SilentCallsVictim wrote on Aug 28
th, 2009 at 10:01am:
More on this and the implications
here.
BT charges are a wholly unsuitable reference point for call costs because
its charging structure is atypical. This is due to regulation of some rates, and the imposition of penalty charges for those who make calls outside their call plan in other cases. (How else can a 33% per annum rate of price increase be justified!)
And now ...
Dave wrote on Sep 7
th, 2009 at 11:54am:
... its share of residential (landline) call volumes by duration has been below 50% for twelve months, most recently standing at 46.7% (see Section 2 Table 8).
Adding in mobiles, with a little jiggling as the figures are incomplete and do not split out business calls,
BT’s share of personal telephone calls is fairly estimated at around 25%, the same as its over-reported share of all calls. (Some figures for mobile calls are not included. Data aggregated from S3 Table 2 and S2 Table 13.)
Unless there is good reason to assume otherwise,
anyone quoting only BT prices is ignoring 75% of calls made.
Those mentioning the cost of calling a revenue sharing number could fairly use a statement along the following lines:
Quote:Telephone service providers will charge more than usual for calls to this number because their revenue has to be shared with us, BT charges may vary.
If they wish to append an additional comment that specially promotes BT as their recommended provider with illustrations of its low or zero call charges, then I see no reason why they should not do so. If they want to add a claim that they give their share of the revenue away to their telephone company or a charity, such as their senior staff benevolent fund, then that too could be appended, but only after the essentially true statement has been made.