Thanks for the welcome. Unfortunately I cannot find the 02 number listed on the website. We were told by the practice that they were switching to an 0844 number as their old 02 number had issues with call waiting causing problems in the area. On the old 02 number it was very hit and miss whether you'd get through or not as most of the time the lines were engaged. When they switched to the 0844 number, they introduced a queuing system which made things a lot better in that respect. What I don't understand is why they couldn't of had the same system with the old number.

Some argue that the "network queueing" facility that is readily available with non-geographic numbers, such as 03, offers advantages over the facilities available with geographic numbers. I would therefore always try to avoid getting involved in the geographic vs. non-geographic technical argument.

I see the crucial issue to be that of revenue sharing. 03 numbers address the point of features available with non-geographic numbers, so that the only remaining argument in favour of revenue sharing numbers is that of the funding provided. If someone chooses a 03 number over a geographic number, I am prepared to accept that this is done for sound reasons, as I cannot see any sinister motive.

Whilst some may believe that 03 numbers offer nothing more than geographic anonymity, I would look for more than a few examples to make a point with sufficient force to sustain a strong campaign.

On Monday (14 September) the government will announce that all NHS hospitals are no longer allowed to use premium rate phone numbers.  So good news there.

The DOH issued this on 14 Sept

NHS to ban use of premium rate call charges
14 September 2009 00:01

The use of phone numbers that charge the public or patients a premium rate to contact the NHS are to be banned in England, Health Minister Mike O’Brien announced today.

The announcement follows a recent public consultation on the use of 084 numbers in the NHS. Almost 3,000 members of the public responded, demonstrating the strength of feeling on this issue.

Health Minister Mike O’Brien said:

“We have been concerned that some people are paying more than the cost of a local call rate to contact the NHS.  It is clear from the feedback we have received that patients support the banning of any number or tariff which is more expensive to call.

“For people on low incomes, and for those who need to contact their local doctor or hospital regularly, these costs can soon build up. We want to reassure the public that when they contact their local GP or hospital, the cost of their call will be no more expensive than if they had dialled a normal landline number.”

The Department of Health will work with the British Medical Association’s GP Committee over the coming months to integrate the legislative changes into the GP contracts.

NOTE (EXTRA INFORMATION ALSO FROM THE DOH)

The ban on the use of numbers charging patients a premium rate to call NHS services will allow a marketplace to evolve where 084 numbers compete alongside 01, 02 and 03 numbers, but where patients will pay no more than the cost of a local call. The ban means that GPs and other NHS organisations remain free to use 084 numbers, providing patients are not charged more than a local rate number.


In April 2005, the Department of Health banned the use of premium (0870, 0871 or 09) and national charge rates to call local NHS healthcare services in England. The ban did not extend to other number ranges, as at the time they were not considered ‘premium’ rate.  However, it has now become clear that there are other numbers which can also be more expensive to call than a normal geographical (01 or 02) telephone number.


In December 2006, the Department of Health issued a letter to all Primary Care Trust (PCT) Chief Executives, asking them to consider what actions they needed to take locally to ensure that patients did not pay more than they would if they called a geographical telephone number. It also advised that Ofcom was issuing a new countywide (03) number range, which allows the functionality of a non-geographical number, with the receiver rather than the initiator of the call bearing the extra cost.


The ban will be enforced through proposed changes to the GP contract (in consultation with the British Medical Association’s GP Committee), and the issuing of Directions to NHS PCTs and Trusts. These changes will be put in place as soon as practicable.


It is not our intention to prohibit ‘revenue sharing’ as part of our proposals – the important thing is to ensure that patients are not being made to pay more than the equivalent cost of calling an 01 or 02 number. ‘Revenue-sharing’ arrangements allow for a proportion of the money paid to the supplier to go towards the ongoing cost of running an 084 number, which includes the cost of renting the equipment from the supplier.

NGMsGhost wrote on Sep 18^th, 2009 at 12:13pm:

On top of the 'call set-up fee' being increased to 9.02p (which will be 9.25p when the VAT rate reverts to 17.5%), BT has already announced an increase to 5.25p/minute (more than the 5p/minute highest possible cost of an 0844 call) from 1st October.

NGMsGhost wrote on Sep 18^th, 2009 at 2:38pm:

Ofcom still regulates the former (only for BT) which is why it is perversely relatively low and will remain so, whilst this regulation continues. The same is true in respect of the price per minute for 0845 calls from BT (and the "clones" that mirror its tariffs).

It is only market pressure that regulates the latter, along with the terms for ordinary calls. If the majority of consumers prefer inclusive Call Plans then that is what the market will deliver. Minorities need the protection of regulation, unless the market is perfect, which few are.

The limited capacity for regulatory intervention which Ofcom seems content to exercise causes these perverse distortions of the operation of the free market, which sometimes make it difficult for us to put across our points about the inevitable effect of revenue sharing on call costs. Light touch regulation perhaps produces the worst of both possible worlds.

Finarea is only an opportunist, not a true market player; such participation actually distorts unregulated free markets.

New Labour is indeed all in favour of the free market and the empowered consumer (and patient), rather than over-restrictive regulation of the behaviour of telephone companies and GPs. Perhaps one day we will have a government that believes in the truly socialist concept of the NHS, which is funded by taxation (according to ability to pay) and delivered free (according to need). We may also one day have a government that believes in utilities being delivered purely for the benefit of the people and therefore re-nationalised.

---

These are comments in response to previous postings in this thread, intended to entertain and stimulate thought. They do not lay out any particular position or rounded view. (See my blogs and website for that type of thing.)

NGMsGhost wrote on Sep 18^th, 2009 at 8:01pm:

Forgive me if I am mistaken, however I understand that this company only offers a limited range of services. Those where it can undercut the players who provide the full range of services and carry overheads such as customer service and marketing.

That is not to say that there is anything wrong with this per se, my only point was that such intervention distorts a wider market. I am not an economist, I cannot propose a formal test to provide a comprehensive defintion of what is a "true player", however use of indirect access codes provides a useful distinction.

Distortion of the market is tested by the ease with which one may answer questions such as "what is the price of an airline ticket from London to Glasgow?", is it £1 or £200? Telecoms has not quite reached that level of distortion, however similar principles apply.