the public has stated it expects. It is how it used to be, it is simple, and it is non exploitative.

When I visit the UK, I can call virtually any US landline, cellular or freephone number from virtually any provider without the need to do test calls, look up complex rate tables and all the other nonsense a visitor to these shores avoids having to do for the reverse operation. The UK is a developed economy containing one of the two alpha+ world cities yet it has a numbering system, created by a feckless regulator, that is fit for a tin-pot dictatorship.

We clearly differ on the concept of 084/087 numbers. From my perspective there is no justification in the existence of such numbering *unless* the additional premium is met by the user of the number and *not* the originator of the call.

There is *no* justification in charging a *fee* on top of conveyance of a regular telephone call.

idb wrote on Nov 20^th, 2013 at 2:06am:

We clearly differ on the concept of 084/087 numbers. From my perspective there is no justification in the existence of such numbering *unless* the additional premium is met by the user of the number and *not* the originator of the call.

There are various blocks of non-geographic numbers, each with different charging characteristics: 080, 03, 084, 087, normal 09, SES 09. (0870 is currently in a state of limbo; 0845 is the only other range that has changed its nature during its lifetime; the nature of 080 is due to change.)

I understand the concept of the 084/087 ranges as being to enable a Service Charge of up to 13p per minute to be imposed on the caller by the user of the number. I can see no purpose in having a range designed to allow users to impose charges on themselves! I cannot think why anyone would suggest such a bizarre possibility.

What other concept is there?


idb wrote on Nov 20^th, 2013 at 2:06am:

There is *no* justification in charging a *fee* on top of conveyance of a regular telephone call.

Indeed. Now that the truth of the "Service Charge" is coming to the surface, those whose charge is unjustified are being pressed, compelled and are agreeing, to remove it. Where the advantages of a non-geographic number are required, they are switching to the 03 range.

Once the shake-out has been completed it may be found that they are very few who wish to impose a Service Charge of less than 13p per minute. For the time being, Ofcom has chosen not to impose a minimum Service Charge, nor forced the expense of a change of number on those who are content with the present arrangements. We wait to see if these modest measures may be put into effect without challenge in the courts, by those who think them unduly radical.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Nov 20^th, 2013 at 4:51am:

idb wrote on Nov 20th, 2013 at 2:06am: We clearly differ on the concept of 084/087 numbers. From my perspective there is no justification in the existence of such numbering *unless* the additional premium is met by the user of the number and *not* the originator of the call. There are various blocks of non-geographic numbers, each with different charging characteristics: 080, 03, 084, 087, normal 09, SES 09. (0870 is currently in a state of limbo; 0845 is the only other range that has changed its nature during its lifetime; the nature of 080 is due to change.) I understand the concept of the 084/087 ranges as being to enable a Service Charge of up to 13p per minute to be imposed on the caller by the user of the number. I can see no purpose in having a range designed to allow users to impose charges on themselves! I cannot think why anyone would suggest such a bizarre possibility.

Of course there is no purpose. That's why my preferred solution is that the regulator sets a date - Jan 1, 2015, where *all* calls to 084/087 must be charged at geographic rates for the caller. Any user of such numbers who believes that they derive a benefit from such numbering will have to fund that perceived benefit. The service fee has to be taken out of the equation from the consumer perspective. If Heathrow Airport needs the so-called benefits from its 0871 number then let it pay for them and not the long-suffering caller. We, the *consumer* neither benefit from nor need 084 or 087 numbers. They were an artificial creation by the inept regulator that may have had some consumer benefit twenty years ago but that benefit is now non-existent and has turned into a burden.

An earlier date has already been set: 12th June 2014.

Any user of a non-geographic number who believes that they derive a benefit from the features they bring and who uses that number for customer services will have to fund those features by swapping to an 03 number where the service fee is borne by the called party.

Additionally, Ofcom's "unbundled tariffs" will force remaining users of 084 and 087 numbers to declare the Service Charge rather than hiding behind a price declaration that quotes only BT's abnormally low call prices. That legislation was meant to come into force at the same time as the CRD rules but stiff opposition from mobile networks has delayed Ofcom by many months.

The problem is not with 084/087 numbers per se. There are legitimate uses for revenue sharing numbers with a Service Charge of less than 13p/min. The problem comes from businesses using these numbers for inappropriate purposes. The CRD legislation fixes that for customer service lines.

Once those principles have been established, many businesses will become reluctant to use 084 or 087 numbers for any purpose, or will be forced by consumer pressure to abandon them.



Quote:

It would also be interesting to read proposals for how the facility of international freephone calls may be provided

These are provided on the +800 country code, dialled as 00 800 from Europe and 011 800 from North America. The cost to the user is extortionately high, and therefore these numbers are not often used for conversation. The main use often seems to be merely to inform the caller what number to re-dial within their own country to make contact with the business.

idb wrote on Nov 20^th, 2013 at 2:00am:

I am not the slightest bit interested in debating access charge, service charge or GC. These are artificial creations by the feckless regulator which has decided that 'normal' calls should attract a premium payment which is not in the public interest. This nonsense needs to stop. Any call, other than a genuine premium call (sex lines, horoscopes and telephone voting) should simply attract a payment for the conveyance of the call. That is what the public has stated it expects. It is how it used to be, it is simple, and it is non exploitative.

The notion of Access Charges and Service Charges are actually quite real, even if they have not been overtly described as such until now.

Bringing this to the fore will flush out those who cannot be seen to impose call charges greater than a "normal" call. The recent announcements about Barclays and RBS moving to 03 is a sign of things to come.

Genuine users of premium numbers - those who can stand by the fact that they aren't a "normal" call - can continue to use them and can declare their Service Charge which is relevant to all telephone users, rather than only to a select few.

idb wrote on Nov 20^th, 2013 at 1:35pm:

Any user of such numbers who believes that they derive a benefit from such numbering will have to fund that perceived benefit.

This is absurd. The benefit to the user is the Service Charge of up to 13p per minute.


idb wrote on Nov 20^th, 2013 at 1:35pm:

… my preferred solution is that the regulator sets a date - Jan 1, 2015, where *all* calls to 084/087 must be charged at geographic rates for the caller.

This suggests one of the courses of action that Ofcom has chosen not to follow. It would have compelled the confusion and expense of a change of number (from 084/087 to 09) to maintain the status quo, or perhaps the setting of a minimum Service Charge at greater than 13p per minute to prevent repetition of what happened when the 0870 range was effectively withdrawn.

I believe that either proposal from Ofcom would have attracted far greater criticism and opposition than that which it is currently struggling to overcome.


idb wrote on Nov 20^th, 2013 at 1:35pm:

We, the *consumer* neither benefit from nor need 084 or 087 numbers.

The only potential benefit to the consumer of any number with a Service Charge is the provision of a service that would not be provided without a charge on the caller being used to fund or subsidise it. Compelling users to declare the existence and level of the Service Charge is an effective means of ensuring that only those cases where the charge can be justified remain.

I believe that there are very few such cases on 084 numbers and few on 087. Measures being taken by those who are properly responsible for preventing citizens and consumers from being exploited by service providers in general (as against telecoms companies specifically) will compel many of those, who do not themselves "do the right thing", to switch to 03 or geographic numbers.

There may be cases where telephone access is withdrawn altogether if the provider cannot have it subsidised at the expense of callers. Such cases, along with those where increased unit cost leads to a reduction in quality of service, will need to be addressed individually.

It is important to understand the distinct roles and duties of the different regulators. I regret that my current level of understanding of international situations is poor, and I would welcome some guidance from those more closely engaged in such matters.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Nov 20^th, 2013 at 6:14pm:

idb wrote on Nov 20th, 2013 at 1:35pm: Any user of such numbers who believes that they derive a benefit from such numbering will have to fund that perceived benefit. This is absurd. The benefit to the user is the Service Charge of up to 13p per minute.

The only absurdity is the belief that the call originator should have to fund this service charge.

Ian G wrote on Nov 20^th, 2013 at 2:32pm:

An earlier date has already been set: 12th June 2014. Any user of a non-geographic number who believes that they derive a benefit from the features they bring and who uses that number for customer services will have to fund those features by swapping to an 03 number where the service fee is borne by the called party. Additionally, Ofcom's "unbundled tariffs" will force remaining users of 084 and 087 numbers to declare the Service Charge rather than hiding behind a price declaration that quotes only BT's abnormally low call prices. That legislation was meant to come into force at the same time as the CRD rules but stiff opposition from mobile networks has delayed Ofcom by many months. The problem is not with 084/087 numbers per se. There are legitimate uses for revenue sharing numbers with a Service Charge of less than 13p/min. The problem comes from businesses using these numbers for inappropriate purposes. The CRD legislation fixes that for customer service lines. Once those principles have been established, many businesses will become reluctant to use 084 or 087 numbers for any purpose, or will be forced by consumer pressure to abandon them.

My main issue with the CRD, and bear in mind that I have not followed it very closely at all, is that there are some notable exclusions - transport and finance coming immediately to mind. In addition, GPs have been, for some considerable time, prohibited from entering into new contracts which use 0844 numbers yet they still do. Will CRD requirements be enforced and how effective will they be? I guess time will tell. I truly hope CRD works, and if enforced, it will certainly help, but I do not anticipate those in other excluded sectors giving up their numbers.

I would maintain that any nimber that has derives revenue through telephone payment systems needs to be in the appropriate number range, irrespective of whether that revenue share value is relatively low. That range already exists within the 09 regime.

I had no idea about the delay caused by mobile network opposition. NGNs must be a wonderful revenue source for them.

idb wrote on Nov 20^th, 2013 at 11:56pm:

The only absurdity is the belief that the call originator should have to fund this service charge.

This is getting very silly. I hope we are discussing how the UK telephone network works at present, and in a more transparent way in future.

084/087/09 numbers are used to enable Service providers to impose a Service Charge at particular levels according to the range from which they select a number. That is the benefit of this choice of number.

03 numbers offer no such benefit. 080 numbers require them to pay for the call origination.

Is this disputed? If the Service Charge is not collected through the call originitor (who bills the caller) then how else can it be collected?

There may be strong arguments against the use of the micro-payment mechanism of the Service Charge, but the concept exists and will continue to exist. It is a perfectly valid position to call for the abolition of the Service Charge, its prohibition below a certain level, or its restriction to certain ranges (e.g. 09). If these are the arguments being advanced, then let us hear them clearly expressed, with a recognition of what is in place at the moment.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Nov 21^st, 2013 at 12:35am:

idb wrote on Nov 20th, 2013 at 11:56pm: The only absurdity is the belief that the call originator should have to fund this service charge. This is getting very silly.

Indeed it is. As any view that differs from your own perspective is deemed invalid and absurd then it is pointless to continue contributing to this once happy forum!

But let me try one final time. I do not want to pay a service charge to call Heathrow Airport as it is not justified, in my *opinion*. Heathrow Airport chooses to use a number that involves a service charge. It could choose not to use such a number. It should, therefore, either fund this tax/charge/fee or change to a numvber where I do not have to pay this charge. It really is very very simple.

The following quote is edited to make a point:

idb wrote on Nov 21^st, 2013 at 12:54am:

… Heathrow Airport chooses to use a number that involves a service charge. It could choose not to use such a number. It should, therefore, either fund this tax/charge/fee or change to a numvber where I do not have to pay this charge. It really is very very simple.

The point made (without the confusing bit about funding its own charge) is plain and simple, probably beyond dispute and likely to be demanded by the revised provisions arising from the CRD when they are announced in their final form shortly. Migration to the equivalent 037 number(s) offers a most convenient option.

This is essentially about changing numbers. The points about what Ofcom could perhaps have done, having multiple numbers and companies paying their own charges simply introduce unnecessary complication to discussion of the essential point. The interesting issue of international regulation was also raised, but appears to have been dropped from the discussion.

---

I can see no way that Heathrow airport could justify the imposition of a Service Charge for enquiries from customers. Exactly the same argument applies to many other users of 084/087 numbers.

There is a separate question regarding whether it, or any other organisation, could ever justify offering a service provided by telephone with a Service Charge of up to 13p per minute. Such a service could currently be provided on a 087 number, subject to compliance with Phonepay Plus regulations. A further question relates to whether such a service should be forced to migrate to a 09 number.

The same points cover users of 084 numbers, although at rates up to 7p per minute and not subject to Phonepay Plus regulation.

---

I can understand how the surprising fact that Ofcom has got something largely right for once has made contributors to the forum unhappy.

I must contend that when I presented the notion of Heathrow Airport itself paying a charge that it chooses to impose as being absurd, I was offering an objective, rather than purely personal, perspective. The widely-voiced idea of the Service Provider paying the Service Charge seems to arise from a failure to recognise that the level of Service Charge is chosen by the Service Provider, with the option of using a 03 number available if no Service Charge is to be imposed.

The Service Charge may be used to cover some or all of the cost of the advanced facilities available on non-geographic numbers. Some or all of the Service Charge may be used to provide "revenue share".

We can exchange our respective views on matters of policy in relation to many topics, but we need to separate such discussion from disputation on issues of fact.

Quote:

I do not anticipate those in other excluded sectors giving up their numbers.

In aviation, Jet2 already has, and others are being worked on.

In rail transport, parts of TfL have; additionally, a very large travel company group (that will remain nameless for the moment) is working on it.

In tour operators, TrekAmerica has (today!).

In finance, Barclays, RBS and NatWest have said they will, and a couple more have hinted they might.

I'm not sure, but perhaps part of the reason for the protracted discussion above may have arisen from a mis-understanding of some of the terms used. In any case, it seems like it would be worthwhile reviewing the current and proposed system and pointing out some of the advantages the new system will bring.

Non-Geographic Call Pricing - Current and Future

On an 03 number, the call recipient pays for the extra call-handling and call-forwarding charges that arise from using a non-geographic number. The caller pays whatever they would have paid to call an 01 or 02 number, or the call counts towards their inclusive calls allowance. This will continue as before.

On an 084, 087 or 09 number, the caller pays a Service Charge within the overall call price. The level of this charge is set by the user in their initial choice of telephone number (2p to 7p/min on an 0843 or 0844 number, 2p/min on an 0845 number, temporarily zero on an 0870 number, up to 13p/min on an 0871, 0872 or 0873 number, up to £1.53/min on an 09 number).

The caller's telephone company pays this fee to the call recipient's telephone company. The call recipient's telephone company uses this money to pay for the non-geographic call-handling and call-forwarding and then pays out any remainder to the call recipient as revenue share.

At present, the Service Charge is hidden within the 084, 087 or 09 call price. This leads many users of these numbers to deny that it exists. Ofcom propose exposing it so that there is no doubt that it exists, nor how much it is. This exposure will lead many users to stop using these numbers.

Ofcom also propose exposing how much the caller's telephone network takes for itself, by requiring them to declare their Access Charge. For mobile networks, this should lead to a significant reduction in call prices. Mobile networks will not be able to justify an Access Charge as high as 39p/min. Crucially, the Access Charge will have to be identical for all 084, 087 and 09 numbers. This will eradicate the current system where mobile networks charge a single-price for all calls with the same prefix irrespective of the level of Service Charge within. It will reign in the excessive markup -especially by mobile operators- currently seen on calls to 084, 087 and 09 numbers.

There's one other advantage that arises from splitting the call price. On networks where the Access Charge for 084, 087 and 09 numbers is set at a level very similar, or identical, to the call price for calling 01 and 02 numbers, it will be clear that the additional cost to the caller when calling an 084, 087 or 09 number (compared to the cost of calling an 01 or 02 number) arises solely from the level of Service Charge demanded by the call recipient. It is this level of price transparency that will cause many users of 084, 087 and 09 numbers to swap to an 03 number.

On networks where the Access Charge for 084, 087 and 09 numbers has been set at a level that is vastly different to the call price for calling 01, 02 and 03 numbers, Ofcom may well start asking questions. It's a reasonable expectation that the two charges will be nearly identical if telephone companies are to make the same level of profit when originating both types of call.

On an 080 number, the call recipient pays for the non-geographic call-handling and call-forwarding and then also pays a bit extra so that the caller's telephone company can be compensated for originating the call (because, from a landline, the caller isn't paying anything for the call). Mobile networks also receive that "call origination" payment. However, many mobile operators deem the amount to not be enough. In those cases, they also charge the caller, and many of them get greedy and charge the caller a lot more than the 2p or so shortfall. Ofcom propose that users pay a bit more for their number, phone networks receive extra compensation, and 080 calls become free from all mobiles.

At the same time as those other changes, Ofcom will do several more things to tidy up some long-standing minor problems. The first of these changes will return 0870 numbers to revenue sharing status, with a Service Charge likely to be around 10p/min. This means that all 084, 087 and 09 numbers will henceforth work in exactly the same way, merely differing in the level of Service Charge involved. 0845 numbers will continue to have a Service Charge around 2p/min. Ofcom will also confirm 03 numbers as being the only non-geographic range charged at the same rate as 01 and 02 numbers and for all callers. The other change concerns the "NTS Condition" which will be removed from BT and they will be allowed to make profit on call origination for 084, 087 and 09 numbers for the very first time.

It's maybe also worth looking at an example call. A mobile network might have a price list that currently includes these entries:

Calls to 01, 02 and 03 numbers - 15p/min
Calls to 0843 and 0844 numbers - 40p/min

Knowing that 0843 and 0844 numbers allow revenue share, the caller may have an expectation that the extra 25p/min charged for 0843 and 0844 calls is to the benefit of the called party. In reality, only 2p to 7p/min goes to the called party's telephone company.

Additionally, by charging the same high rate for all 0843 and 0844 numbers, mobile operators simply make extra profit on calls to numbers with a lower Service Charge.

If mobile operators attempt to keep the 0843 and 0844 call prices artificially high, Ofcom's "unbundled tariffs" system will expose the reality (assume the called number begins 0844 477):

Calls to 01, 02 and 03 numbers - 15p/min
Access Charge for 084, 087 and 09 numbers - 33p/min

Additionally, the Service Charge is 7p/min for the 0844 477 number called.

Ofcom may well question the excessive 33p/min Access Charge.

The mobile network may instead choose to set both the geographic number call price and the non-geographic Access Charge at 20p/min. As that represents a large price rise for calls to 01, 02 and 03 numbers there will be a strong incentive to not do that - or else attempt to blame Ofcom for the price rise. The network may decide to set both prices at 15p/min. If they do that, the consumer has been fairly treated.

Several mobile operators wanted to see a maximum call price rather than a split call price. If Ofcom had set a maximum call price of, say, 25p/min for 0843 and 0844 numbers most operators would set their prices at or near the top of the range. Callers would continue to pay exactly the same price for all such calls irrespective of the underlying level of Service Charge.

Under the "unbundled tariffs" system, when a user picks an 0843 or 0844 number with a 2p/min Service Charge, as opposed to one with a Service Charge of up to 7p/min, the caller will be paying a commensurate amount less for the call. The difference will be passed on to the caller in the form of a reduced overall call price, not, as happens now, simply sucked up by the mobile networks as increased profit. This reasoning will also apply to all other 084, 087 and 09 numbers in a similar way.

I know I will get my head snapped off for this (metaphorically!) as it has been many times before when I've said similar but wouldn't it be far easier just to abolish 084/087 numbers, have 09 as the only premium rate (and at only one tariff)??   I appreciate Ian G's explanation of a very involved situation but it really does seem to me to be taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut and incredibly bureaucratic for everyone...........and somewhere in this the customer who needs to make a call in a hurry when not near internet access (there are still some of us without portable devices!) is totally forgotten but overcharged!

Barbara wrote on Nov 21^st, 2013 at 2:18pm:

I know I will get my head snapped off for this (metaphorically!) as it has been many times before when I've said similar but wouldn't it be far easier just to abolish 084/087 numbers, have 09 as the only premium rate (and at only one tariff)??

It is important that we all keep our heads and recognise that what may appear easy from a particular perspective is not so easy from others.

Those who provide services by telephone like the idea of being able to recover some of their costs from callers. In some cases they would not provide their services if they were not able to do so. The proposal of a single rate for such services would mean that a vote to Strictly Come Dancing (currently 10p per call using BT) would have to be the same as that for a £1.50 per minute chatline. It would not be easy to choose the right rate to accomodate both.

It would not be easy for Ofcom to effectively compel everyone to undergo the cost and inconvience of moving all the existing 084/087 numbers over to 09. Those who would face this cost and inconvenience would demand that it be justified. Consumer representatives would be likely to question what would really be achieved by such a move.

Although it is not easy to have to get all of the current bundled charges for services on 084/087/09/118 numbers broken out, this does have the effect of exposing the component elements. One effect is to compel a simplification of the Access Charge, in addition to making it transparent.

The major effect is to ensure that the Service Charge is exposed. This makes it easier to ensure that services for which no charge is appropriate must move away from 084/087 numbers. There is a lot of evidence now to show that this is happening and this trend will continue. It is however been necessary for campaigners to press the need for this move to be made. This is not easy, but many successes have been achieved and more are to follow.

Of course it would be best if all of the wrongs in the world could be corrected at a stroke. Happily, or unhappily, nobody I know of has the power to do this. As with so many other cases in this complex world, actually moving forward requires the engagement of many different bodies, and this is not easy.

Barbara wrote on Nov 21^st, 2013 at 2:18pm:

I know I will get my head snapped off for this (metaphorically!) as it has been many times before when I've said similar but wouldn't it be far easier just to abolish 084/087 numbers, have 09 as the only premium rate (and at only one tariff)??

The Service Charge is passed to providers of 084 and 087 numbers (0870 excepted) and its removal would likely mean many of them to become unhappy and go down the legal action route. Such a result would have drawn out any the timescale of the change, if not meaning that it wouldn't happen.

Users of these numbers are "consumers" of telecommunications services as well, so there would clearly be an adverse effect for them.

The splitting up of the two components (Access Charge and Service Charge) simply "tells the truth" about what's happening now. The advantage of this is that organisations can't take legal action over being forced to be open about what's going on!