I am completely baffled by your post on this site.  Put your question another way, is it right for organisations, whether public sector or private companies, to exploit and rip off customers/potential customers/clients?   Examples - my bank makes an error, why should I have to pay a premium to contact them to rectify THEIR mistake?  - my local county council fails in its duty to me as a resident - why should it cost me a premium to contact them to rectify the matter? -  as a member of the public, I am entitled to eg certain benefits, how ilogical that it should cost me to contact the relevant government department to either claim the benefit or, more usually, correct their errors?  In all these cases, I have already paid for the privsion of the service and should not be charged again for using it.

Other examples, I buy eg an electrical item, it malfunctions, why should I have to pay a premium to contact the company to rectify/repair their faulty goods?

The ONLY examples of reasonable use of any kind of premium rate number, in my view, relate to some of those who use 09 numbers, for example competition lines or dodgy adult lines where, if the caller is stupid enough to use them, they deserve to be exploited.

So, in answer to your question yes, it IS totally ethical to make any and every attempt within one's power to avoid being the victim of exploitation and, in some cases, virtual robbery, by cynical, underhand organisations.  Indeed, I would argue further that those of us who are able to find ways of avoiding these numbers have an actual public duty to find alternatives and publish them as widely as possible for the benefit of those who are less able to fight for themselves.

The post is perfectly reasonable, not in the least baffling.

The most commonly stated point is that the charge levied by an organisation using a revenue sharing number is generally not advised. Because it is collected through a third party, who may add to or subtract from it, there is no clear visibility whatsoever. That is deemed by many to be unethical.

The point raised by the OP however relates not to the ethical status of the misuser of a revenue sharing number, but that of those who seek to publish alternative numbers so that those who are willing and able to access this site may avoid paying the premium, whilst others incur it.

I would seriously question two positions. Firstly, that it is ethical to measure one's own ethical standards by reference to one's perception of the ethical standards of those whom one opposes; I say that it is not. Secondly, I have a severe problem with the idea that those who are stupid enough to participate in any form of lottery or to seek sexual gratification by telephone are somehow less worthy of concern than those who are intelligent and eloquent enough to complain about any injustice which they feel they may have suffered; if anything, I would tilt the balance of my concern in the opposite direction. The power that is held by the self-righteous complainer is one of the unhappy effects of our consumer society, not least by the way in which organisations are forced to adapt to accommodate it.

Where an alternative number offered is a direct alternative, giving precisely the same access, the only ethical issue is the additional cost burden that this places on other customers and users of the service.

In many cases the published alternatives provide an alternative route to the desired service, or to an alternative service. This raises ethical issues in respect of the caller and the organisation called. Some callers take great joy in putting themselves and others to considerable trouble in order to score a victory that is worth far more to them than the money that is saved (if any). Those who fail to recognise that some numbers are not fully accepted alternatives may suffer. Those who answer calls to ill-chosen alternatives may be subjected to unwarranted abuse by callers who attempt to redefine their job function and responsibilities or attempt to hold them personally responsible for all manner of ills practiced by their employer or commissioning organisation. It is arguable as to whether the web site encourages or sanctions such behaviour.

A common ethical defence for the publication of alternative numbers is the suggestion that if enough people use the alternatives then the revenue sharing number will inevitably be taken out of use and that the loss of subsidy will inflict deserved punishment on those responsible for the misuse. I have yet to be convinced that these arguments are more than the familiar consumerist fallacy. The theory sounds great. I am however not aware of a single example of aggregated "consumer pressure" causing a revenue sharing number to be removed in favour of a published alternative. I would also think it unlikely that a tiny proportionate increase in the unit cost of handling some incoming telephone calls would have any significant bearing on the remuneration of the person responsible for the decision to use a revenue sharing number.

We have addressed the question of how far an organisation can truly possess a "moral personality", beyond the subjective perception of those who deal with it, and the extent to which this can be determined by the use of revenue sharing telephone numbers, elsewhere in this forum.

Thanks, sherbert, I am still trying to comprehend SCV's post as it seems he is, as so often, looking through the opposite end of the telescope from the rest of us.   I frequently wonder at his link with this forum when he seems to differ so greatly with the aims of the majority of regular users.  I feel that my ethics/morals/principles have been insulted but cannot be certain......  I felt the OP was being either disingenuous or atempting a little mischief!

I have modified my earlier posting (in blue) to clarify my personal position, which sadly seems to be of more concern than the issues themselves.

For further clarification, I will confirm that for the private sector I see use of revenue sharing numbers as little more than an issue of price labelling. The fact that users of revenue sharing numbers do not themselves determine the actual level of the premium cost that is incurred provides them with a get-out.

I hope that Ofcom addresses this matter in the coming review, to set a maximum for the premium, over the cost of a geographic call, for each type of revenue sharing (and PRS) range. It can now impose such requirements on all providers. This would enable the phrase “calls cost up to x more than the cost of a chargeable geographic call” to be used in all cases and with confidence. If the requirements of the “NTS condition” are removed from BT as part of the recognition of it no longer holding SMP status, then that would disqualify any right to use BT rates as if typical.

I see the issue for the public sector as being quite different. Whilst the cost saving achieved by use of revenue sharing numbers in the private sector keeps other prices low, in the public sector this benefit is seen in levels of taxation (or public debt, i.e. future taxation). Apart from those cases where public services are delivered at a charge that can be declared, use of revenue sharing numbers, to subsidise the cost to taxpayers, is simply unacceptable.

I sometimes despair of the fact that contributors to this forum are invariably measured as being on one side or another of some great moral divide. Some project this same view onto the world in general. How can the Department for Transport be seen to have totally changed its nature and moral standing because it has now abandoned revenue sharing numbers in favour of 03xx? As with all other organisations, this was one relatively tiny decision in the midst of very many others. It was probably made by people who had no part in the original decision, but had been defending the status quo up to the day when it changed.

Can we turn our attention to the interesting topic of the ethical position of saynoto0870, rather than that of members who post and organisations that make mistakes, or maybe this position must be regarded as being beyond reproach in its own threads.

Let us clear up one point. Any private sector organisation that fails to fully reimburse ALL out of pocket expenses, or compensate for them in some way, when a customer has been the victim of an unsatisfactory product or service is failing in its ethical duty. If part of that expense is a premium charge for a telephone call then that should be included in the settlement. Use of revenue sharing numbers for booking, enquiry or after-sales service lines should be subject to proper price declaration, as fees may be deemed appropriate for these services.

Because we all own public sector bodies, we should not be in the same consumerist situation - the relationship is (or rather it should be) totally different. Where a fee has been charged for a public service, then its partial or total refund should be considered in the event of a service failure. Most public services should not be subject to usage fees anyway, and that includes those levied by means of a revenue sharing telephone number.

The failure to write about the possible abuse caused by ringing a different number and demanding the same service may be matched by a failure to read precisely what I had to say on the subject.

My concern about this issue is indeed focused on the public service, with the NHS at the head of the queue. This priority is set for a number of good reasons, not the least of which is "Surgery Line", although the "free at the point of need" mantra is another useful tool for campaigning. In almost every area of public service, use of revenue sharing numbers is wholly unacceptable. This is for reasons that are must broader than the shallow consumerist argument put forward to suggest their unacceptability in some limited areas of the private sector.

I do not believe that it is fair to describe my interest in these matters as "narrow". I think that this accusation would be more fairly levelled at saynoto0870 and forum members, if we are getting down to exchanges of this sort. I am very closely engaged with the way that Ofcom is dealing with the broader aspects of the issue, as referred to in my postings. I am surprised that nobody has commented on this, as I see it as paramount in the context of the way forward for the broader issues. I fear that many members are content to take the narrower view, expecting that nothing can be achieved, so that they can remain fixed in their opinions, with their prejudices reconfirmed.

The database of alternative numbers can be likened to going into a shop and saying that you don't want to pay the price shown for a particular item. With a telephone call this may be ringing a sales number because it's freephone, and requesting to be put through to customer services, for example. It's certainly wrong to abuse staff in a shop if they won't give you a discount.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Jan 9^th, 2010 at 1:47pm:

As the misunderstanding appears to continue, I will try to explain my point further. I quote the relevant paragraph as published, with some key words highlighted.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Jan 8^th, 2010 at 4:25pm:

The highlights show the qualification of my comments that some appear to have been unable to read or understand. I will be happy to go into the meaning and relevance of each of these words and phrases, if requested.

I am unlikely to acquire any depth of shared understanding with those who subscribe (in significant measure) to the consumerist myths that competition is the answer to all of life’s ills and that the only way of securing the change we seek is by engaging in a formal complaints procedure.

I totally reject the former, and do all I can to avoid the latter when campaigning. I would be delighted to join in debate with those who seek to address the points that I actually make,  and am ready to offer clarification in response to a genuinely expressed desire to understand.

I believe that this is the proper purpose of a “discussion forum”, and find all of this presentation, challenge and defence of personal positions to be unhelpful to the cause that we are seeking to promote, as well as that of good debate. I believe that it matters little what I and other members think or do, furthermore I see little purpose in attempting an assessment of the moral character of organisations that use revenue sharing telephone numbers. We post here, using nicknames (rather than having to provide our full identity), so that we can discuss issues, not personalities.