derrick wrote on Dec 31^st, 2009 at 11:01am:


I do not have enough boot space in my car (MR2 Roadster) to be able to accommodate a permanent spare petrol can.

So far as running out of petrol is concerned surely its about time that most car manufacturers came up with something better than  a miserable needle that can be out by as much as 7 or 8 litres in terms of your actual amount of fuel remaining.

Anyhow its the first time I have run out of fuel in this car in the seven years I have owned it and one of TomTom's latest Satnavs that tried to direct me to a petrol station with an allegedly low price that turned out not to even exist on the ground was the main culprit in the whole sequence of events.  As a result I over-ran the latest point (in terms of the petrol gauge display) at which I would normally fill up by at least 7 miles but I didn't realise that I was routinely running so near to the bottom of the petrol tank.  My previous MGF sports car used to read well below empty when it still had about 7 litres left in the tank but it appears this is not true of the MR2 Roadster.

Also the MGF would let you continue for five miles or so after appearing to run out if you switched off and waited a couple of minutes but there seems to be no such second chance given in the MR2 Roadster.................

NGMsGhost, thanks for the story, for keeping us all entertained! I pictured you initially with your Yaris on a lonely dual carriageway.

Dave wrote on Dec 31^st, 2009 at 1:39pm:


I would probably wrongly imagine you or Derrick as being the ones owning the Toyota Yarises.

I know that loddon always likes to drive something a little more sporty or powerful being also something of an unreconstructed petrolhead like my good self.

I maintain that anybody using an 0800 or 0500 number should be required to publish the geographic alternative. Some of my reasons are below:

Calls to these numbers are not free from
Over 40 million people in the UK have mobiles. Many of these are on contract.
Nearly all contracts have inclusive geo minutes, making landlines a waste of money (note the latest BT ads begging people to come back, citing poor signal etc) Many people therefore no longer have a landline.
Many 08 or 05 numbers are dialled outdoors eg Recovery services and therefore are not free unless you find a functional call box.

Companies have to pay extra for 08 or 05 numbers. These costs are then passed on to customers.
It would be preferable to choose to spend this money on services I require rather than give it to telecomms companies fo providing no extra service whatsoever.

The 0800 dial through numbers are great, but not everybody knows about them. Therefore we still have the extra associated costs passed on to us by the companies that use them.

Your thoughts please?

Absolutely, but why have both unless completely necessary? That is why many people are choosing only to have a mobile.

Addiotnally, it is difficult for students, private tenants, house sharers etc to have their own landline.

Furthermore, back to the point at hand, why do companies not publish a geo number as well as a freephone? This choice allows customers to save money and companies to save money too!

Click this link for an organisation that does this and shows their reasons too...

http://www.wandle.com/main.cfm?Type=CU

QUOTE: "Residents can contact Wandle's Customer Services Team on 0800 731 2030 (freephone) or 020 8682 7442 (if you are ringing from a mobile) between 9am and 5pm weekdays."

A fantastic example of caring about the customer.

It is all about freedom of choice. Simples!

floella2 wrote on Jan 9^th, 2010 at 4:39pm:

There are crucial differences between landline and mobile inclusive tariffs.

Inclusive minutes on a mobile are just that; the more you buy the more it costs. Inclusive landline tariffs are unlimited.

I presume you are one of these people who only have a mobile. So you are quite happy to give a number whose cost is high relative to a landline call for others to call you at home, but companies give you a number that costs you far more from your telephone, you moan about it.

Dave wrote on Jan 9^th, 2010 at 6:36pm:


Everybody seems to have missed my point, which is:

Use freephone numbers but publish the geographic number too so that people have the CHOICE of which number is most cost effective to call.

As for 'moaning' about it, I do not actually know anybody that needs their landline to call mobiles (I only know two people who have one!). In addition, I do not give out my number to businesses unless ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL.

But for those who need a landline, which of course there are also many, my suggestion offers a practical solution that is beneficial to those as well.

floella2 wrote on Jan 10^th, 2010 at 2:40am:


I hope that my posting took the point fully. My only quibble is over the alleged need for compulsion as this is (almost always) in the interests of the call recipient.


When addressing the reason for the problem we come back to the question of how mobile telephony is funded. A sizable element is obtained through the termination charges levied on other providers., These enable the market to grow and provide kids and the less well off with low cost access to telephony. It is argued that this money is simply channelled away as excess profit rather than being used to fund the provision of network services for incoming calls to PAYG users. I do not know claim to know exactly what would happen if these rates were removed, however I am not convinced by the arguments of the "Terminate the Rate" campaign, which maintains that this would have no effect whatsoever on any other aspect of the mobile business.

My personal inclination is for mobile users to be required to meet the full cost of the service they are using, without subsidy from those who call them (or those who they call on "freephone"). Given the pattern of mobile usage that has developed however (especially PAYG for the less well off) I cannot but feel concerned for the effect that a change may have. I would have rather not started from where we are, but in the real world this is what we must do. If forced to offer a suggestion, I would propose that the termination rate be phased out gradually over many years so as to give the market time to adjust, and to watch for any undesirable effects. This is far from ideal as any necessary regulatory intervention would almost certainly come too late. This is however an inevitable feature of an attempt to use competition to meet the needs of consumers, whilst making it subject to regulation that is intended primarily to enable a free market to work.


Some suggest that those wishing to offer a "free to caller" service should be compelled to pay these termination rates by accepting calls from mobiles and that Ofcom should have had the courage to preside over the withdrawal of freephone offers to landline callers which may have ensued. My only comment is that I have seen no evidence of a queue of 0800 users at Riverside House, demanding the right to pay in full for calls from mobiles.

Whilst some mobile tariffs charge more than the cost of an ordinary call for a call to a 0800 number, many do however charge only that. This does not address the complaint that the cost of the call should be met in full by the recipient. Would those who argue that this is an acceptable charge for a call to a "freephone" number accept that the same charge should be levied for every incoming call from a landline?