rogcal wrote on Dec 7^th, 2007 at 4:16pm:

If the SIA is not revenue sharing with its telephone provider, then it is allowing its telephone provider to keep the revenue. No revenue sharing doesn't mean that the call charge is any lower, so someone is pocketing somewhere.....

0844 892 1025 is, indeed, 6p connection + 3p/minute from a BT landline - which is less than a 6p connection + 3.25p/minute (BT Together Option 1) 01 or 02 call.

OTOH, it's a lot more expensive than 5p for a call of any duration using 1899, 18185 or 18866 (or the 'free' UK 01/02 calls many people now get on inclusive packages).

rogcal wrote on Dec 8^th, 2007 at 9:40am:

As I understand it, the SIA is an independent non-departmental public body accountable to the Home Secretary and its stakeholders, those who work and operate in the private security industry. (The CSA is an agency within the control of DWP.)

I will offer a few thoughts, some of which may be seen as contraversial.

1. There is no justification for forcing callers to wait on hold for more than a few seconds. Automated systems that provide the option to receive a call back are well established in the call centre industry. These should be used by every organisation that experiences irregular patterns of incoming calls producing peaks that cannot be addressed simply by proper staffing levels. Callers who prefer to wait need not be denied this option.

2. 0844 is a mess. It is available for revenue sharing, and is thereby recognised as such. There are however 35 different “call types” on the BT price list for 0844 numbers; some are fixed price, those charged on a pence per minute basis range from 0.5p to 5p. Some users of 0844 numbers receive income from calls, others pay to receive them. With the clear alternatives of 03 and a larger range of premium rate numbers now available, why would anyone with an interest in call price transparency move to a 0844 number in 2007?

3. Aside from the, most significant but separate, issue of profiteering by telcos, choice of the number for a public body to use comes down to the issue of who pays for services delivered by telephone. This is a balance between callers (service users) and those who fund the body (normally taxpayers). Regulatory bodies are generally funded by those who they regulate.

If most telephone calls to the SIA are from those who are regulated, rather than from citizens which every public body ultimately serves, is there any reason why they should not be paying towards the cost of providing the service? The alternative is higher licence fees for those who may not use the telephone service.

Obviously, there should be a separate telephone number for public enquiries (0800 or 03, if not geographic).


Please forgive (and correct) any misunderstandings.

In response to Silent Calls Victim's point 3 (the only part with which I take issue), as a taxpayer, I feel it is to my advantage that regulatory bodies exist therefore they should be funded through taxation.   I believe this could avoid problems such as experienced with OFCOM where, effectively, an industry is policing its own and will be more reluctant to take strong action when necessary.   Taking the SIA as an example, surely it is to the advantage of all of us who ever use a town centre at night or have events taking place near our homes where approved security staff might be needed?   Another example, I have always felt it wrong that people should pay for their own CRB checks.   These checks are what we as a society require to ensure the safety of members of society.   I do, however, object to paying to phone these people when I have already paid for a phone package (and the SIA were awful at replying to emails last year when I needed info from them to prevent a planned local rave!).

Let's face it, any revenue derived from a 0844 number is going to be pretty small compared to the cost of the call centre. What's more, the revenue paid to the service provider is usually tiny relative to the additional call cost. So NGNs represent an inefficient way of transferring money from caller to the called party.

In this case the service provider and the telco is BT as BT operates the call centre and does other administrative work such as issuing licences etc. So the use of 0844 number is (I think it's reasonable to assume) going into BT's pocket.

Which sort of emphasises the point, if your NHS GPs' surgery has changed to an 0844 rip-off system, don't get ill abroad!

Freakyknight wrote on Sep 6^th, 2016 at 1:22pm:

The answer appears to be given by this message on the website.

It is good news that an unacceptable number has been withdrawn. Those without ready access to the internet are however disadvantaged when the government's "Digital by Default" policy becomes "Digital Only".