irrelevant wrote on Sep 8
th, 2008 at 7:33am:
I think the main issue is that of price transparency.
Price transparency is indeed a major point. As is stated however, the point is that prices are obscured to conceal the unacceptable fact that the caller is paying for the additional features deployed, rather than the receiver.
With truly competitive businesses it may be acceptable for any charge to be made, so long as it is declared, as the market will ensure that all is fair. This does not however apply to service lines, the cost of which is not declared as part of the contract, nor to public services. Knowing that your NHS doctor's practice funds its services using payments from patients does not make it OK; it simply reveals that it is wrong.
The campaigning forum and the database of alternative numbers on this site do indeed have an important role to play. Knowledge of its existence and every visit that is made indicate that the essential battle about transparency is being won. Victory is however only achieved when names no longer need to appear in the database.
The point about mobile calls being mostly received from friends would seem to argue that it does not matter who pays. With most such mobile calls that I receive, I would be very pleased to be relieved of the obligation to call back. Equally, I would be very happy to subsidise family members using mobiles more directly.
Some would argue that it is the use of freephone numbers for sales calls that is the indicator of greed. Any indication of excessive funding of pre-sales operations shows that a very good margin is expected on the business that may be won. The sales costs would be recovered in general pricing, not through subsidy of service operations.
As with users of many 084x numbers, mobile users may not actually profit from calls received, however the cost of their incoming telephone service is being subsidised by callers.
It has clearly been an objective of government and of Ofcom for the use of mobiles to grow to its present level of over 100% saturation. This has demanded that they be adopted by the least wealthy (including kids) and therefore subsidised by others. We therefore have a situation where the costs are distributed quite irrationally. Contract users with perfectly good handsets (including myself) are paying for inferior annual replacements that they do not want. Technical developments are being focussed on ways of making more money out of an irrational system, rather than on meeting genuine need.
Whilst this should be addressed, and moving to a system of "receiver pays" on call charges would be only part of this, there is little chance that this could happen. One only needs to think of the many who currently have a PAYG mobile because they cannot afford to rent a landline to recognise that implementation of a more rational system covering payment for mobile calls could not be implemented without great difficulty.