Guidance on pricing information for 0845 and 0870 numbers was changed just over a year ago to reflect the changes to BT's tariffs which saw 0845 charges brought down below that of geographic calls:

http://cap.msgfocus.com/q/16COL8tNfEj/wv

SCV - I agree entirely.

In another thread I asked if companies listing the call rates from a BT landline were breaking unfair competition rules by persistently promoting one supplier over the other.

An increasing number of people, approx 15% (population not households) no longer have ANY landline anyway.

sherbert wrote on Apr 15^th, 2010 at 7:16pm:


Sherbert, my limited Internet knowledge, extends thus far: Virgin Media provide cable only Internet, and it can be sold without it's landline service, also there is a rise in the number of mobile broadband users, which also do not need/require a PSTN (Landline) connection or service.

To have home ADSL Broadband a landline IS required however.

I hope this helps.

floella2 wrote on Apr 15^th, 2010 at 7:02pm:


If that is indeed the case, then the 15% must rely on their mobiles, then those people  are as just as bad as the companys that use 08 numbers as it costs more to phone a mobile than a landline

sherbert wrote on Apr 16^th, 2010 at 6:36am:

I was reponding to the question:

Quote:

The only figure I could find was for households (37%), not population. Clearly the raw population percentage would be higher, as many will benefit from a connection that they do not actually pay for themselves. One could speculate as to whether there is any difference in the average size of households that have broadband as against those who do not. I would suggest that smaller households are less likely to have broadband, so the percentage of the population without access to fixed broadband at home is probably smaller than the figures given.

I do however conclude my quoted posting by commenting that the issue here is with BT prices. These are not enjoyed by a sufficient proportion of the population to make them worthy of exclusive consideration with reference to rules about pricing assumptions in advertising.

---

sherbert wrote on Apr 16^th, 2010 at 6:32am:

This is a fair point. Under the present regime, all mobile users (not just those without landlines) benefit from a subsidy paid by those who call them, in the same way as those who use 08 numbers. (In the case of 080 users, their only benefit is in not meeting the full cost of incoming calls from mobiles.)

One could however argue that mobile users have no alternative; they cannot opt to meet their share of the cost of incoming calls under the present regime. The same applies to 080 users who wish to be "free to caller".

Those who use revenue sharing and PRS 08 numbers have however had the option of 03 for two years now. It is also likely that the same service could always have been offered using geographic numbers, although possibly at greater expense than with 03, and in some cases at a greater cost for some callers.

It is the choice to opt for subsidy from callers that is the focus of criticism, especially (as is commonly the case) where this done dishonestly. There are few of us who offer our mobile number and claim that it costs no more than a call to a geographic number.

Would you agree that companies publish this in such a way as to make the cost of the call appear negligable to many people? (After all they would hardly say 'calls from T Mobile will cost 40p per minute, calls from landlines may be considerably less...' lol)

SCV states that 'Saynoto0870 should urge the CAP to wake up to the fact that BT is neither the sole, nor even the dominant, provider of telephone service in the UK.' AGREE ENTIRELY!

Sherbert asks if 15% of the population do not have broadband, in actual fact 73% of households currently have an internet connection (type of connection not stated) http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=8

My question is this: (Please stick with me here - I am looking somewhat outside of the box)

What is the legal stance when Government Departments are advertising BT as a Telephone Provider on practically all of its publications? Is this not unfair on other providers?

I personally feel it must surely be illegal but I cannot find the rules on the matter! If it is illegal and we can challenge it, it would open up another avenue to push harder (with a different tactic) for 03xx numbers as is could possibly remove the need for them to publish such information about BT.

If anyone can find the law on this matter I will PERSONALLY notify every single telephone provider in the UK and get them to do the donkey work for us!!!!!

floella2 wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2010 at 4:26pm:



Of course, no one is taking into account the number of people that who do not have internet connection but go to the public library or internet cafes (or even use a friend's) to use the internet.

Yawn.

Whatever sham of proactivity Ofcom may try to create all of the scams will remain firmly in place as happened with 070 numbers despite earlier promises by Ofcom to take action.