I'm sure pw4 should in fact be dl1.

Also if the Patientline director who saw the original business opportunity for Patientline was so concerned about people being able to communicate with relatives in hospital then why did he impose the 49p per minute incoming Patientline phone numbers.

As to the aeroplane tank fuel problem the issue stems from the TWA jumbo that blew up due to faulty old wiring causing a spark in the fuel tank.  I assume the risk in an aeroplane fuel tank is much larger due to the far greater surface area of fuel?  Also the consequences in an aeroplane of any such explosion are terminal.  Such an explosion in a car or bus fuel tank would probably be survivable.

Yes, the analogy to explosions on a bus were truly pathetic, but exactly what would be expected from Patientline!
It's a wonder they have not come out with something like "Having a Patientline terminal by your bedside can protect you from MRSA/Aids/Mumps/negligent doctors/big explosions (tick the boxes you prefer) - and all for only 49p per min".
Come on pw4 (aka dl1), make us some offers

pw4 wrote on Jan 9^th, 2006 at 12:50am:

Can you substantiate this with some references please?

trevord wrote on Jan 9^th, 2006 at 10:12am:


If Patientline reduced the tv watching charge to £1.50 per day and changed the incoming phone number to 0870 (where call costs fall as low as 1.5p per minute at the weekend) then I'm sure the furore about Patientline would die down.

I would have thought an increase in usage levels would offset the lower charges plus in any case its obvious that the cost of new bedside terminals must have fallen heavily since Patientline started due to the advent of cheaper TFT screens etc, etc.

pw4 wrote on Jan 9^th, 2006 at 4:01pm:


Of course in the long run I would not support the use of 0870 numbers but would hope that Ofcom abolish all 084/7 charges above geographic rates and force those who need a revenue share to move to 09.  Patientline could then have an 09 number with a clear call price announcement and prominent statements on websites etc and people could decide if they wanted to pay it.  What I think is totally unethical is Patientline being mistaken as a mobile number by many contract mobile phone customers who will wrongly think it is covered by their inclusive cross network minutes.  Or with my own Vodafone Pay as You Go Smarplus phone I might think it was another mobile so  that off peak I could pay for just 3 minutes of mobile phone call and get the next 57 minutes free (the normal deal for 01/02 numbers and mobiles).  Of course as this is an 070 PNS number I would continue to pay by the minute for all 60 minutes and/or until my calling credit ran out.

Its interesting you say that in some hospitals 0870 is used by Patientline for incoming calls.  Can we assume either that those hospitals have more astute PCT's in charge or that those contracts were signed more recently once the public opprobrium at the use of 070 had become well know.  Also what exit route to the contract is there for the PCT's that agreed to the use of the 070 numbers?

Since you do not apparently work at Patientline I can only assume you must perhaps work in some part or another of the NHS?

Quote:

My personal view is that it would be much simpler if calls to 0870 cost the same as those to Geo numbers regardless of the payment scheme the caller is signed up to.
Is revenue sharing currently allowed on numbers other than 09?


Quote:

Do you think Patientline's price announcement on their 070 numbers is unclear?
The numbers on the website show 070 numbers as 49p peak and 39p off-peak, but curiously say that "calls from mobiles and other networks may vary". Obviously this means they may vary in cost, and for mobiles that is clearly true. But why would they vary for landline calls on different networks?
In any case I notice that no network is named, which seems to render the term "other networks" somewhat meaningless.


Quote:

As I understand it, this problem has been caused by Ofcom classifying 07 codes as 'personal' numbers including mobiles and PNS, but the public perception generally is that they are all mobiles. Then add to that the mobile companies' various pricing plans that include other mobile networks, and the result is general confusion and ignorance. Patientline's justification - and that of other companies in the same line of business - for using 070 numbers was that the calls (in Patientline's case - eventually, and now directly in all but 25 sites) get through to the patient on a non-communal phone. Ofcom decided that this was an acceptable use of 070 (provided it is DDI). So any objection to this use of 070 must now be made to Ofcom, and that appears to be a lost argument.


Quote:

Neither, I fear.
I must retract my claim that patients in some hospitals can be contacted through Patientline using 0870 numbers. Further research reveals that whilst the numbers shown for a few hospitals are 070, but for most 0870 212 1234 is shown. In fact the Patientline web pages relating to the latter have contradictory explanations for the 0870 number, saying both "To speak to a patient at this hospital... " and "To find a telephone number of a friend or loved one at this hospital... ", which to me suggests that (a) these are the hospitals at which DDI 070 numbers have been implemented, (b) the 0870 number is just for obtaining a 070 DDI number, and (c) Patientline has neglected to remove from the web pages the description that was applicable to the 070 numbers that pertained before DDI was implemented. I presume that those for which 070 numbers are still quoted are the 25 specified marginal sites in respect of which Ofcom granted a further six months extension to the deadline for implementing DDI. The '0870 number to be given an 070 number' is to what bigjohn referred in July 2005, but I hadn't understood what he meant, partly because he also stated, incorrectly, that the quoted 070 numbers were for the same purpose as the 0870 number - hardly surprisingly given the confusing web page statements.


Quote:

I would imagine none that relate to call charge rates, unless any were to exceed a maximum specified in the contract.


Quote:

Indirectly - and not in any paid capacity.

pw4 wrote on Jan 9^th, 2006 at 7:19pm:

Yes it is in effect allowed on 070 so long as the payment is not made to the actual individual for whom the call is destined on the 070 number.  That is why Ofcom is allowing the Patientline 070 use to continue as long as DDI numbers are used.

Quote:


Because unlike 0870 numbers there seems to enough margin in carrying the calls for the phone company you use to offer considerable discounts if they want to.

The cheapest deals for calling 070 numbers (especially in the weekday daytime) are with www.dialaround.co.uk and www.dialwise.co.uk at 15p per minute.   You still have to pay 15p or so if your call is not answered with these two companies but the best rate for a pay on answer only connection method is with 18866 at 20p per minute and then 18185 at 25p per minute.  So if a relative is in hospital and you want to speak to them for 20 minutes before they go for an operation later that day then definitely use Dialaround or Dialwise and pay only £3.00 instead of £9.80 with BT.  Incidentally this all points to the fact that a huge part of what you pay BT for calling Patientline numbers in the weekday daytime must surely be going into BT's pocket and not Patientline's.  Perhaps the real ripoff artist here is BT then?  How do they justify their 49p per minute rate if Dialwise and Dialaround can make a profit at 15p per minute?  It seems clear that Patientline's take must therefore surely be under 15p a minute, even in the weekday daytime.

See www.niftylist.co.uk/calls/to/uk-070-personal/ngn/ for more information

Quote:


When I suggested to senior Ofcom personnel at my meeting with them in late November that the result of their competition investigation into the call rate used for Patientline was already a forgone conclusion due to Ofcom already having signed off 070 continuing so long as DDI is used they denied this and assured me that Ofcom was every bit as concerned about the cost of Patientline calls as the public and more or less implied that there would be action on call costs when they reported back on the competition and call price investigation.

Quote:


You aren't that senior hospital radio chappie we gave such a hard time to under another name are you.  Its just that your extensive personal knowledge of the workings of Patientline and his understanding seem to be very similar indeed.

Quote:

Thanks, that was my understanding, that 'revenue sharing' only refers to calls where a portion of the revenue is passed to the called party - which is basically what premium rate calls are for.
So calls via Patientline to patients are not revenue sharing (other than the portion that is paid by the originating networks to Patientline, which is the same arrangement as for any other PNS call).


Quote:

Thanks for that, and the underlying explanation.
Would it be correct to say that the quoted 49p/39p rate is the maximum from any fixed line phone? The niftylist site you mentioned claims that if calling "from a different network you could be surcharged by your operator" (my emphasis).


Quote:

May I at this juncture point out that this thread has almost exclusively mentioned Patientline, and that it is the only company named in the title of this discussion. The investigation however is into the concession agreements (contracts!) between hospital trusts and two of the companies that provide this type of service.


Quote:

You are correct - I am not he under another name.
I concur that you gave him a hard time.
My involvement is with hospital broadcasting, but I am not senior.