SAYNOTO0870.COM - Proposed Illegality of Non-Geographic Numbers

Maxadolf

Newbie

Offline

Posts: 26

Proposed Illegality of Non-Geographic Numbers
Feb 2^nd, 2009 at 11:03pm

Can someone please explain why Ofcom, the Government or any other government agency will not agree to make the use of non-geographic numbers illegal given:

1. They clearly create communication problems when phoning from abroad.
2. They are more often than not a crude device for extracting money from users during "dead" time, the most obvious and frequent abuse being lengthy delays once contact is established.
3. They are not embraced in the UK by contracts involving a fixed monthly payment to the carrier for "free" calls and, therefore, must be considered as premium-charge calls.
4. They lack permanence and are likely to change from year to year, if not sooner.

I do recall that in Tony Blair's time there was much debate about this issue, but still nothing materialised! Apart from the revenue-thieving aspect by the telecommunication companies, inter alia, is there some other agenda behind their maintenance? It seems to me that the creation of 03 is a part solution in that only BT seem to treat it as a "geographic" number, but not Virgin or any of the other telecommunication companies.

Maxadolf

Back to top

IP Logged

irrelevant

Senior Member

Offline

Posts: 409

Re: Proposed Illegality of Non-Geographic Numbers
Reply #1 - Feb 3^rd, 2009 at 9:28am

Maxadolf wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2009 at 11:03pm:

Can someone please explain why Ofcom, the Government or any other government agency will not agree to make the use of non-geographic numbers illegal

Er. because NGN numbers themselves are not inherently a problem.

Quote:

given:

1. They clearly create communication problems when phoning from abroad.
2. They are more often than not a crude device for extracting money from users during "dead" time, the most obvious and frequent abuse being lengthy delays once contact is established.
3. They are not embraced in the UK by contracts involving a fixed monthly payment to the carrier for "free" calls and, therefore, must be considered as premium-charge calls.

All these points are a consequence of choices by your telecommunications provider in how they charge you and other telcos for handling calls to different number ranges, and to a lesser extent, if they share any of that money with the terminating telco and their customer. So, companies keep you on hold to garner revenue, and foreign telcos are reluctant to handle calls for which they get charged more to accept.

For you, since different providers charge different amounts and include different ranges of numbers, you have a choice of how much you want to pay and who you spend it with. I do not know of any provider that would include £1.50/min 09 numbers in their inclusive calls, wheras most include geographic landlines. At what point in between they draw the line is a commercial decision. BT have just altered where their line is, by including 0845 & 0870 numbers in their inclusive calls periods. Most mobile tarffs include calls to other mobile phones, whereas BT don't. The choice is yours, and the best option depends on your calling pattern.

Quote:

4. They lack permanence and are likely to change from year to year, if not sooner.

This is unfortunate, and is due to greedy companies moving away from using an NGN number for the convenience of the customer (why "local rate" calls were invented in the first place) and towards using calls to generate revenue (surely the only reason for 0871). NGN numbers were often marketed to companies so they did not have to change numbers if they moved!

Quote:

I do recall that in Tony Blair's time there was much debate about this issue, but still nothing materialised! Apart from the revenue-thieving aspect by the telecommunication companies, inter alia, is there some other agenda behind their maintenance? It seems to me that the creation of 03 is a part solution in that only BT seem to treat it as a "geographic" number, but not Virgin or any of the other telecommunication companies.

Maxadolf

All communications providers are mandated to treat 03 numbers exactly the same as 01 and 02. If you find you are being billed differently, request a refund and if this is not forthcoming, report them to Ofcom.

03 numbers are what 0345 (local rate, now 0845) & 0990 (national rate, now 0870) were orginally intended for. i.e. costing you, the public, the same as calling a normal number. Remember, originally BT charged companies to receive calls using these numbers, too.

Please don't confuse the concept of Non-geographic numbers with revenue-sharing numbers - they are different concepts and relate to different aspects of the telecoms industry. Although 08 numbers share both attributes, and 01/02 generaly have neither, 03 numbers, for instance, are most definitely non-geographic, but pretty unlikely to be revenue-sharing.

Back to top

IP Logged

Maxadolf Newbie Offline Posts: 26	Re: Proposed Illegality of Non-Geographic Numbers Reply #2 - Feb 3^rd, 2009 at 11:03am Comprehensive and helpful response - thanks! Seems that there's not a lot that can be done other than to swap about among the telecom providers. However, unlike with other utilities, there's not much scope for defection given the bundling systems operated by the telecommunication companies. Maxadolf
Back to top	IP Logged

loddon

Supreme Member

Offline

Posts: 599
Reading UK
Gender: male

Re: Proposed Illegality of Non-Geographic Numbers
Reply #3 - Feb 3^rd, 2009 at 11:53am

irrelevant wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2009 at 9:28am:

Please don't confuse the concept of Non-geographic numbers with revenue-sharing numbers - they are different concepts and relate to different aspects of the telecoms industry. Although 08 numbers share both attributes, and 01/02 generaly have neither, 03 numbers, for instance, are most definitely non-geographic, but pretty unlikely to be revenue-sharing.

I agree with all you say, Irrelevant, except your final phrase. Aren't 03 numbers prohibited by the rules from revenue sharing?

Back to top

« Last Edit: Feb 3^rd, 2009 at 11:55am by Dave »

IP Logged

Dave

Global Moderator

Offline

Posts: 9,902
Yorkshire
Gender: male

Re: Proposed Illegality of Non-Geographic Numbers
Reply #4 - Feb 3^rd, 2009 at 12:13pm

irrelevant wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2009 at 9:28am:

Maxadolf wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2009 at 11:03pm:

Can someone please explain why Ofcom, the Government or any other government agency will not agree to make the use of non-geographic numbers illegal

Er. because NGN numbers themselves are not inherently a problem.

Quote:

given:

1. They clearly create communication problems when phoning from abroad.
2. They are more often than not a crude device for extracting money from users during "dead" time, the most obvious and frequent abuse being lengthy delays once contact is established.
3. They are not embraced in the UK by contracts involving a fixed monthly payment to the carrier for "free" calls and, therefore, must be considered as premium-charge calls.

All these points are a consequence of choices by your telecommunications provider in how they charge you and other telcos for handling calls to different number ranges, and to a lesser extent, if they share any of that money with the terminating telco and their customer. So, companies keep you on hold to garner revenue, and foreign telcos are reluctant to handle calls for which they get charged more to accept.

For you, since different providers charge different amounts and include different ranges of numbers, you have a choice of how much you want to pay and who you spend it with. I do not know of any provider that would include £1.50/min 09 numbers in their inclusive calls, wheras most include geographic landlines. At what point in between they draw the line is a commercial decision. BT have just altered where their line is, by including 0845 & 0870 numbers in their inclusive calls periods. Most mobile tarffs include calls to other mobile phones, whereas BT don't. The choice is yours, and the best option depends on your calling pattern.

For all telephone calls, the telco retailing the call pays the recipient's telco a "terminating charge" and this includes 01/02 calls. Think of this as the wholesale cost of calls in the same way as a supermarket must pay wholesale prices for the goods it sells.

The terminating charges for 0845, 0870 and other revenue sharing and premium rate services are higher than for geographicals. Hence, they are not included in most inclusive packages. So there is a "premium" involved in all 084/087/09 numbers. I use the dictionary definition of the word as some will split hairs over the fact that 084/087 are not "premium rate services" regulated by PhonepayPlus.

Ofcom has decreed that all providers shall charge 03 calls as they do for 01/02. The terminating charges for 03 are the same as they are for 01/02.

Maxadolf wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2009 at 11:03pm:

4. They lack permanence and are likely to change from year to year, if not sooner.

Some organisations have changed their non-geographical numbers for different types (eg 0845 to 0871) so as to generate more revenue. Others, in particular those who have moved from 0870, have done so in anticipation of the changes which were due to take place one year ago - they were to be reduced to 01/02 rate with no revenue sharing.

There is also a lot of misunderstanding of telephone charges. Some think that national calls cost more than local ones when the last tariff with this distinction was scrapped in 2004. Similarly, some think 084 and 087 are local or national rate.

084/087 numbers have been revenue sharing for a number of years. That means that the "premiums" I referred to above have been available to telephone companies which provide these numbers to organisations. They have an incentive to get those organisations on these numbers and you could say that they have little or no interest in clearing the mist of confusion of call charges.

Back to top

IP Logged

SilentCallsVictim

Supreme Member

Offline

aka NHS.Patient, DH_fairtelecoms

Posts: 2,494

Re: Proposed Illegality of Non-Geographic Numbers
Reply #5 - Feb 3^rd, 2009 at 12:29pm

A few points to add:

Revenue sharing is prohibited on 03 numbers.

It is important to distinguish between "unlimited" and "pre-paid" packages. The latter involves simply bulk-buying a bundle of call minutes covering calls of various types, possibly at a discount. The former provides all calls of a certain type (with particular restrictions) without further charge.

BT has always offered 0845 calls at a cheaper rate than geographic calls and expects 0870 calls to shortly to have to be charged in the same way as 03. Its recent change is not as dramatic as may have been thought.

The changes that some of us await are:

1) Prohibition of the use of revenue sharing numbers by public bodies (except where a service fee is proper for the service being provided).

2) Recognition that all those who receive money from callers are providing a "premium rate service" and should thereby be subject to regulation by Ofcom as providers of telecommunications services. Presently those who use revenue sharing 0845, 0844 and 0870 numbers are exempted. 0871 is in the course of having this exemption removed.

Not quite the illegality of NGNs that some would wish for; indeed, a desire to place them on a proper legal basis.

Back to top

@fairtelecoms (tweets)

IP Logged

irrelevant

Senior Member

Offline

Posts: 409

Re: Proposed Illegality of Non-Geographic Numbers
Reply #6 - Feb 3^rd, 2009 at 12:56pm

loddon wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2009 at 11:53am:

irrelevant wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2009 at 9:28am:

Please don't confuse the concept of Non-geographic numbers with revenue-sharing numbers - they are different concepts and relate to different aspects of the telecoms industry. Although 08 numbers share both attributes, and 01/02 generaly have neither, 03 numbers, for instance, are most definitely non-geographic, but pretty unlikely to be revenue-sharing.

I agree with all you say, Irrelevant, except your final phrase. Aren't 03 numbers prohibited by the rules from revenue sharing?

I'm not sure, but possibly. This doesn't preclude though the terminting telco, though, from using the termination charges themselves.

Back to top

IP Logged

SilentCallsVictim

Supreme Member

Offline

aka NHS.Patient, DH_fairtelecoms

Posts: 2,494

Re: Proposed Illegality of Non-Geographic Numbers
Reply #7 - Feb 3^rd, 2009 at 1:26pm

irrelevant wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2009 at 12:56pm:

This doesn't preclude though the terminting telco, though, from using the termination charges themselves.

Exactly. Is this not what we are campaigning for. The benefits of non-geographic numbers (such as they may be) to be made available without charge to the caller.

If the termination fees that are provided go some way towards reducing the burdon on the recipient, then they will be less likely to look for a revenue sharing number.

Telephone charging inevitably involves a complex mess of cross-subsidy, both within and between telcos; we cannot hope to end that. What we can look for is transparency in the relationship between the caller and the called.

Back to top

@fairtelecoms (tweets)

IP Logged

Dave

Global Moderator

Offline

Posts: 9,902
Yorkshire
Gender: male

Re: Proposed Illegality of Non-Geographic Numbers
Reply #8 - Feb 3^rd, 2009 at 2:25pm

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2009 at 1:26pm:

If the termination fees that are provided go some way towards reducing the burdon on the recipient, then they will be less likely to look for a revenue sharing number.

Should this be the other way round? Huh

"If the termination fees that are provided go some way towards reducing the burdon on the recipient, then they will be more likely to look for a revenue sharing number."

Back to top

« Last Edit: Feb 3^rd, 2009 at 2:25pm by Dave »

IP Logged

SilentCallsVictim

Supreme Member

Offline

aka NHS.Patient, DH_fairtelecoms

Posts: 2,494

Re: Proposed Illegality of Non-Geographic Numbers
Reply #9 - Feb 3^rd, 2009 at 3:46pm

Dave wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2009 at 2:25pm:

Should this be the other way round? Huh

"If the termination fees that are provided go some way towards reducing the burdon on the recipient, then they will be more likely to look for a revenue sharing number."

No I had it the right way around for the point I was trying to make.

Nobody sets out to offer a service on a revenue sharing number in order to make money (except perhaps ISPs). That is what the 09 numbers are for. Revenue sharing for most is simply a way of reducing the cost of providing a service, or enabling an enhanced service to be provided at no extra cost to the provider.

It was suggested that TCPs may be able to benefit from the termination fee that is received on a call to a 03 number. If so, that may lessen the cost to the renter of that number, who might otherwise seek the even lower cost incurred by using a revenue sharing number. I am not myself convinced that there is much going for the TCP in the termination fee on 03 numbers. The point was however raised as if this would be a bad thing if it were true. I was contradicting this suggestion - if true, it would be good as it would make 03 easier to swallow.

I hope this is clear.

Back to top

@fairtelecoms (tweets)

IP Logged

NGMsGhost

Supreme Member

Offline

The Forum Ghost of NonGeographicalMan<b
r />

Posts: 2,720
Surrey, United Kingdom
Gender: male

Re: Proposed Illegality of Non-Geographic Numbers
Reply #10 - Feb 5^th, 2009 at 12:59pm

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2009 at 12:29pm:

BT has always offered 0845 calls at a cheaper rate than geographic calls

Untrue.

Until BT's recent decision to include 0845 numbers in any call plans with inclusive minutes to 01. 02, 03 numbers customers had to pay extra to call 0845 numbers. For instance 60p per hour to 0845 numbers in the weekday daytime evening compared to 5.5p to call an 01/02 number for an hour.

Also when BT abolished BT Standard line rental in 2004 from that point on 0845 numbers cost the same as 01/02 numbers and were not any cheaper than 0845, even in call periods not covered by your inclusive calling plan. BT only introduced its cheaper 2p per minute rate to 0845 numbers (cheaper than 01/02/03 rates) during chargeable periods within the last 12 months or so.

If you are going to make authoritative statments then please make sure it is on a subject where you do know your facts SCV. Lips Sealed

Back to top

<div style=

IP Logged

NGMsGhost

Supreme Member

Offline

The Forum Ghost of NonGeographicalMan<b
r />

Posts: 2,720
Surrey, United Kingdom
Gender: male

Re: Proposed Illegality of Non-Geographic Numbers
Reply #11 - Feb 5^th, 2009 at 1:01pm

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2009 at 3:46pm:

Nobody sets out to offer a service on a revenue sharing number in order to make money (except perhaps ISPs).

So let me get this right SCV.

Neither NEG or any of the doctors who they persuaded to switch to using 0844 numbers did so because they had a financial motivation in doing so and nor did they reap any financial benefit in doing so? Roll Eyes

Back to top

<div style=

IP Logged

SilentCallsVictim

Supreme Member

Offline

aka NHS.Patient, DH_fairtelecoms

Posts: 2,494

Re: Proposed Illegality of Non-Geographic Numbers
Reply #12 - Feb 5^th, 2009 at 8:33pm

I am required to clarify, or correct, my previous posting.

I understand that on "discounted" BT Together etc. plans the normal pence per minute rate for 0845 was always less than that for geographic numbers. I stand corrected with reference to the discounted evening and weekend rate. I was aware that the addition of 0845 to inclusive packages was recent. The only point I sought to make was that the cost of a non-inclusive daytime call to 0845 being cheaper than that for 01/02/03 was nothing new. This is perverse and makes dealing with the issue of 0845 numbers very difficult.

I thought that my comment about "making money" might be controversial as it arose from clarifying a previously misunderstood point.

"Revenue sharing" numbers are used by those who would have a telephone service anyway, but seek to get it at a reduced cost. I cannot think of anyone who would install a telephone line using a revenue sharing number simply in order to make a profit based purely on the income from the telephone line offsetting the costs incurred. That is where "premium rate services" are quite different in nature at the receiving end. Apart from the scale of the surcharge they are no different for the caller.

NEG only make money out of providing a service to doctors. I cannot think of a practice that would survive perfectly well without a telephone, but might install one, with a revenue sharing number, simply so as to provide extra income.

Of course users of revenue sharing numbers gain financial benefit at the expense of callers. That is why they must be banned in the NHS and throughout all public services where a service fee is not appropriate.

Back to top

@fairtelecoms (tweets)

IP Logged

NGMsGhost

Supreme Member

Offline

The Forum Ghost of NonGeographicalMan<b
r />

Posts: 2,720
Surrey, United Kingdom
Gender: male

Re: Proposed Illegality of Non-Geographic Numbers
Reply #13 - Feb 5^th, 2009 at 10:23pm

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Feb 5^th, 2009 at 8:33pm:

I understand that on "discounted" BT Together etc. plans the normal pence per minute rate for 0845 was always less than that for geographic numbers.

You understand wrong then as for at least three years up to a year or so ago BT charged precisely the same rate for calling 0845 numbers in the weekday daytime as for calling 01/02/03 numbers and charged hugely more to call these numbers than 01/02/03 numbers in the evening and at the weekend. It still charges hugely more to call 0845 numbers than 01/02/03 numbers at the weekend for the millions of its customers who are on the Weekend Calls Plan. 01/02/03 calls up to an hour long are free at the weekend but 0845 calls are not on the BT Weekend Calls Plan and are charged by the minute.

Back to top

<div style=

IP Logged

SilentCallsVictim

Supreme Member

Offline

aka NHS.Patient, DH_fairtelecoms

Posts: 2,494

Re: Proposed Illegality of Non-Geographic Numbers
Reply #14 - Feb 6^th, 2009 at 4:09am

NGMsGhost wrote on Feb 5^th, 2009 at 10:23pm:

You understand wrong

Apologies. I do not have the information with which to verify the true historic position readily available.

My researches even led me to believe that 0845 calls of up to one hour were now free at weekends for those on the weekend plan, rather than customers being charged hugely more. Furthermore, I had understood that from the 61st minute onwards weekend 0845 calls were charged at the lower rates of 1.96ppm (weekend daytime) or 0.49ppm (weekend evening), as against 3.92ppm (all weekend) for 01/02/03.

I had understood that in general 0845 calls of up to one hour were now free at the same times as 01/02/03, i.e. weekends, evenings and weekends or anytime according to the call plan, and were cheaper when charged: 1.96 vs. 3.92 weekday daytime, 0.49 vs. 1.47 weekday evenings.

As stated previously, I was simply trying to get across the point that BT is perverse and unique in offering calls to 0845 numbers at equivalent or lower rates than to 01/02/03, and that this is nothing new. I had seen this fact to present a major obstacle to claims that callers always pay more to call revenue sharing numbers.

I saw this one supplier and this one range as being the single exception (along with those who mirror its charges, and the even more perverse inclusion of 0870 calls in packages) to what should be a simple principle. I saw it as necessary to address this point, given that recent publicity and the prominence of BT means that it cannot be ignored.

Will someone please offer an objective source of information about this matter that we can refer to as the basis for a common understanding in this forum, and that can be passed on to those who would seek verification of claims that we may make. I would also be grateful if someone could advise how, if at all, a claim that callers would never pay more to call a 03 number, rather than a revenue sharing number, needs to be qualified.

Back to top

@fairtelecoms (tweets)

IP Logged