jrawle, with regard to your penultimate paragraph, the vast majority of people just want/need to pick up a phone and dial without having to do a calculation for which one would need a maths degree & the investigative powers of a top detective before deciding when and how to make the call.   I think simplicity is the key, I think inclusive call packages are good because they allow one to budget without individual call calculation or checking the time (if on Anytime), this is the problem with NGNs, there is a proliferation of slightly differing codes and tariffs, seemingly dependant upon the number following the four digit initial code and this is surely designed to muddy the waters to the stage where people have to give up and just make the call.   If there were no NGNs (other than overt premium rate like 09 which is generally used by organisations one doesn't have to call) and there was a standard per minute charge for those calls where people did not have inclusive packages, life would be as it should be - simpler!

sherbert wrote on Feb 4^th, 2010 at 4:54pm:

This is getting dangerously close to consensus, as I too find myself happy to endorse almost all of what was said.

It is inappropriate use of “revenue sharing” numbers that we object to, i.e. all beginning 084. I would say that the propriety to which I refer demands a clear declaration of a) the fact of revenue sharing and b) the likelihood that this will lead to a premium charge, a standard which almost all current users fail to meet.

I hope that we can accept 03 numbers for use in cases where there is some genuine benefit in having a NGN. This causes no additional cost to the caller, so the only grounds for objection to the use of the number are for those who wish to take issue with the fact that a relatively expensive item of telephone technology has been deployed. Centralisation of call handling, which is commonly the reason for use of a NGN, is a quite different topic.

There cannot be a standard per minute charge whilst 1) there is competition in the market for telecoms services, 2) users of mobile phones are subsidised by those who call them, and 3) revenue sharing numbers remain as an unregulated lower tier of PRS. The forthcoming work by Ofcom may address related issues and perhaps one aspect of the latter point. It will not however seek to undermine the first, as Ofcom is bound to encourage competition under the terms of its second principle duty; the second issue is a different topic altogether.

I am not sure what we would wish Ofcom to do about the first two of these issues, or how happy we would be if progress on the third is slower and less comprehensive than we would wish. There is fun to come.

Because the cost of providing a telephone network are mostly in the capacity required when under peak load, rather than in connecting individual calls, it has always been accepted that call charges will differ according to the time when the call is placed - a further dent in the idea of a "standard charge". Callers are encouraged to call at times when the network is relatively quiet by being penalised for calling when it is busy. This can never be very precise, as tariffs have to be relatively simple, however this has been tweaked from time to time. One might wonder if the hour between 6pm and 7pm has been found to be a peak, whilst continuing business calls and (inclusive) domestic calls overlap, thereby requiring the change that has been announced.

The cost predictability derived when subscribing to a fully inclusive package is mirrored by the revenue predictability on the other side. This not only provides financial security, but also, and thereby, makes it easier to invest in increased capacity, should this be necessary.

Can I please echo sherbert's comments?    It is a relief to know others feel as I do.  I too have problems with understanding SCV's posts, having to re-read them many times (I have similar problems American novels and American political speeches!)   My mother, whose English was superb, always impressed most forcibly upon me that the purpose of language, whether written or spoken, was to communicate effectively with others, if one's "audience" had problems understanding, then one had failed; this point was also made both at school and (in my distant working past) in the workplace.    PLEASE could we have clear and concise posts which we can all understand at first reading?

There are a number of inferences in post no 35 which many readers of this forum may see as less than complimentary, partciularly to those other posters who have merely sought to make posts accessible to all users of this forum, as I hope no one would seek to promote elitism where only a select few can understand all or certain posts.   I do not see any purpose in any kind of impolite exchange but I will state, again: clarity and brevity must always be admired as tools in the clear communication of facts and ideas, conversely, abtruseness can never be of any benefit unless the writer wishes deliberately to conceal meaning, an odd tool for a forum where one seeks to exchange ideas and perhaps influence others.  To cast aspersions on the intelligence or understanding of those who prefer clarity and brevity and who seek to promote same is, in my view, unhelpful to say the least.

Thank you, sherbert.   Let's hope we can have a new beginning where everyone can understand and join the exchange of information and views, surely the best way for knowledge and understanding to grow.

jrawle wrote on Feb 4^th, 2010 at 4:02pm:

Thanks jrawle. The link you posted, www.bt.com/dealterms, says that a BT customer can switch to the most basic tariff, the "Unlimited Weekend Plan", or "Unlimited Evening & Weekend Plan" (paid for) and not enter into a minimum term contract. Of course, they can only do this if they are not in such a contract. As you point out, there is also a minimum 12 month contract for new customers and existing customers who move their service to another address.


Barbara wrote on Feb 4^th, 2010 at 4:47pm:

Simplicity existed when BT was the only provider. As jrawle has pointed, the changes are down to the changing market.

If, as you imply, all NGNs that cost more than the package were to disappear and all numbers were part of an inclusive package, it stands to reason that the marketeers within each telephone company will be busy devising some other way to set themselves apart from the competition.

Previously it was different call rates for geographic calls, but now it is moving towards the cost of included calls. Meanwhile, the cost of calls that are outside of packages, such as 0844 and 0871, have been rising, what with the "call set-up" fee which is proliferating everywhere.

jrawle wrote on Feb 6^th, 2010 at 6:37pm:

I see it as perfectly acceptable to respond to the points made and to develop related themes.

jrawle wrote on Feb 6^th, 2010 at 6:37pm:

The Terminate the Rate campaign has support from some unexpected organisations, who seem to believe that money grows on trees. They subscribe to the suggestion that the only effect of success for the campaign would be to the advantage of customers. There is an assumption that mobile operators would meet the loss of termination rate income by diminishing the size of a slush fund they have been holding, rather than preserving their income in some other way - e.g. stopping their customers from benefitting from this subsidy, which has kept their charges artificially low.

In principle it is fair that the user should pay for a service, rather than having it subsidised by others. The problem in this case is with the way in which the telecoms market in the UK has been allowed to develop, with “new” technology being favoured. A swift change back now would have considerable social consequences for those who have come to rely on using a mobile phone under the current terms. This is a tricky matter, where what is right in principle may not be right in practice.

Such matters are of no concern to BT, which is naturally in favour of mobile customers paying for their service, rather than them being subsidised by its customers. It is however disturbing to see organisations such as the NUS, RNID, RCN, GMB, Unite and Age Concern / Help the Aged taking a position that seriously threatens the interests of many less well off people.

The primary sponsor of the Terminate the Rate Campaign is “3”. Better informed contributors may be able to offer a clear explanation for its maverick position on commercial issues amongst the mobile network providers. It is however clear that this is all about some beef that it has with the other four.

---

jrawle wrote on Feb 6^th, 2010 at 6:37pm:

The most interesting suggestion, that standard format voice telephony, and even SMS, is outdated, having been superseded by use of the internet, is certainly worthy of discussion.

If this were to be now, or to become, true then I do not agree that there should be an emphasis on access to communications technology only being provided through fixed point connections, which are only suitable for those who are housebound. Whilst some people may have no use for a mobile communications device, I am not sure that the potential for communications through the internet is really so great that it will prevent us all from ever needing or wanting to leave our homes. That is a very “brave” idea, which has many supporters, not least amongst the ranks of those concerned for the environment.

I personally believe that standard (i.e. not relying on a user ip connection) interactive voice telephony, both fixed and mobile, does have a future, if only of perhaps 20 or 30 years. It certainly retains a major place in the lives of most people today.

As VOIP develops, along with other subscription based services, the emphasis on “pay as you use” fees, i.e. call charges, will diminish as the overhead of call billing mechanisms will probably not be entertained as being economic, because the total cost will be so small. I see the current moves by BT and others as being part of this trend.

This will eventually kill off the option for “Premium Rate” services (including those presently classified as simply “revenue sharing”). We do however have some way to go before this point is reached and odd effects will be created in the course of the long drawn out transition. The original topic of this thread has served to point out examples of this.

(I would be delighted if someone with a better knowledge of VOIP, its current penetration, especially on mobile devices, and likely development of both this and other internet based interactive communications services, perhaps voice and image, could contribute some helpful thoughts.)


As most members of this forum are keen users of voice telephony, it is very interesting to hear the views of one who is not, and finds that he has to pay for it nevertheless. It is perhaps unfortunate that those who are not users of the internet are unable to contribute to our discussions! This means that we may not get a balanced view of its merits.