NGMsGhost wrote on Sep 29
th, 2010 at 7:43pm:
I note that SCV does not take any issue with my suggestion that The Independent and The Grauniad might be rather closer to his own reading tastes than The Times or The Torygraph.
If one is sufficiently interested in my comments to attempt to divine some understanding of the author, then this conclusion is hardly of earth-shattering brilliance. I cannot however see how our choices of newspaper, political affiliations or whatever other loyalties we may have should have any bearing on our ability to discuss issues.
If we keep our little swipes at others declared positions to the margins of our discussions, maintain good humour and keep essentially to the topics under discussion, then any soggy liberalism that may be found within my arguments can be attacked as a weakness in those arguments. I would hope to address other contributions similarly as we engage in discussion of the topics raised. I cannot see what relevance the circulation figures of various journals may have to the content of my comments on the issues being discussed in this thread. Yes I did refer to the Daily Mail, as others have seen fit to quote from it. That was not however the essence of my contribution, but we have allowed ourselves to move well off the subject.
I will attempt to draw us back by re-stating my point that I see no connection between the general conduct of an organisation and a decision to adopt revenue sharing, or as in the case of 0551, expensive non-geographic, numbers. Centralisation of telephone contact is naturally associated with use of non-geographic numbers and this can be either positive or negative in terms of service levels, often depending on the type of service required. Because awareness of the 03 range is well short of what it should be, "non-geographic" still tends to mean "revenue sharing", but prior to 2007 this was the only option available.
I maintain that it is a combination of ignorance, lethargy, a reluctance to make what many still see as a "pioneering" move to 03 and an unwillingness to incur the costs of a number change that leaves so many on 0845 numbers. The benefit in terms of subsidy is modest when taken in context, although there is a visible cost (for many) in moving to 03. Although when looked at properly the increased cost incurred by some BT customers is not really an issue, it appears to be so.
I maintain that one does not have to have a black heart and be motivated by insatiable greed to operate a 0845 or 0551 number. It is however generally a bad decision that needs to be carefully reviewed and changed at the most suitable early opportunity. I believe that the need to make this change is more important for the public sector and also this is where, as has been seen already, it is more likely to be achieved. I do not in any way exclude the private sector and (assuming present plans are executed) will shortly be seen making this point in public.
(I continue to be re-assured that when the Ofcom consultation is published in around a month's time it will contain some radical proposals to seriously address the issues that we are campaigning on - many for much longer than I. I continue to be convinced that progress from there will be slow and difficult and I hope that we will all be ready to engage in a proper and positively focused battle.)