idb wrote on Feb 13^th, 2010 at 11:34am:




Only because you do not want to believe what is in front of your eyes, if you pay pay out for something, anything that comes with it cannot be free as it will be INCLUDED, I have given a definition and an example but you continue to live in your own little air bubble. A definition is a definition whether narrow or not, (not that I agree my definition is).

Dictionary definition of Free;- " to exempt, to absolve from some charge".  You are being charged!
Dictionary definition of Inclusive;- "comprehended in the number or sum", (meaning you calls are INCLUSIVE via the monthly charge!).

Or maybe the word INCLUSIVELY may sit better with you, (although it is basically the same); "so as to include something mentioned"!  i.e. your "free" calls.

BT  state as an example that if you pay £4.99 per month you can have unlimited 24/7 calls to certain numbers,( I am pretty sure they used to state "free", but looks like they changed the wording),they are not free they are being paid for at the charge of £4.99 a month, therefore inclusive, or as BT state "unlimited", which is still not true as you are limited to call durations of 60 minutes on calls to 01/02/03 numbers and a fair use policy on calls to 0845/0870 numbers, go over those limits and you will be charged.

Can we try to take this argument forward onto a matter of particular relevance.

I oppose use of revenue sharing telephone numbers by providers of NHS services, because the NHS is “free at the point of need”.

I regard the expense incurred in paying the price of a normal telephone call to access NHS services as acceptable, but object to the surcharge which subsides the costs of the NHS provider when a revenue sharing 084 number is used.

Can I take it that the “absolutists” would not regard the NHS as being “free” when accessed by telephone unless the NHS paid for the installation and rental of the telephone line as well as all calls. I have encountered this very argument from those who defend use of “Surgery Line”, saying that you have to pay anyway, why not pay a little more for a better service. Do the obsolutists believe that it is simply a question of whether the extra charge provides good value for money, because one is paying out money anyway? If so, then 0844 numbers are absolutely fine so long as there are sufficient callers on the BT Weekends call plan. The same would apply to 0845 numbers for callers on any BT call plan, or with other providers who do not surcharge 0845 calls.

The same argument applies to car parking. Should a hospital meet all incidental expenses incurred in attending an outpatient appointment, e.g. all those associated with travel?

I see this issue as fundamental to the basis of our principled objection to use of revenue sharing numbers in the provision of public services. I am reluctant to see it diluted or destroyed

---

Telephone service is never absolutely free (except perhaps 0800 and 999 calls from a public payphone). There are however some calls that are exempted from "some charge". In common with some of us engaged in this debate, the quoted dictionary does not accept that the word "free" can only be used in an absolute sense. If some calls are exempt from a call charge, whilst others are not, they may be said to be "free" (of a call charge).

If the word were to be used to imply that one may avoid the rental and call plan charge if making only "free" calls, then such a statement would be misleading. In the absence of explcit qualifcation, every word has to be taken in context.

derrick wrote on Feb 13^th, 2010 at 3:16pm:

I would suggest that the difficulty with complications should be felt by those who quote dictionary definitions with which they disagree.

Perhaps we need to establish whether or not we truly share campaign objectives.

For those who would disagree with the general statement that the NHS is “free at the point of need” - can there be any problem with the principle of using revenue sharing telephone numbers in the delivery of NHS services?

I have encountered many people who cannot understand the problem. This is especially true now that for some BT customers all 084 numbers are invariably cheaper to call during weekday daytime than 01/02/03 numbers. I continue to oppose them on the point of principle. I would welcome the opportunity to engage in debate on this matter in this forum as I suspect that some members do not share my view.

It is perhaps natural that our correspondent from the country that was founded with a written constitution that sought to set out a series of liberties (freedoms) would take offence at those who do not demonstrate an appropriate appreciation of the importance of words attempting to either limit their meaning, or proscribe their use.

This is however an open discussion forum in which all are free to express their ideas. I am very keen to hear how the very particular idea of what is "free" that is being advanced here can be applied to the issues on which some of us campaign as a matter of principle.

I believe that I have a sense of what is meant, but I am anxious not to leap to an over-hasty conclusion about a poor degree of unanimity amongst contributors to the forum on a (perhaps the) key issue that separates the campaigning forum from the money-saving database of alternative numbers and suggestions about cheap call providers. The NHS provides a most useful, and I hope relevant, vehicle for identifying where people stand on the issue of what is "free" in a financial sense. From debates that I have encountered (this one for example, I find this issue to be highly relevant to matters on which "we" are campaigning.

The NHS is a uniquely British concept that has developed and continues to work in a very British way. Network telephony was an American invention which grew up in use to suit the very particular federal structure of the US. The British adaptation of it developed under a state monopoly with characteristics fitted to that and also the very different structure of the UK. From what little I know (and without getting into the matter of a possible private monopoly), I am well aware that the US Health and Telephone systems always have been, and always will be, very different from their equivalents here. We are very different, and there are certainly many differences in our respective concepts of freedom.

Please let the discussion of the issues continue.

sherbert wrote on Feb 9^th, 2010 at 5:29pm:
Another package that provides free, and totally free, calls, on a national basis, is Google Voice. While one needs a US phone number to activate and use the service, that number does not need to be one owned by yourself - an office phone will suffice. Google Voice allows free calls, without the need to part with any cash whatsoever, throughout the United States. Now, can Gooogle Voice be accommodated into your understanding of the word 'free'?

sherbert wrote on Feb 15^th, 2010 at 8:18am:

Indeed it does, I am not however sure that this was ever the primary point of contention.

It is disappointing for the discussion to be terminated with many stated views remaining unexplained and questions unanswered. Americans, in general, will always have difficulty in understanding how the NHS is "free at the point of need" and therefore why those who provide NHS services should cease use of revenue sharing numbers. My concern is for those in England who do not "get it", perhaps because they share the more American view of the concept of personal liberty which is starting to be adopted quite widely here in the UK. The consequent acceptance of the use of revenue sharing telephone numbers in the NHS and elsewhere, balanced by nothing more than the right of people to refuse to call them or seek ways around having to do so, is what I personally campaign against. I regret the fact that I am denied the opportunity to engage in discussion with those who would seem to support the freedom to use revenue sharing numbers in inappropriate circumstances.

It is however fair to say that those who express opinions in this forum are free not to participate in further discussion, if they so wish.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Feb 15^th, 2010 at 10:19am:
I'm not so sure that your assertion about American understanding the free nature of the NHS is correct. As you may be aware, there is an ongoing debate over here about health care reform. Comparison is often made with European health care systems in general and the UK system specifically. They are often referred to as 'free' systems or, more pejoratively, as socialized medicine. I believe that if you asked a random selection of Americans, bearing in mind that many do not know the name of their own Vice-President, or that Canada is the nation to the north, or that the Eiffel Tower is in Paris, a large number would say that their perception of the UK NHS is that it provides free health care to anyone who wants it. When asked, I tell my American friends that the NHS does indeed provide free health care to all and is publicly-funded.

Personally, I find it depressing that such a model, or indeed a similar one, does not appear to be wanted over here. There is a large proportion of the population campaigning against something that would it be in their self-interest to actually have. The number of uninsured and under-insured here is staggering.

sherbert wrote on Feb 15^th, 2010 at 1:08pm:
Which, under some circumstances, they have a right to do and it is correct and proper that this should be the case.