Numbers beginning 0871 and 09xx are classified as "Premium Rate Services" and are regulated by PhonepayPlus.

Numbers prefixed 0844 also carry a subsidy to the receiving party. This fits the dictionary definition of a "premium", hence I believe that 0844 number are premium rate.

But what does "national rate" mean? To me, they use these terms to pretend that there is no premium.

A national geographical call doesn't carry the subsidy of a 0844 call, hence call charges are greater.

You might be interested in document 180805 from Trading Standards Institute:

http://www.eastsussex.gov.uk/business/tradingstandards/detail.aspx?ref=180805&cl...

As Dave says, the term "Premium Rate Services" (PRS) has some formal status as it is declared in the Communications Act 2003 with reference to the services delivered on number ranges designated by Ofcom to fall within the self-regulation of PhonePay Plus.

Calls to 0844 and 0845 numbers are subject to revenue sharing and attract a premium charge in effectively the same manner as those to PRS, however they are not designated as being used for PRS.

Other terms have no such formal and general definition over which to have an argument.

"national rate" has been used by BT to describe the rate applicable to calling geographic numbers not designated as "local" to a particular caller. At one time this did apply to calls to 0870 numbers, but never 0844. At this time "local rate" applied to calls to 0845 numbers. The distinction between "national" and "local" rate disappeared in 2004. Ofcom has introduced the term "UK rate" to apply to that applicable to calls to geographic numbers.

Some providers use the wholly misleading term "lo-call" with reference to calls to 0844 and 0845 numbers. This reflects the fact that the premium charged on these calls is "lo"wer than that on calls to PRS numbers. The term is however used to imply that the cost is low in absolute rather than relative terms.

In the absence of any regulation covering the charge made for calling 0844 and 0845 numbers (except those applicable to BT because of its unique status), or of the manner in which the charge is declared by users of the numbers, one may describe it in any way that does not fall foul of the restrictions imposed by Trading Standards or the ASA. I personally describe the charge as being a premium rate, although always without placing this in parentheses, as it is not a formally defined term. It reflects the simple reality that the rate charged includes a premium element.

(Perhaps someone better versed in such matters would like to collate and polish these comments and update the relevant Wikipedia entry for the UK.)

My advice to Biscuity is to put aside semantic argument so as to get the true point across. The user of the 0844 number benefits from the revenue sharing process at the expense of callers (unless the Telco is being allowed to rip-off both parties). If they are content with that, then they owe callers an explanation of why their service by telephone warrants a charge. If unaware of this, perhaps having been misled by their provider, they should be invited to verify the truth of the situation and then come back with a comment about what they are going to do about it.

Biscuity wrote on Nov 13^th, 2009 at 8:58am:

You are right to complain, but the geographical number for them is listed in our database should you need to make contact. 

Thanks, but I'm at the point where I'm making a general principle. 

NGMsGhost wrote on Nov 16^th, 2009 at 7:04pm:


This is an easy assumption to make about any organisation and it could be founded on one of many different tests, as most organisations are amoral in their nature. Few organisations would be found to be morally sound if subjected to a very close examination of every policy decision taken with reference to customer contact.

There will be many cases where 084 numbers were adopted with the very best of intentions on the basis of the best advice available - assurances from those offering to provide them. We know that these are frequently misleading or downright dishonest.

As a campaigner, I reject this council of despair. I believe that it is worth engaging with those who use revenue sharing numbers in the hope of instigating change. If not, then we are simply a bunch of moaners who expect to achieve nothing positive.

(This familiar exchange between old friends is repeated for the benefit of new members who may not have read it before.)