Barbara wrote on Dec 14
th, 2009 at 10:49am:
There is also another aspect which has been lost, ...
Lost! I will not quote from my, admittedly lengthy, comments, but I think you will find us to be totally in agreement on the fact that it is the principle of revenue sharing that is the issue, not the matter of how many people pay this or that rate to call.
Barbara wrote on Dec 14
th, 2009 at 10:49am:
callers are being held to ransom
This is where we part company. I refuse to accept that any sort of consumerist model (e.g. reference to the absence of a competitive market) is appropriate. We have been encouraged to think of everything in terms of a grocery shop. Sometimes that can be useful as a model, sometimes it may provide a useful analogy whilst not being totally relevant, sometimes (for example in this case, as in many others) it is totally wrong-headed and misleading.
Dave wrote on Dec 14
th, 2009 at 3:12pm:
The only operators I can see that charge less for 0845 calls at certain times are BT, Post Office Home Phone and Tiscali Talk.
Thank you for correcting my error. I tried to do the relevant calculations some time ago, purely out of interest. I knew that there was no clear answer and so was a little casual in my efforts to defend my assertion that it could be a majority who pay less (which you may have challenged by removing Talk Talk and Sky). My desire to show this was only for the purpose of demonstrating strongly that this is not what matters.
Your points about the impact that use of 0845 numbers has on caller behaviour are well made. These have been previously been shared with DWP officials and will continue to feature in arguments presented. I have discussed the issue of who the callers may be, in relation to the type of tariff they may be on. It is not easy to characterise the typical user of BT vs. Virgin Media. It is fairly clear that mobile users demand special attention, which is what has been provided by the present call back arrangement. The call back approach is however very expensive for the Department and is not seen as a permanent solution. Once the 0800 issue has been resolved attention will turn to the 0845 (vs 03) issue. I personally believe that consideration of mobile callers will be the deciding factor.
Whilst the existence of differential landline rates for 0845 calls is highly significant, I am not sure that the present situation will be the issue that tips the balance. At some point in the new year Ofcom will be starting work on its new review of all NTS ranges, with the question of what to do about 0845 near (or at) the top of the agenda. Initial indications of what may be likely to emerge from this will doubtless have a bearing. Only the early removal of revenue sharing and enforcement of charging on the same basis as 03, by all providers, would provide any justification for retention of 0845 at this time. This is possible, but, I think, unlikely - unless the remaining dial-up ISPs and those who require the benefit of revenue sharing can all be moved onto a suitable 0844/3(/2?) range swiftly.
As stated previously, I am happy to encourage anyone who wants to try and get into the detail of the volume-weighted cost impact on landline users of the choice of 0845 over 03. This may be relevant to the extent of the need to retain 0845 numbers as alternatives after a changeover to 03 has perhaps been completed. This would however need to look to the long term considering what call rates are likely to be in the future, e.g. after the NTS condition has perhaps been removed from BT and perhaps something similar imposed on all providers! Good luck to you!
Pages: 
DWP/JOBCENTRE PLUS (Read 157,334 times)
