Edited:



For many, many years now there has been a fight to prevent 08x numbers being used as stealth premium rate numbers.

Over the years, Ofcom released many, many consultations and then finally gave in and decided to stop the use of revenue sharing on 0870 numbers only but allowed a further two years nearly (could be extended by Ofcom as well) in which companies/government departments using 0870 could decide to stay on 0870 or migrate to other number ranges.

At the same time, Ofcom announced it would put 0871 numbers under the remit of ICSTIS (premium rate regulator) and it appears that all ICSTIS wants to do with 0871 numbers is to ensure clearer price transparency on call costs but has no plans at this time on doing anything to prevent us consumers being charged whilst stuck in a queue for which it has been reported that we consumers can be waiting longer than 20minutes for the called party to answer.

This leads me to doing this poll because some forum members quite rightly believe that all 084x/087x numbers should be migrated to 09x and that existing 09x safeguards like being charged whilst stuck in a queue is applied.

Now I would really love for this to happen but given that after so long nothing much has happened as would have liked and the pressure from companies to keep 08x numbers as they are (and some government departments) then this is why I ask the following question:-




I use the word compromise and realistically because IMHO I can't actually see Ofcom giving in to option 1 and I believe we stand more of a chance with option 2.

As most of us will know there have been articles highlighting the fact that 0870 is a premium rate and some articles have highlighted the costs involved (although some have incorrectly highlighted the costs involved) and to some limited way this has led to a bit of public outrage and some companies have moved back to geographical numbers or gone for lower costing numbers instead of 087x numbers.

Therefore it could be said that option 2 is in effect (although limited) with regards to 0870 numbers and lately 0844 numbers used by surgeries.

Once you have voted, you have 1 day in which to change your mind.

SilentCallsVictim,

I will only say that if several of us had told you that we felt some Silent Calls were perfectly acceptable in a variety of circumstances as long as the calls were not malicious in nature or frequently repeated then you would have been disappointed in our views.

This campaign opposes the use of ALL 084 and 087 covert premium rate numbers and the ones run by NEG doctors surgeries are clearly covert in their nature.

I also noted in passing that an earlier post in this thread that you said a certain amount of dishonesty was to be expected in marketing.  Again I do not agree with you.  It happens but regulators should always try to penalise and prosecute those who use blatant dishonesty to sell goods.

The reason you are encountering flack here, which you are not comfortable with, is because your views are clearly not fully supportive of our campaign and instead you only seem to support us selectively as and when it suits you.

As you appear to find use of 0844 covert premium rate doctors numbers acceptable perhaps you would care to indicate which 084 and 087 numbers you do not find acceptable and on which you therefore look up the geographic alternatives on this website?

…/ Do we really want this in the forum?

NGMsGhost wrote on Aug 15^th, 2007 at 9:03am:

This is a tricky one for me. I hope not to cause too much offence to those who host this posting.

If the normally published NGNs were best for most callers, whereas geographic alternatives were best only for some particular group (e.g. mobile users or those based overseas), then I would see the publication of such a list as a fully appropriate solution. I understand that this is not the case, as few or none benefit by calling an NGN rather than a geographic alternative under present tariffs.

Insofar as the list helps some to avoid being deceived, it is doing good.

If the list were not part of a vigorous and effective campaign aimed at removing deceit, then I would oppose it outright. Simply offering a choice that some may access does nothing to right the wrong being perpetrated on others. It may even be seen to diminish their grounds for complaint. The Sayno campaign does not however rely solely on this simple approach.

Attempting to compel users of 084 and 087 numbers to reveal geographic alternatives so that they may be published on this website is a different matter. I oppose this tactic. If action is to be taken against harm being done to the public interest by soliciting calls to NGNs, then this must be for the sole purpose of causing the harm to be ceased. I cannot support the idea that a limited opportunity for some to get cheaper phone calls is an appropriate way of addressing the public interest issue.

The website is open to all, it is widely publicised and I am sure that the Sayno campaign would be delighted if everyone used it regularly. There is no intention to limit its use to a select group. The sad fact of life is that it cannot be a proper solution to those cases where use of NGNs presents a problem.


NGMsGhost wrote on Aug 15^th, 2007 at 9:03am:

Whilst some complain about the number of digits, this does not cause me to find them unacceptable, and so I would raise no issue with the numbers themselves. I am not able to provide a list of the particular numbers that I would find unacceptable if used in such a manner, as covered below.


I find it unacceptable to sell a service without declaring the price, or by pretending that it is “free”. I find the degree of distinction presently drawn between revenue sharing numbers and premium rate numbers unacceptable. Furthermore, I find it unacceptable that the revenue split between the provider of the service and the carrier(s) is treated as an issue of commercial confidentiality. Given that telecommunications service providers are regulated in the interests of their consumers, their share should be known in all cases.


Most public sector bodies may charge for some services, or make them difficult or expensive to access on account of factors such as location, hours of operation or use of special (e.g., 0845) telephone numbers. Direct charges and notable external costs are actually two quite separate issues, although similar effects are created, enabling obfuscation.

I do not find either to be wholly unacceptable in principle, but find many particular cases to be so. I would find it unacceptable for there not to be appropriate guidance covering exceptional cost paid to third parties, in any case where this is likely to be incurred by a service user. I find it totally unacceptable for there to be any deviation from the principle that all direct charges (not matter how the money is collected) must be explicitly detailed and declared in advance in every case. (The fee collected by a public body from a revenue sharing number cannot be covered by the commercial confidentiality referred to above.)


The NHS is a special case in respect of charges. Dental services and prescriptions are subject to charge. With some difficulty, I find it acceptable for someone in my present position to be required to make a contribution in this way when using those services. I justify this because there are many exemptions (based very loosely around need and ability to pay) and they are capped and controlled.

There are however very many grey areas in respect of these and also with others, such as charging patients for parking on NHS land, which I find unacceptable in principle although I am open to persuasion in particular cases if pragmatic considerations may be sufficiently relevant.

Depending on how the issue of NHS GPs using 0844 numbers may be moved towards a resolution, I may shortly be required to apply this pragmatic approach to some individual cases of this unacceptable practice.

The principle that NHS costs are met through taxation rather than by charging for the use of services remains in force, and I would find it unacceptable if a particular opportunity to reinforce this were not to be taken.

I find it totally unacceptable for GPs to use revenue sharing numbers.

I believe that a sufficient number of others, including those in a position to do something about it, share this view so that this will start to be corrected in the near future. I hope that the Sayno campaign will take credit for its role in such action.

David

Barbara wrote on Aug 16^th, 2007 at 1:56pm:

The point here is that they are revenue sharing calls. They cannot be included in packages because (roughly speaking) they are above the price of a geographical 'normal' call. Thus, if you call a 50p/min 09 number, it is obvious that your call provider cannot stand to this. These types of numbers should be classed as such and that includes all current 084/087 numbers.

The issue is one of transparency and lack thereof. If prices were clear, then it wouldn't be commonplace for companies to revenue sharing numbers as it is now.

As SCV quite rightly identifies, the database is no fix to the underlying problem. He also says that the database is good as it helps us avoid being "deceived". Or to look at it another way, if it were there purely to avoid call charge premiums (revenue sharing) where it's justified, then this would be wrong. Acceptable uses of premium numbers are generally most 09 numbers, cheap call providers, dial-up internet and paying for ringtones. In such circumstances SCV views it as wrong to provide alternatives. These are obviously ones where the caller has a choice and should be able to avoid dialling such numbers all together if they so chose to.

dorf wrote on Aug 16^th, 2007 at 8:39pm:

dorf, I think this is a compromise. Perhaps if we fight tooth and nail to get all current "revenue sharing" prefixes moved to 09, then we may fail because of the resistance from the private companies who have their snouts firmly in the trough. But if we accept a compromise we will achieve more.

bbb_uk, I know, roughly, the costs of calls to ngns (ie more than the zero if included in my call package), I accept that many people do not and that is an issue.   My point of view is that knowing it costs me more is no help at all if I have no choice but to phone the ngn in question!   This is the case if it is an organisation with which I have dealt and which has failed me in some way or if it is a state-backed monopoly (eg DVLA, govt depts, local authorities etc).  Knowing the cost of the call still means I have to pay it, whereas my point is I DON'T EXPECT TO HAVE TO PAY TWICE FOR THE SAME THING ie for my call package and then certain individual calls as well.   A third option is to force all telcom providers to include calls to ngns in their call packages but I don't think that is likely!   The only points I can see for pushing the transparency of calls costs are to increase public anger and revolt as more people realise about these and to make life so difficult for organisations which use ngns they might think again.   These may be forlorn hopes but that does not mean they should not be pursued.

NGMsGhost wrote on Aug 17^th, 2007 at 11:06am:


What exactly is the campaign?

bb_uk and Dave,

What you are suggesting here in your posts is different from what bb_uk originally posted and what I posted in reply, I believe. There is the world of difference in being prepared to accept a compromise and being "happy for 08x numbers to stay as they are EXCEPT (and providing) that Ofcom makes it widely known that 08x numbers are not lo-call, local or national and actual pricing information for these numbers is published along with the fact that revenue sharing does take place", and believing that the best compromise is for all NGNs to remain as they are. The previous statement implies that you are also happy with call queuing on Premium numbers as I pointed out. It also implies that you are happy for the scam term "revenue sharing" to continue to be used, when this term was deceitfully introduced to attempt to fool the public into believing that these numbers are not Premium numbers!

Nowhere did I suggest in my post that campaigners should hold out for all Premium (revenue generating) numbers to be moved to the 09 category, although in fact I believe that is the only rational total solution to the current problems and abuses generated by the ineffectuality and corruption of the current regulator, most of all because it was the official regulator who decided to do that in the first place - not the consumer. The official regulator originally took the decision to move all Premium (revenue generating) numbers from the plethora of 08, 03, 05 etc. numbers which they originally occupied to the category 09. It was not the citizen consumer who tried to pressurize the regulator or demanded that this should be done! The regulator took this decision in isolation as a rational and sensible decision. They also similarly decided in isolation that queuing on Premium numbers should be and would be prohibited. These decisions were then enforced in the original National Telephone Numbering Plan (NTNP), and made supposedly binding on the telecoms provider (only BT at that time I think).

BT fearing their monopoly about to end, and the inevitable loss of revenue from calls which they then carried began to look for dirty commercial tricks, to attempt to preserve some of their call revenue. They saw an opportunity with NGN calls except 09. At this time the first call queuing systems were being introduced. These were a great money spinner for BT, even as they were initially on GNs, because BT then received call revenue for the time which a caller was queuing, at the charge rate per minute, rather than nothing for an engaged call. Someone at BT then had the idea of sharing their call revenue on NGNs with the terminating subscriber (initially), although actually this was illegal under the original NTNP. BT was then beginning to experience initial limited competition for the first time with the first new call carrying providers, but this competition was with GNs initially only. They realized that by offering revenue sharing with NGNs (other than 09), since they effectively still had a monopoly with NGNs at that time, they could encourage companies to use NGNs rather than the GNs they were using, and by advising them that they could use the revenue share with call queuing this was the main marketing attraction, and thus enabled BT to get them locked into an NGN with them, preventing any competition from the new market entrant call carriers. This ensured BTs monopoly continuing with large volumes of call traffic then on NGNs instead of GNs.

CONTINUED IN NEXT POST