Ohms wrote on Jul 28^th, 2006 at 12:13pm:


Suggest you read carefully the responses to your recent post in this thread.
http://www.saynoto0870.com/cgi-bin/forum/YaBB.cgi?num=1154076658/0#0

Thanks jrawle for the above (second) quote.

The quote just illustrates how ostrich like Ofcom’s behaviour is.  99.9% of all UK subscribers are on the unified, UK wide, (de facto)standard call rate.  At BT this is 3p/min during “business hours” most other telecom companies charge much less - some 0p/min.
[The cost of 084 being up to 5p/min and 087 up to 10p/min]

Perpetuating the term “local rate” and “national rate” only adds confusion to the tariff structure and assists organisations, when challenged, to make misleading statements.

I appologise in advance for reoppening a dorment issue, but i feel it is worth putting my two-peneth in.

I am rather perplexed by the hostility towards NGNs. Having been on all sides of the argument from consumer, to business, to operator, client and user. It seems that everyone wants to have their cake and eat it as with many issues in life. NGNs have as much validity as any other numbering system.

from a consumer point of view i can understand the arguments about knowing where a number 'originates' from a psudo-security point of view, i can also understand the arguments concerned with the issue of 'why am i being charged for calls that would otherwise be included [i.e. not free!] with my call plan'. these two issues are actuall nonsensical. for the most part in that your telecoms provider only includes calls that it feels it can recover the costs of provision for, hence why 0845/0870, etc are not included. also, the issue of security is poor, at best you have an idea where the line terminates, but it can be redirected anywhere either through the exchange, or by a third party.

from a business point of view NGNs provide an simple way to access local and regional markets without having to have a local presence. freephone services are not free at all, they are only free from the point of view of the customer. businesses spend lots of money aquiring a 'good' number and even more by using it, each call is charged by the telecoms operator at the similar rates to those that you pay on an out going line! local/national rate numbers are charged to the consumer at an equivelent 'standard' rate and are not billed to the business this is seen as a win-win option by the majority of users and operators. you simply cant just include them all in premimum rate services or in an inclusive call allowance without consequence. at best your rental charges will be hiked. at worse you will end up paying sigificantly more for such services. somebody has to pay for the services, your telecoms company will certainly recalculate what they can justify including (i.e. less inclusive calls or lowwer limits). business will not stand carrying the can and will move to low end premium rate services, potentially meaning you pay more (it certainly wont be less!)

from a telecoms operators point of view NGNs allow a good mix of services and prices in a clearly defined manor. business can either chose to take responsibility for all the costs involved (freephone), or choose to allow the telecoms operator to recover the costs from the user (local rate/national rate/premium rate) - in some cases revenue is shared with the company that licences the number from the telecoms operator, which is good for companies providing value-added services, charities, etc. as well as good for the telecoms operator - who always stands to make money out of such services, they are a business after all, they're not just doing this for your benefit!

the same argument will rage on even if ther is a move to 03 and 09 numbers, why? because the issue remains. if a new premium rate number system were introduced that had charge bands at the equivelent of the standard local and national rates (ie. significantly below the current premium rates) then there is no reason to suggest these are any better suited to purpose than the current 08 numbers. The telscoms operator will continue to take its cut, and business will more than likely be offered a cut of the revenue from those nubers charged at the higher rates. The consumer will still pay for the calls and will not have any greater certainty as to where the numbers terminate. business in located localy are the only likely adopters of an 03 number range, as it would allow them to retain their number even if they move within the area, which is not always possible for geographic numbers. the telecoms operators may absorbe some of the costs of such number ranges, but business are likely to have to pay some component, and consumers will still pay only now it will be part of thier rental charges not call charges! local rate/national rate 08/09 numbers will still prevail as it allows companies to quicky relocate without issue.

Now something really positive to say: Ofcom may chose to adopt a new numbering system, not to placate consumers, but to make the industry more effective, with clearer number schemes. I can really understand the Ofcom arguments that there should be clear seperation between the types of call that are being made. I enthusiastically embrace the 04-07 number reallocation, this is definitly a good way of improving the system (clarity if nothing else). however i am not convinced of the significance of the 03 proposals (i can see a lot of wasted capacity in these number ranges, with over crowding elsewhere). I can sort of unnderstand the 08 'freephone only' number range, freeing up greater capacity and making it totaly unambiguous. I also like the idea of banding the 09 number range, but i would like the numbers to more closely resemble the cost of the calls (i.e 09 010 - being charged at 10p per minute, 09 020 at 20ppm, etc) which would restore confidence in the premium rate number system, although it may mean even longer numbers due to over crowding. Such a reinterpretation of the premium rate number system would help all concerned with the transition from 0845 and 0870 numbers.

Hopefully i wont get flamed for a rather ballenced look at the NGN issues - i know this is a heart fealt issue for some.

xyhfna wrote on Oct 7^th, 2006 at 3:41pm:
You're really defending the indefensible! Here in the US, we have millions upon millions of non-geographic numbers - they are designated toll-free. The main differences between the NGN model here and in third-world Britain are:

1 - toll-free generally means toll-free, that is all providers will not charge for calls to such numbers, and this includes cellular (mobile) providers which, generally, treat the call for charging purposes as any other call to a toll number, so if you have 500 inclusive minutes, these can be used to call New York, Los Angeles, Miami or 800, 888, 877 or 866 numbers. Compare and contrast with how the UK mobile operators treat freephone and other NGNs;

2 - our toll-free NGNs can be called from outside the country at the standard rate prevailing for calling standard geographic calls, so a call from London to a 305 Miami number will be charged at exactly the same rate as calling a toll free 800/888/877/866 NGN. Try calling 0844 and 0871 NGNs from outside the UK and see what happens (usually nothing, but where possible, a massive charge);

3 - toll-free NGNs are so widely used that it would be inconceivable that any customer service line, sales, governent agency dealing with public matters and many more entities to use anything other than a toll-free NGN, a local toll rate number, or rarely, a standard long distance number charged at theh prevailing long-distance rate for incoming calls.

How can you justify the fact that, when calling Sky, EasyJet, the NatWest, your insurance company, your GP, the vehicle license agency, the Beeb and many more, often to sort out some mistake or problem, one is expected to queue on a 0871/0870/0844 number for fifty or so minutes at a cost of five quid?

The US has the most sophisticated sales and marketing techniques around. Companies manage to get by with toll-free and local numbering for public and business contact. Why can't that happen in the United Kingdom? Simple - you have a morally bankrupt and ineffective regulator that panders to the profit requirements of the large telecommunication companies.

[quote author=xyhfna link=1140696094/195#202 date=1160242681]ineffective regulator... er... no... actually[/quote]That is open to question!  The problem lies that Ofcom conflicts in their duties.  One states they should avoid using regulation if possible and the other states they have to protect us consumers.

Ofcom have made a lot of mistakes by not regulating things and instead leaving it on a voluntary nature.  The latest mistake of Ofcom's is the issue of MAC codes required to move from one ADSL broadband provider to another.  Without this, it would mean consumers would have to go without ADSL broadband for at least two weeks.

Ofcom thought that by using a voluntory code that ADSL broadband providers would stick to it.  This was a completely wrong thing that Ofcom have done as they admit they get nothing from complaints from consumers because ADSL broadband providers refusing to issue MAC codes some providers even tried bribing customers into moving to another provider they chose without having an interruption of broadband or face being without broadband for weeks.  Even when Ofcom asked them they still refused to budge simply because there was no regulation forcing them to do so and Ofcom admitted that they themselves could not do anything.

[quote]Why can't that happen in the United Kingdom?
Why should a company pay customers to call [in essence what tol-free, etc do][/quote]I agree with that in principle as I don't expect companies to operate freephone numbers as here in the UK they're still expensive to have.

However, there is a difference between having a geographical number and having a non-geographical number.  The latter means that companies can earn revenue at the expense of consumers without their knowledge.

Ofcom have admitted in a consultation that NTS numbers are premium rate numbers and also that many consumers are confused over costs.

An NTS number does have advantages over geographicals and offers some cheaper methods for companies to take advantage of features associated with NTS numbers.

You say why should companies pay to receive calls?  Well did you know that they did pay to receive calls when 0845 was first out?  The only reason they don't pay for them now is because competition has brought down the price of geographicals but obviously because of all the extra teleco's involved in NTS numbers these haven't really been reduced.

NTS aren't subject to competiton to keep prices down simply because of how they work.  Basically, no one can beat BT when it comes to the prices of these numbers and if they do, then they probably do so at a slight loss which they off-set from the profit made on geographicals calls.

OCP's are using NTS numbers to earn revenue without consumer knowledge as many don't openly publish the rates to these numbers and if they do then they hide it away in hard-to-find places on their website.  Why?  Simply because they don't want consumers to know the actual costs of these numbers.  

If you read Ofcom's numbering review statement they said that any companies wanting to use features that NTS numbers bring then they should expect to pay for it and not get it for free.

I personally, for call centres, can understand why they use 0845 to take advantage of the features available at a greatly reduced cost compared to having expensive telephony equipment installed.  I avoid, where possible, ringing such numbers but I can understand the reason for them.  On the other hand, 087x numbers are used primary to get revenue from the call without the callers knowledge (ie a stealth premium rate number).

It is my believe that any consumer ringing any number that is a premium rate number (I'm not specifically talking about 09x numbers) should be made aware of the costs so when calling they are aware that they will have huge bills and so can make a full and informed decision on whether to ring the company/gov dept, etc.

I also realise that some companies and government departments were missold their NGNs by them being so-called 'local' and 'national' rate which of course they're not.

Basically, many companies are using these NTS numbers primary to earn revenue without consumer knowledge which is deceitful.

Any company that needs the revenue share for their 'value-added service' should use a number that was designed for that purpose ie an 09x number.

The only reason why they don't is because with 09x numbers consumers are aware they are premium rate numbers and consumers are protected against being charged for being in a queue for over 30mins in some cases.  Whereas, an NTS number has the same advantages as 09x numbers albeit smaller revenue share but many consumers aren't aware they're calling a premium rate number when calling an NTS number.


Continued.......

I must say that i almost certainly agree with most of what has been said in the last two posts, with only a slight difference of opinion.
1) OfComs Role:
MAC ids (although this is probably something being disucssed elsewhere - its still a good example to illustrate OfComs dilemma)
I mostly agree this is a poorly though through issue. MAC ids should not be and should not ever have been mandatory (another unpopular opinion i would imagine), however OfCom should have mandated that it be made clear and highly visible whether a provider, product or service uses/supports MAC ids. It is grossly unfair to consider mandating the use of such things. It should be consumer demand not regulation that determins if companies adopt them, but at the same time consumers should be made plainly aware of their adoption or otherwise.

2) NGNs:
My main criteria for my assertions are that there needs to be much more flexibility in the 'premium' rate number ranges; ideally there would be a 'fixed rate' number scheme and a 'fixed charge' number scheme, both of which would refelct the actual charges incured... no guessing. I.E. 0845 xxx xxxx would represent a 4.5ppm charge, 0870 xxx xxxx would perhaps charge 7.0ppm, and 09070 xxx xxxx would represent a fixed charge of 70p (regardless of the length of the call) within such a scheme 0800 would retain its 'freephone' status. and confidence would be restored to the whole number range, of both 08 and 09 number schemes - with no complicated open publication of charges required, and probably more importantly no confusion.

I do agree that NGNs can be used (and doubtless are - i have used them myself for such purposes) to generate revenues - however i would say that this factor alone was mostly responsible for and certainly enabled the cost of internet acess to plumet (anyone remember the days of subscription, timelimits AND phone charges! i've been in this game a long time and remember them well.)
I also concur that these are in all real senses 'low-cost' premium rate services. I dislike the use of the term 'premium' rate as it has negative conetations, perhaps OfCom should rebrand them 'uniform' rate or some such desegnation, whilst at the same time opening up the system to much lower charging options.

NTS numbers are still charged for by some, others have simply become more competative resulting in much lower costs (even 'free'). but it is the user end call charge premiums that are the most contentious part of them and open to abuse (knowingly or unknowingly).
But the lack of transparency is not a matter over which OfCom should be allowed to abuse its powers. As a regulator it should only regulate what is necessary, without impinging on either consumer or business. It needs to enforce clarity, not restict charging or calling options. There is no doubt many who will disagree, however we ARE all in agreement that smething has to be done. I would urge caution and certainly a liberal approach to the matter.

The issue of local/national can for most intents an purposes be forgotten, and this is an issue over which OfCom could mandate and find little opposition. I do feel that the 03 number proposal is still an etremely wastefull scheme, and imagine it to be only moderatly successful, but certainly not a highly demanded number range (no matter how idealistic some people are in their beliefs).

If OfCom does decide to change the 08/09 number scheme, then it would have to mandate the change (a no doubt grossly unpopular desision in the telecoms industry from both business operators and telecoms providers) but such a mandate would be required to aleviate the problem that was illustrated in the last post.


There is a slight concern with any number scheme that keeps reoccuring who pays for queueing on the line? if a consumer is trying to resolve an issue with a faulty product/service then it would seem that in most cases it would be reasonable for the company at fault to shoulder the cost, however if a customer is waiting to say they have changed their mind (about an appointment, a product, a service, etc) or for a problem they have caused themselves, then surely they should shoulder the costs. Unfortunatly there is no system that would allow the responsibility to change throuought a call. As many 'faults' reported to help desks are actually user error then a company is likely to take the view that it is the consumer that should shoulder the cost, and hance the growing use of premium rate services for just that purpose (and i accept that this is not a popular move, the reasoning is sound and perfectly legitimate), i know that many companys use NGNs for another reason... deterant... if you (the consumer) are paying for something you usually make sure you have good reason to use it. in the case of help/complaint desks this is a real issue and it has been shown again and again that customers abuse there numbers they have access to, especially if they are 'free'. departments on 0800 numbers receive many multiple more calls than those on other number schemes, the higher the call costs the lower the number (to a point) of calls. It is also a common experience for advisors/operators/representatives (what whatever else they wish to be called) on lower cost numbers to receive abuse and harasment because customer wont pay any more for the calls to the correct department. Customers have to take some responsibility, its not all someone elses fault!

xyhfna wrote on Oct 7^th, 2006 at 8:22pm:

I see where you're coming from, but information and openess isn't a forte that Ofcom and the telecommunications industry excels at.

Quote:

I think 'free' is taking it too far. Just which provider allows you to call an NTS number for no additional cost? Also, as more and more people make their 0870 calls through 18185, do you think that the current rate will be maintained?

Quote:

This is the sort of waffle statement that Ofcom itself would come out with.

Quote:

Who said anything about restricting charging? The point having promoted 0845 and 0870 numbers as being local and national rate (terms which you seem to be clinging to), the industry can't come out and say that's not the case and everything will be made OK. Consumers have been mislead into thinking that these are just normal rate numbers. Only now geographical rates have fallen is it becoming clear for all to see that the framework that they work does indeed carry a premium.

So the use of these numbers is based on the consumer thinking that they are standard rate numbers. Increasing pricing information after lies have been spun is like trying to shut the stable door after the horse has bolted.

Quote:

Well the time it is taking these poorly paid staff at Riverside Palace to do anything, I think that to say that they are exercising "caution" is quite an understatement!

They relaxed the retail price controls on BT within 6 months of publishing the consultation and BT has been quick to exercise it's new 'freedom' by making yet more changes that push up calls prices whilst portraying the changes as a breath of fresh air to consumers.

Quote:

In business this sort of thing is known as branding. Companies change their names because names seem to be so important these days. But a company with a bad reputation for ripping off its customers is still the same company even with a different name.

Quote:

But it comes down to why consumers object to these numbers.

All UK landlines have a 01/02 geographical number, the price for which has fallen due to competition. Similarly, so to have international calls. So we pay different rates to different destinations, as set by market forces. Now, the destination of a typcial 0845/0870 number is a UK landline which has a 01/02 number. By forcing me to call it via an 0845/0870 number the telco and service provider forces me to pay, to all intents and purposes, what was BT's local/national rates before the market was opened up. Hence there is no real competition in the origination charges of these numbers. The only competition is in the services that the telcos provide to the terminating party. These services should be paid for by the receiver at rates set by market forces.

There is nothing wrong in the principal of 084 and 087 prefixes, apart from their misleading descriptions. By the dictionary definition, they are premium numbers.

Looking it algebraically:

x = c - g

where:

x is the amount above the geographical rate (the premium)
c is charge rate for a particular number
g is the geographical call rate

When x > 0, a premium is being charged.

I don't believe

Quote:

But telecoms companies have had a blank chequebook for years. They have used an all manner of tactics to sell these numbers, usually by means of local and national rate rubbish. Why, because they make loads of money from the unsuspecting consumer who is unaware of x.

Continued...

There is also the question of how much it costs companies to call it's customers. xyhfna, I've no doubt that your company's office(s) will have calling packages where rates to geographical numbers and mobiles are as low as possible. But what rate does your company pay to call NTS numbers?

Now, I for one have my own 0870 number that routes to my home phone. I also have an 070 personal number which routes to my mobile. This is charged at 35p/min at all times on a non-discounted BT package.

Companies providing me with NGNs get my 0870 and/or 070 number. It is probably lost on the company concerned; that it is needlessly throwing money down the drain phoning me on these numbers.

Take my car insurance which was with UK Insurance. I received my renewal and what did I have to do, yes phone 0870.... So I wrote to them and said that I would not be ringing them on any 0870 number and that if they wanted my business they would have to phone me on 0870 .... which they did. IIRC the call lasted in the region of 10 minutes. I estimate that's roughly 65p it cost the company. How much would it have cost if it had called my landline directly?