SilentCallsVictim wrote on Mar 7
th, 2010 at 1:46am:
Yes - the statement is misleading and it helps our argument.
I remind you and readers of this thread that it is about the text which appears in the year's Yellow Pages, which
I posted previously.
SilentCallsVictim wrote on Mar 4
th, 2010 at 4:46pm:
When 0845 calls are charged for by BT this is at a cheaper rate than calls to geo or 03 numbers. When "free", then geo and 03 calls are charged at the same rate as 0845.
It does not therefore help the battle against misuse of revenue sharing to shout about the cost of calling 0845 numbers from BT. Unless we believe that BT’s charging policy could be overlooked, it is better to leave the impression that it is unique in not imposing a surcharge on calls to 0845 numbers, as others do, rather than pointing out that it offers these calls more cheaply than other calls.
From what I gather, you are saying that you agree with me that the YP advertisement is misleading, but you would leave it be.
I do, however, empathise with others who may perhaps read into your posts on this thread that you are happy with the YP wording.
I have yet to understand how it can be that something which is misleading or just plain incorrect (or perhaps even a lie) should ever be regarded as "helping" one's cause because anyone challenging that cause can come along and point out the innaccuracy(ies). In essence, it surely weakens our campaign if we say that the misleading YP advertisement supports us!
In respect to the SAYNOTO0870 campaign in general, the whole reason why we are where we are is because of the obsession with relating quoted call prices to BT - i.e. "local rate" etc. Thus, suggesting that 0845 numbers are "free" or "included in packages" takes this one step further by implying that calls are free when they in fact carry a premium.
The only thing in the YP's favour is that it does say that the charges which it describes are those from BT. It does not imply that calls are free across the market in general.