sherbert wrote on Feb 9^th, 2010 at 5:29pm:
While I am no longer familiar with UK telephone packages, I do consider that my package here can accurately be described as providing free calls. Basic phone service (which could be described in British terms as line rental) here, excluding taxes and fees, is $13.68 per month. I consider this to be the cost of providing a line into my location which further provides a dial tone and an ability to make and receive calls, either through the local provider or through any provider of my choice. Some people simply need a line for signalling purposes, whether it be alarm-related or some other facility. It just happens that basic phone service also allows calls to me made to anywhere within the local call area at no cost. Furthermore, such calls are neither metered nor itemized. The phone bill does not list such calls nor does it provide the number or type of calls made. This is usual throughout this country for residential lines, and any such description of free or inclusive calls is not generally used as a marketing tool; rather it is a given that free calls come with basic phone service. So, as I have stated before, with basic phone service, one could happily make a call for 31*24*60 minutes in a typical month (which may well have been popular during dial-up internet imes) and no one would really care. There would be no record of the call on the bill as there is no itemization. Now is this call free or inclusive? My belief is that it can correctly be designated as free. Whilst it can also be considered as inclusive, the free description is not, I would argue, incorrect.

Entirely agree with you Sherbert.    "Free" is a marketing term used by large companies to tease or entice , some would say, the gullible, but as you say, we all pay for these calls one way or another.    The phone companies do not allow calls passed between them to be free of charge -- they still pass originating and terminating fees between each other and account for every cotton pickin' minute in their own accounts and inter-company charges, as I understand things.  (Please correct me if my understanding is incorrect).    They must then generate revenue somehow to cover these unavoidable costs -- so they may indeed be paid for out of the line rental charges.

I am sure they must also monitor very carefully the totals and distribution of call traffic as part of their network utilisation and capacity management activities.   It would not do to have callers unable to connect due to lack of available line capacity.

I would say there are no "free" calls in the UK, (the USA may be different), there are only "inclusive" calls.

loddon wrote on Feb 10^th, 2010 at 10:32am:


Indeed they do, as BT have just announced that the 'evening period' is changing from 6pm to 6am to 7pm to 7am. (From April 1st) They stated in their 'blurb' that people make very short calls between 6pm & 7pm (I guess people come home from work at that time and confirm their evening arrangements). So yes, they must be monitored.

idb wrote on Feb 10^th, 2010 at 12:30am:


Sorry you are wrong, your calls are INCLUSIVE, they are not "free", try not paying your "$13.68 per month" and see if you will still be supplied with "free" calls, the answer is, you won't, therefore by definition your calls are INCLUSIVE!

idb wrote on Feb 10^th, 2010 at 1:00pm:



What we are trying to say is, if your telephone provider charged you for what you call free calls, the rental charge would be lower. So therefore your calls are inclusive and not free, however they wish to market it.

idb wrote on Feb 10^th, 2010 at 1:00pm:



Nothing to do with the Country, you pay a monthly premium that INCLUDES some phone calls,(not "free"), if you don't pay the monthly premium then you don't get the calls!
How are they "free" if you need to if you need to part with cash to receive them?

Free = at no cost!

derrick wrote on Feb 10^th, 2010 at 2:04pm:

If one is to accept that definition of the word as being strict and absolute, then the word can never be used at all. It is always possible to identify some type of cost.

In fact the word "free" is meaningless without some implied or stated qualification, as it refers to the absence of "something". There is always room for a potentially interesting debate around what it is that is implied.

In the specific context of telephone call charges, it refers to the absence of a charge for each call. It is therefore possible to say that one may pay a monthly fee to get calls free (of the particular individual call charge that would otherwise apply). Where there is perhaps an attempt to conceal a specific cost, it may be necessary to point out how this freedom has to be bought, but one cannot necessarily say that it was wholly inappropriate to use the word "free".

Every freedom has some cost! Only a fool would seek to deny, or fail to acknowledge, this fact. Only a total cynic would thereby deny the existence of any freedom. Words (like our freedoms) are available for us to use as we will. It is those who hate them who seek to take them away from us, through fear that we may use them in ways of which they do not approve.

I find it helpful to use the phrase "free at the point of need", when referring to the NHS. It may however take very many words and examples to explain exactly what this means. I may often take the trouble to do so, however I may often use the phrase anyway.