Dave wrote on Apr 24^th, 2010 at 9:05pm:



Yea, but you are cleverer than the rest of us Dave

So from what I can understand from all this, we must not take it for granted what we see on the telephone provider web sites is correct? How do we know that it is not correct after all it is they that set and publish the prices.

sherbert wrote on Apr 24^th, 2010 at 9:03pm:

As I have tried to say many times, if you get into the detail of these issues, which includes errors on websites to make matters even worse, telephone charges in a diverse and part regulated market is not simple stuff.

From many conversations with them, I find that those who use 084 numbers are often no less confused than the rest of us.

We share the common belief that using revenue sharing numbers is at best a bit dodgy and at worst totally improper and illegal. Some of us choose to engage in the issue in a way that requires understanding as much of the detail as they can. Others are perhaps driven to do that anyway. Equally there may be some who do not want to get involved in the messy detail at all. Being from the first of these groups, I cannot expect those from the latter to be interested in reading many of my postings - that is fair enough. I hope that I can show proper respect for those who approach these issues differently. When we actually disagree on points of detail, or of principle, we must be able to discuss these differences, if it is appropriate to do so.

I take no particular joy in presenting the confused and potentially confusing situation as I see it. I am however keen to share my understanding for the sake of those who may wish to benefit from it. I see it as vital for campaigners to have a fair knowledge of what they are up against. There is no point in saying that it always costs more to call revenue sharing numbers when that is untrue - even though it obviously should be if all was simple.

JoeCurry wrote on Apr 25^th, 2010 at 8:22am:

The database of alternatives is here because the statement that "it costs more than 01/02/03" is always true for 0871/2/3, almost always true for 0844/3, commonly true for 0870, generally true for 0845 and often true for 080.

The list of exceptions is different for each type. In the case of 0844/3, 0845 and 080 calls, these sometimes cost less than 01/02/03. In the case of 0870, 0845 and 080 calls, these sometimes cost the same as 01/02/03. That is sadly the difficult and potentially confusing truth of the situation in which we choose to campaign.

The forum is here in part for those who are campaigning against inappropriate and improper use of any of these numbers to share information and discuss the issues. When engaged in discussion or when responding to complaints, users of these numbers may offer true facts as justification. I see it as vital to present an argument or complaint that cannot be dismissed in this way. I believe that when campaigning, one should not risk losing an argument through overstating an otherwise valid case. I also believe that it is helpful to understand any factually correct, but inadequate, justification that may be offered.

It is for each of us to judge how far the fact that it does not always cost more to call revenue sharing numbers affects our efforts and approach. I focus my efforts more strongly on 0844/3 than 0845, where both are used, but that does not in any way diminish the efforts that I put into campaigning against 0845.

I believe that the vast majority of public sector bodies should move immediately from 084 to 0300 or 034 (or perhaps geographic) numbers. I accept that this may (at least for the moment) cause some callers to pay more as well as possibly increasing the cost to taxpayers of running the service. I do not shout about these disadvantages of the move, however I do not try to pretend that they do not exist.

Some may feel that it is good and fair tactics to counter one lie with another - I do not.

JoeCurry wrote on Apr 25^th, 2010 at 11:16am:

This is where we disagree Joe. I want your surgery (and all others) to return to a geo number, or adopt the equivalent 0344 number if that is necessary because of their contractual commitment to Talk Talk. I do not want the 0844 number to be retained and published by saynoto0870, so that those with the BT unlimited weekends package can save 0.9p per minute by having the choice to avoid the new number when calling during weekday daytimes. (Although cheaper then, the 0844 number would be more expensive for them at other times.)

Where alternatives are cheaper for all or where users are able to avoid any confusion about which number is best for them, then saynoto0870 is a most valuable service. That is why some have been able to choose to make money out of selling the alternatives published here.

As a general rule (to which there are exceptions) I do not believe that service providers should be encouraged to offer multiple numbers because of the confusion that this can cause for users who are not fully clued in to the complexities of telephone tariffs. Offering "choice" in this type of situation is simply a way for the service provider to pass the buck to their users, so that they can justify benefiting from those unable to make the right decision.

It is fundamentally wrong for a NHS provider to benefit from revenue sharing. Offering patients the opportunity to avoid incurring the consequent cost is a wholly inadequate response. I approve of the principle that NHS patients are denied the choice to pay more for a better service.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Apr 25^th, 2010 at 12:38pm:


The NHS is underfunded and could do with a share of the lottery cash in addition to current arrangements. I think the use of 0844/0845 numbers will start eroding original
principles. Where will it end? MD's with "buy Bill's burgers T shirts"? Large screen TV's advertising local traders?  I don't know what the answer to increased funding is but I'm sure 0844 providers should not be allowed to benefit from chugging the NHS.

JoeCurry wrote on Apr 25^th, 2010 at 2:31pm:

The consensus seems to be that the NHS will have to make do with what it has for the time being. Many of us feel that further commercialisation is not a price worth paying for expansion, as this would inevitably dilute vital cherished principles.

I am one of those who oppose the choice to make additional tax contributions to fund core spending by buying lottery tickets.

We are however in total agreement about the need to remove revenue sharing numbers from the NHS, with 03 numbers being adopted where necessary.

I think it's also worth emphasising the success that the Say no to 0870 campaign movement has had so far. We now have 03 numbers which are non-geographic, but are charged at no more than a geographic call from all landline and mobile phones. I think that this campaign has had great influence in getting this off the ground.

If an organisation wants a non-geographic number (i.e. one not related to a location) and doesn't want to charge a premium, then it can select a 03 number.

Ofcom is soon to announce a review of 084 revenue sharing numbers which I am sure we will all look at closely on here.

JoeCurry wrote on Apr 25^th, 2010 at 7:39pm:

All of the features that are implicitly associated with 084 numbers are similarly associated with 03. The only difference with 03 is the charging regulations and the prohibition of revenue sharing - this obviously affects the cost to the user. The detail of what these features are is often misrepresented, but the facts about the lack of difference with 03 stand without question.

Migration from a 0844 number to the equivalent 0344 number is guaranteed. This may provide the best option for those who are tied into long term contracts to take supply of their network telephone service from Talk Talk and to use a system that relies on the features of non-geographic numbers. Introduction of a NHS contract revision that will require GPs to move away from numbers that are more expensive than a geographic number to call (i.e. all 084 numbers) is currently pending. It was due to take effect from 1 April, but has been delayed.

The latest I have heard on the Ofcom situation is that a consultation covering many issues is likely to be launched within the next three months. (If the preparatory work is not ready in this time, it may be delayed until September.) If members are interested in discussing what could and should be covered, then this topic needs to be the subject of a dedicated thread. As this would need to cover the intricacies of regulatory measures to achieve particular effects and to replace highly confusing regulations that are currently in existence, it would not be likely to attract the interest of all members.Those who believe that Ofcom, its consultations and its regulations are a waste of time would probably see speculation about what may feature in a future Ofcom consultation as an even greater waste of time, and they would be perfectly within their rights to say so in such a thread.