Dave wrote on Oct 18
th, 2009 at 11:20pm:
Should we be calling for an end or change to the "NTS Condition" regulation on BT that causes the premiums associated with "revenue sharing" numbers to be hidden?
A simple answer to that question would depend on the effect that it would be known to have, i.e. how BT would propose to use the freedom that would result.
If the simple rules of economics applied, then BT would aim to take a similar margin on these calls to that which it does on others, however it would be constrained by the market. In theory, the cost of 084 calls would rise and that of others (which presently must cross-subsidise by providing BT with coverage of its general overheads and profit) would fall. I would at least need to be reassured of the latter before putting my weight behind such a campaign.
One could argue that because BT already treats 0845 numbers in the same way as geo numbers in respect of inclusive calls, then it could readily do the same when non-inclusive. That does not however help a great deal because this would still represent a distortion, as the greater cost is hidden. When a whole variety of cases are bundled together in a package there is inevitably a high degree of cross funding, e.g. light users pay for the calls of heavier users. In the same way those who have no calls to 0845 numbers in their inclusive calls pay for those who do. If we are seeking visibility of the premium then non-inclusive 0845 calls would have to be more expensive. BT would find that very hard to sell, given the fuss it made about them last January.
Current users acquired 0844 and 0845 numbers on the basis of an assurance about the cost of calls from BT. They and their callers would undoubtedly feel aggrieved if prices rose, especially in the case of 0844 where they selected a particular price level (if only from BT).
The common view seems to be that the revenue share on 0845 will end at some point in the not too distant future, i.e. within the next five years. This will be somewhat similar to what happened with its original partner, 0870.
This would leave the mess of 0844/3 as a mess. Without the price fixing, 0844 would make no sense at all. Without BT as the dominant market player, price fixing for a single provider makes no sense at all. As the market moves towards use of mobiles, which do not respect the full complexity of the 0844 call types, then the whole thing becomes meaningless. This is why Ofcom does not want to touch it.
My own view, which is based on only a limited understanding of the possible valid uses of the lower grade 0844 ranges, is that it should be scrapped as soon as possible. 0871/2/3 already includes a 6p per minute option for the 5p per minute crew, which should meet their needs. 0874 could be reserved for migration. If I knew more about the uses of the .5p/1p/2p per minute and the fixed rate per call ranges (if anyone uses them when they cost up to 40p per minute from a mobile) then I would say more.
As things stand, it is my considered view that we will have to work as hard as we can to explain the fact that BT is the anomaly, the one whose charges vary from the norm, rather than the opposite.
Campaigning for tax increases is one thing, campaigning for telephone call costs to be raised is another.
Pages: 
Doctors' phone line use reviewed - DH consultation (Read 313,238 times)
