I was recently happy to learn that my local council was involving itself in a pilot scheme. It relates to the reporting of things such as anti-social behaviour. By dialling 101 we can now release some of the burden on police and council telephone numbers, apparently. What the GLA backed scheme operators fail to make clear is that there is a 10p standard charge!
It was only when I checked entry number 16 of the 101 website's FAQs that it did become clear. It says: "The call charge will go to the telecom providers to offset the cost to them of carrying calls."
TOP marks GLA. They appear to have found a method of charging us to report crimes.
Residents of Barking and Dagenham and Waltham Forest, who are part of the pilot scheme, beware.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Sep 2^nd, 2008 at 6:01pm:



That is an old chestnut! There is no justification in my humble opinion. Everyone can afford 10p. I doubt whether that is a deterrent. It's just another way of collecting revenue. Ten pence is way too much to connect somebody to a number.

Would someone be good enough to detail the "non-standard" rates charged for calls to 101 for those on geographic lines who pay for calls, and perhaps for mobiles and call boxes also. If anyone is failing to charge the standard 10p per call, then surely Ofcom should be informed.

Could we please have a ruling from a forum moderator about whether my advocacy of non-geographic 03xx numbers, in preference to the failed 101 experiment, is out of order in this forum.

Perhaps we could also have an explanation of just who is engaged in a "sneaky" "scam" with 101, "making money by the back door". Does the flat rate of 10p per call represent a bad deal that has been negotiated with the telcos, when set against other call charges? Where is the lack of transparency? I favour use of 03xx, but have to admit that the charges for calling 101 are much clearer and easier to understand (unless there is something I have missed).

The 101 idea is attractive, but flawed. Similar problems will be found with the "888" idea being promoted for urgent non-emergency access to health and social care services. Call pricing is far from being the greatest of the difficulties.

This issue is worthy of note, however the major public sector issue is indeed with use of revenue sharing 084/7 numbers that save tax-payers money at the expense of service users. I would characterise those who permit this practice as being ignorant, foolish and politically misguided. I would only expect to hear those who seek to reduce burdens on tax-payers being characterised as "devils" by the most radical socialist.

It is good to see that when it comes to the issues NGMsG and SCV have relatively few real points of difference.

The minimum cost for the weekday daytime BT call is going up to 11p on the 18th. The "standard" for 101 is 10p per call. It is any discovered differences with this standard that would represent a breach of regulations.

I seek to excuse nobody. I present issues as they are seen. Janet and John arguments can be very persuasive. I argue that public service providers should not subsidise their operations through surcharges on telephone callers, through use of revenue sharing numbers. With 101 a wholly different approach of a flat per-call charge is adopted. The issue of affordability is at least more transparent than with most other calls. 10p does not seem totally unreasonable to me, however I open the question about whether it is fair. I also explain the effect on taxpayers if it were to be 0p.

I cannot see evidence of an obvious intention to imply that 101 calls are included in standard packages. The 10p charge is said to apply to everyone equally, regardless of the type of telephone service. If some could be misled, then perhaps some further clarification could be helpful. I cannot however see how serious allegations of a "sneaky scam to make money by the back door" could be withdrawn on the basis of a few extra words being added to clarify this point.

We must not ignore the fact that tax-payer funded bodies will always look for the cheapest deal for the taxpayer first. They may see the relationship between service users and their telco, chosen from a competitive market, as none of their business. They may be genuinely unaware that all 084x numbers are revenue sharing, because they are not offered a "cashback" deal by their telco (as they would with 087x).

Whilst some may believe that this is all part of a diabolical plot, I simply argue the need for tax-payers to incur the full cost of providing public services. Assuming that the quality of its financial management remains unchanged, it will cost the DH more to run NHS Direct on 0345, rather than 0845, numbers. That is taxpayer's money. If, as is currently planned, NHS Direct uses "888" (on the same basis as 101) for some urgent services in some areas, including some new services, and retains its 0845 numbers for existing services, then this would be a "better deal" for taxpayers in general than a total switch to 03.

Is that diabolical? I say it is politically unacceptable for the NHS to remain on 0845 for each day that passes, because this violates the principle of "free at the point of need" due to the revenue share. My many arguments against "888" and 101 are however on a totally different basis.