bbb_uk wrote on Mar 15^th, 2006 at 7:41pm:
The problem here is that 0800 and 0808 are not universally free. From mobile phones they are excluded from bundled minutes and providers such as Vodafone actually charge a premium for calling such numbers despite receiving a small payment for terminating such calls in the first place! So, it is beneficial for people to seek out geographic alternatives not only for 0870 but for 0800 as well when calling from cellphones. What a ludicrous situation yet the blithering idiots in Ofcom take no action. As far as I know, I have never had to pay for a 800 call here, from landline, payphone or mobile (although airtime charges apply from cellular). Toll-free here means what it says. In the UK, it may mean free but it may mean a surcharge. Bonkers.

idb wrote on Mar 15^th, 2006 at 8:17pm:

Agreed.  But this is not a issue with the Numbering Plan - it's an issue with the tarriffs & OfCon.

I've always thought that the issue of mobile freephone calls not being free is down to our mobile model of "Caller pays", as contrasted with the US model of "Receiver pays".  But now I realise that that's to do with calls TO mobiles, not calls FROM mobiles.

I'm not defending it, but I suppose the argument goes something like this: Company with freephone number agrees to pay cost of calls from regular landlines; calls from mobiles cost more than calls from landlines; Freephone company will not pay extra cost of calls from mobiles, so caller has to!  But that still doesn't explain why they cannot be included in 'included minutes'.

idb wrote on Mar 15^th, 2006 at 8:17pm:
I agree but everyone is aware that freephone isn't free from mobiles because mobiles were forced to have a tariff announcement at the beginning of the call (before being charged) so as to warn people.  Although not ideal, it is still better than what exists now for other non-geographicals where they charge a premium but without informing us consumers of the costs beforehand.  The networks moan that they couldn't introduce such notification on other non-geographicals without it costing a fortune for them but at the same time they all ready have a similar system in operation for freephone so how hard can it be to expand on this?  I suspect probably not hard but the mobile networks obviously have no interest in informing us consumers that a 0845 call may actually cost them 35ppm to ring from their mobile network compared to around 3ppm from a BT landline.

Like I said in my previous post here, you get charged for receiving calls as well so therefore you mobile networks receive more income than the UK counterparts hence reason why we pay more for outgoing calls especially to non-geo's.  I still prefer not to pay to receive incoming calls given a choice between your system and ours.  I would like to believe that our mobile networks would lower their outgoing call charges (especially for non-geo's) if they also received income from us receiving calls on their network - ie the way the US mobile networks work now.

idb wrote on Mar 15^th, 2006 at 6:03pm:

So you may have three charging rates, as it were; local, non-local within area code and long-distance. But some numbers may be local in other areas codes.

idb wrote on Mar 15^th, 2006 at 7:23pm:

It sounds like the UK's telecommunications industry could take a leaf out of the US' book. So there's none of the nonsense here like "Other providers may vary."

idb wrote on Mar 15^th, 2006 at 8:00pm:

What are you saying? If one doesn't pay their 900 bill then after 60 days the charges can be removed?

idb wrote on Mar 15^th, 2006 at 8:00pm:

Unlike the UK where it's considered acceptable to rip the consumer off again with an 0870 or 0871 number.

idb wrote on Mar 15^th, 2006 at 8:00pm:

So do you have two telephone companies? Why does it say "it will be your local or long-distance telephone company"?

Also, what it's saying is that you may dispute the charges with your telephone provider or with the service provider directly, depending on what it says.

idb wrote on Mar 15^th, 2006 at 8:00pm:

...and with the UK's numbering system you have to write to the 'service provider' and ask for your money back.

Bearing in mind that some of these are overseas, 'rouge' diallers and 'prize winning' scams being two examples of the worst kind, one clearly cannot hold out much hope of receiving any refund, as well as the concern that one must pass certain personal details to the service provider in order to get this refund.

Which brings me nicely onto the next question. Do you get overseas service providers operating on US premium rate numbers? And what about the rogue dialler scams, do they exist in the US?

idb wrote on Mar 15^th, 2006 at 8:17pm:

How can a call be free and airtime charges apply? Surely that is a contradication; either it's free or not!


If all numbers within a particular area code are seven digits, why does the UK, being a smaller country, require eight digit local numbers, as is the case in London, Coventry and others? If seven digits is enough for one or more states, then doesn't that show mismanagement of the UK's telephone numbers?

Going back to the subject of 900 numbers, the fact that they cost the same from all providers means that there isn't competition between providers on premium rate call costs, unlike in the UK. However, that free competition is somewhat of an Ofcom pipedream, as the number of people who will choose their telephone package based on what 09 numbers cost are likely to be non-existant. Thus, telcos can charge pretty much what they like as they usually 'sell' packages by shouting about their geographical rates.

Dave wrote on Mar 16^th, 2006 at 9:02am:

That's a fair question, and I've often thought the same.  I think there's several reasons:

There is a lot more reduncy in the UK numbering system than in the N.American one.

In the UK, the numbers are banded (or grouped) into the various number types by a prefix digit (1 & 2 = geo; 7 = mobile, etc.; 8 = 'special'; 9 = premium; etc.), whereas in the US they have simply used available area codes to specify the number types (e.g. 800 = toll-free, but there are also numerous standard area codes beginning 8; 900 = PRS, but again numerous standard area codes beginning 9).  This necessarily introduces redundancy, e.g. in the UK very little of the 8xx range is used, and none of certain other ranges.  OTOH, in my personal view (and I know others disagree) it introduces more clarity to the number type (with certain noted exceptions like 070x, 084x, 087x, etc.!).

London is a big area, and until recently there were two area codes in London (0171 & 0181) with 7 digit numbers.  I believe that large metropolitan areas in the USA (say New York) have multiple area codes (are these what they call 'overlay' codes?) and that in practice you need to dial the full 10-digit number to access another NY number, even within the same area.  So a single area code for London, I think, covers a larger number of lines than a US area code.

In most of the non-metropolitan areas of the UK, of course, local numbers are only 6 digits, with (effectively) a 3-digit area code (ignoring the 0 prefix, equivalent to the N.American 1- long-distance prefix, which they do not count as part of their number; and ignoring our 1 prefix which merely denotes a geo number).

I think we also still have a lot of redundancy within non-metropolitan local area codes for historical reasons.  For example, within my local area (01403 Horsham), most of the town numbers begin 2 and most of the out-lying village numbers begin 7 or 8 because those were originally local village exchanges with short numbers and local access codes (which had to be distinct from the town numbers); hence a local number beginning 79 still denotes my local village exchange.  I believe the N.American numbering system overall is a lot older than ours and, I guess, they have filled the gaps in more over the years, whereas the UK has adopted a different approach to systemisation & expansion by increasing number lengths and area sizes whilst retaining the basic historical numbers.

Dave wrote on Mar 16^th, 2006 at 9:02am:

That's nought to do with the numbering system - it's to do with the regulatory regime!
O.K. they're both done by the same regulator - but they could improve the regulatory regime without changing the numbering system!

Dave wrote on Mar 16^th, 2006 at 1:29pm:

Agreed - I was referring to the overall scheme there, not local pockets.

Dave wrote on Mar 16^th, 2006 at 1:29pm:

I wondered that!  Or maybe expanding the Coventry area to include other West Midlands areas?

Dave wrote on Mar 16^th, 2006 at 1:29pm:

Agreed!

Dave wrote on Mar 16^th, 2006 at 1:29pm:

True - hadn't thought of that aspect.

Dave wrote on Mar 16^th, 2006 at 1:29pm:

Yes - I've always thought that - and nearly said so yesterday, but thought I'd already made enough criticisms of the NANPA! 

Yes, I think you do get a number local to where you live - but that can be a problem if you move house to a different area code, as my brother has done.  It also affects the cost of calls both to and from the cellphone, bearing in mind they distinguish between local & long-distance rates.

Looking at it another way, as Texans like to boast, Texas is bigger than the UK, so roaming outside a state there is like roaming outside the country here - and then we pay roaming charges.

(When I lived in Jersey, at certain points on the Jersey coastline, the mobile connected to the French or Guernsey networks instead of the Jersey one, and then you had to pay roaming charges even while within your own country!)

Dave wrote on Mar 16^th, 2006 at 1:29pm:


No there aren't; they are masked off. Numbers that start with 0 or 1 are not allocated within exchanges - these initial numbers are for national dialling only, as you said. This is surely to avoid a call within the exchange being confused with a national number, eg neither 118xxx nor 189901 should be a local number on my exchange, nor the much loved Bedford number 012345 [67890].

I didn't think that local numbers starting in 9 were allocated either, but have used an Oxford one a few times now. Presumably these became virtually available a few years ago when local dialling codes were abolished, eg 9, 983, 992 etc.
_

It isn't a contradiction to have a local number for US mobiles. The tariffs are the same to call them, so why have any difference - in fact a local number is actually desirable, to make it cheaper (free) to call, including call diversion from home. If/when people move to a different area, they can apply for a new local number. Yes, there are national and regional cell networks, so in some cases they might need to change provider.