Well I'm sorry, but a firm offering calls to 50 countries (including the UK!) for 1p per minute is not perpetuating a numbers scam. Nor is one that allows calls at 10p per minute to the mobile phones of a large number of countries.

It is perfectly reasonable that this should not be lumped in the same category as £1.50 a minute numbers.

Why should all these other 08 numbers be shifted out to permit a non-existent need for a billion freephone numbers? Even the USA has only 4 8xx codes in use compared to the 2 UK ones I'm aware of, 0800 0808, and they use a lot more of them than we do.

I'm aware that people here disagree about this, but I think it would be easier for consumers to learn to recognise tariffs in future with a sensible progression through 08 numbers, rather than a system made more complicated to satisfy some people's spite that is rightfully applied to some but certainly not all of these numbers.

For another thing, shifting them all to 09 numbers would be a perfect excuse for mobile companies to dump the rest of these from inclusive minute packages

Letter into todays Times.

".........  The Times March 02, 2006

Dial M for More digits

Sir, Yet another change of telephone number, causing great expense and confusion to millions of us (report, Feb 24).
Half a century ago we abandoned letters and numbers in favour of all numbers. North America did the same thing, instituting seven numbers (3+4) for local calls and ten (3+3+4) for long-distance calls. It has made only one minor change since then, in adding a 1 in front of long distance calls (4+3+4), leaving the remainder unchanged. This covers Canada, the United States and the Caribbean in one unified, simple, understandable, easily recognisable, unchanging system.

What incompetence it is to require our small system to change every five years from one complicated and confusing system to another.

JIM SWIFT
Crawley, W Sussex   "

Quote:


I meant that in a scheme where 081 numbers are cheap (maybe 1p/min) and 089 numbers are more expensive (9p/min?) it is perfectly logical for 080 numbers to be free (0p/min). I see the prefix as being 080 rather than 08 - and it's 080 that signifies a free number at present. However, I'm not suggesting this scheme is desirable.

I can see the argument for moving all revenue-sharing numbers to 09 numbers and letting existing users of 087 and 084 keep their numbers without revenue sharing, which I thought was Ofcom's idea originally. I don't see the point of having yet another code (04 or 03) with another meaning which doesn't follow on logically from either 01/02 or 09 numbers.

Yup, I take your point: the overall plan still stands - such elegance - but the overlays are not good.

See also this thread on USA's numbering scheme, in particular non-geographical numbering.

A splendid letter IainMacCallum, if they don't print it, send it to all the other papers.

-----------------------------

The primary purpose of this site is to campaign against the use of non-geographic numbers such as 0870 and 0845 and their ugly sisters 0871 and 0844. As NGM said, they are spreading like a virus.  They are popular with organisations and telecom providers because they provide a ready source of income from customers who generally are unaware that money is being syphoned off by revenue sharing or have no choice but to ring those numbers..

Some organisations put their customers to extra expense, but receive little or no income from the calls, and are themselves victims of spin from their telecom providers and intermediaries, who pocket the income.  We are fed lies and half-truths to justify and support the insidious spread of those numbers. The obfuscation is aided by BT who perpetuate the myth of “local” and “national” price differences which has been abolished for all practical purposes.  BT never make an clear statement that: ‘for 99.9% of all customers making voice calls, using 087x and 084x numbers,  never cost less than using numbers beginning with 01 or 02'.

I can’t understand why BT don’t abolish the local/national price differential for the comparatively few ‘light users’ and advertise the fact that telephoning anywhere in the UK cost the same.  Call traffic would increase, and they would make more money.

0845 numbers are to some extent the most pernicious of the non-geographic numbers, as they are portrayed as low cost numbers.  Try telling that to a person attempting to contact their bank, on an 0845 number, from a pay phone at 10p for 55 seconds - over five time the cost of calling an 01 or 02 number from a pay phone.  

We are informed in the consultation that it is proposed to keep 0845 and 0870 numbers at 4p and 7p/min, and so the scams and half-truths will continue. If that wasn’t bad enough, Ofcom propose adding some more “low cost” 08 numbers.  Well isn’t that just fine!

All 08 revenue sharing numbers are an underhand way of syphoning money from unsuspecting callers.  If revenue sharing must happen for companies providing a genuine value added service,  then why not make it obvious.  The only way to make it obvious and to alert callers that the call is revenue sharing, is to place it into the appropriate sub-class of the revenue sharing category of  “09".  With prices ranging from 1p/min upwards.

As Mikeinnc said (post #51):        “The North American system is simple to understand. All premium rate numbers are in the 900-NXX-XXXX format. You KNOW if you see a 900 code, it is going to cost you. Clear. Simple. Unambiguous. Compare that with 087, 084, 080 etc.....”          
The North American Numbering System is not perfect, but it is far more stable and clear that ours.   The words “Clear” “Simple” “Unambiguous” are not words that could easily be applied to Ofcom’s current proposals.  By considering the entire numbering system they have a golden opportunity to make it so.

The proposal to use a separate “03" class for non-geographic number, if they are to be treated in the same way as 01 and 02, is fine.  So is the proposal to remove personal numbers (070) from the mobile phone class. The rule should be that all numbers (except mobiles) that are to cost more than normal numbers should be placed in the expanded and revamped  “09" class. 09 can hold over  999 million numbers. [see posts #45 and #43]   

Clear - Simple - Unambiguous

Dave wrote on Mar 5^th, 2006 at 2:12pm:
I believe it will be.  There will be no incentive whatsoever for existing gov depts/companies, etc to move to this range.  Why should they when they can get away with the current system and still receive revenue?!

NGM mentioned this in an earlier post and I agree and didn't want to write this in case ofcon got any ideas, but I believe there is a very strong possibility that the proposals for 0870 (ie removing revenue share) will be axed and left as it is.  Ofcon will then come back and go we have introduced a new code which will satisfy those wanting same benefits but without the added expense that current NGN have.  This, of course, means that no company is likely to migrate due to loss of the revenue and cost of migrating.