David_H wrote on Dec 6^th, 2008 at 5:02pm:



David_H

Re read reply #3

Dave wrote on Dec 8^th, 2008 at 4:19pm:

Perhaps "crux", or maybe not!

derrick wrote on Dec 9^th, 2008 at 2:31pm:


Those who only sing determinedly from the company hymn sheet are always left floundering once they learn that the company tract is the work of a false prophet.

Where oh where can provider123 be.  Has he gone off on holiday this week on some of the proceeds of the bonus his charity may perhaps have been able to pay him from their artificially increased budget due to not having to pay for their switchboard rental and/or also due to getting artificially low prices on their outgoing calls I wonder.

Or having been revealed as completely credulous on the whole plethora of widely told NTS corporate lies does he have absolutely nothing left to say in his defence?

If we want to have a fight for its own sake, let me put what could be the position of the organisation that the OP represents. I have no way of knowing if it is the case, but if we want an argument, then lets have one.

(This thread is already one of those which I would not wish to draw to the attention of general readers who are seeking briefing on the issues, or prospective new members. I would therefore not do any harm if I were to contribute to turning it into another internal discussion.)

What follows is hypothetical.

---

A hard-pressed charity is looking for an advanced telephone system to improve its call handling. Various features are presented to it along with a price tag. It is said that these features would require a change of telephone number, so that the cost of adopting them is negligible. The cost of advising the change of number is seen as perhaps an unnecessary expense, so an alternative quote to provide the same features on the existing number is sought. The figure is seen as astronomical by comparison.

The cost to callers of the new number is said to be "national rate". It is accepted that this will cost some callers more and that those who call from mobiles may find it very expensive. Given that the charity wishes to improve its service and cannot see how to raise the sum necessary to do so without a change of number, it agrees.

Service users are generally impressed by the improved service and are not unduly worried by the few extra pence per call that they are paying. They have bigger issues to worry about in the context of making the call and because they are grateful for the service they receive they would not wish to make a complaint about a relatively trivial matter.

An alternative number appears on SayNoto0870. This directs calls to a head office switchboard rather than the call centre set up to provide service to customers. Callers therefore have to wait for attention at the switchboard before gaining access to the call centre and cannot get through outside office hours. They are also denied some of the features provided when calling the call centre number. This over-burdens the switchboard and provides an inferior service to customers.

When the situation is presented in the SayNoto0870 forum with a denial of rip-off it is implied that the money that has been saved by using a revenue sharing number is used to pay bonuses to staff.

---

If members are not prepared to accept the terms of the hypothesis presented above then there is no point in arguing about it. There are some who would say that the advanced features are totally unnecessary or could be provided at no extra cost - those are separate points which I treat as being untrue for the sake of this case.

For those who can accept the hypothesis, I pose one simple question:

Where does the charity find the money to pay for the extra features itself, as would be necessary if it were to offer the same service on a 03 or geographical number?

I suspect that the OP is not "man enough" to offer to pay for them through a donation out of his wages.

I have discussed similar situations with a number of charities and I must admit that I cannot myself answer the question that I pose. All I can do is invite every organisation that uses revenue sharing numbers to recognise the fact that it is thereby charging for its services. I would then encourage those who find this unacceptable to look for the easiest and cheapest way of getting out of a position that they may have entered unwittingly.

I might decide that it is tactically better not to cause those who may find this very difficult to defend the status quo publicly. Having dug their heels in, it could be more difficult for them to change when an opportunity to do so comes along. I do not present this as if it were a general rule not to criticise anyone, however I am concerned primarily with achieving change for the better.

Let battle rage.

NGMsG,

A number of points in response.

I agree with your suggestion that the OP had little to add to the initial posting. I believe that it was intended to offer food for thought (as have some replies) rather than as a deliberate attempt to generate a vigorous exchange of views for its own sake.

I have always seen it as our role to change the status quo, rather than to defeat attempts to undermine our position in government. The burden of presenting comprehensive coherent and persuasive arguments therefore falls on us, not on those who do not recognise the need for change.

Our case is not helped by the false assumption that those who do not yet share our understanding of the issues can be simply characterised in any way. It is undermined by the false suggestion that Ofcom has any authority to regulate the activities of charities or telephone users in general. Its powers are wide, but not as wide as many, include Ofcom itself, often pretend.

If I misunderstood the purpose of replies #21 & 22, then I apologise. It seemed to me that the poster was looking for an argument.

The subject of this thread invites us to consider the issues from the perspective of a service provider using a revenue sharing number. If we really believe that these can be simply characterised in the way that is suggested, then we are either unwilling to listen and understand or we are not talking to the right people.

Do we really believe that any coherent argument in defence of using revenue sharing numbers must be based on lies, or originates from someone who is open to personal attack, because it does not fit with our view of the world?

I seek to address the issues rather than the personalities of forum members.

The previous posting suggests a possible defence of the practice of revenue sharing - citing three examples of others who do the same.

I believe that the OP raised serious points that need to be considered. The argument was not complete and perhaps was presented without a full understanding of the situation.

There is no question about the position of commercial organisations who charge customers for making complaints or service enquiries by telephone, this should clearly be funded as an overhead cost.

I take the position that all public services funded by taxation should extend this funding to all aspects of telephone services, rather than imposing fees on service users, even if this has an adverse effect on taxation or borrowing.

A not-for-profit organisation that currently benefits from revenue sharing (however it got there) is possibly in a more difficult position. If there is no obvious funding source that could pick up the cost currently being incurred by callers, what does it do?

If the consequences of saying no to 0870 (or another revenue sharing prefix) are a reduction in some aspect of the service for which it is answerable, then perhaps we need to adopt a more sympathetic and helpful stance if we wish to persuade organisations to make this decision.

In the above, we find a serious difference of view. I do not campaign in this forum. I seek change, which is not achieved by posting here.

I share my thoughts here with others who may be similarly motivated.

It is a logical, if slightly odd, position to have no sympathy whatsoever for the enormous section of business, the public sector and charities that abuse revenue sharing numbers. If one adopts a position of total opposition to most commercial organisations as well as the BBC, the NHS and the Red Cross, one is perhaps unlikely to be able to exert any influence over decisions that they may make as one would be clearly seen as an anarchist.

I can declare that it was very difficult to recently be seen to be in support of the Metropolitan Police. One may also engage with all sorts of organisations in the hope that they may be able to assist with the cause. Life would be much easier if the world were clearly divided into good guys and bad guys, who could be identified by the colour of their hats, but it is my experience that it is not like that.