Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
SAYNOTO0870.COM

<---- Back to main website

 
Home Help Search Login Register

Pages: 1 2 3 
Send Topic Print
Charges for engaged lines (Read 35,414 times)
Maxadolf
Newbie
*
Offline



Posts: 26
Charges for engaged lines
Nov 19th, 2010 at 6:29pm
 
I recently noticed that my provider was charging me for attempted land-line calls when the recorded voice indicated engagement.  I tried recalling a few times more.  Each time I was made aware of the engaged line, which immediately resulted in my replacing the handset, I was charged 17p.  No attempt was made to leave a message.  Replicate this situation several million times at a national level then the provider is thieving revenue for a non-service to the tune of millions of pounds.   In the days of BT monopoly there was no charge for engaged lines.  I challenged the provider (Virgin) only to be told that such is normal practice in the industry for mobile calls, as if that was relevant.  Clearly, logical debate on the ethics of this type of theft was a waste of time.  I reported the matter to Otelo (successors to Oftel) with the following, less than helpful reply:



COMPLAINT ABOUT VIRGIN MEDIA
Thank you for your E-Mail received on 21 October 2010.
Our role is to sort out disagreements between customers and the companies who have joined
our service.
As Virgin Media is not one of our members, unfortunately, we cannot help you.
Since 30 September 2003, all service providers must offer their customers a free and
independent service to sort out their complaints if they cannot agree.
You may want to contact the Communications and Internet Services Adjudication Scheme
(CISAS) on 020 7520 3827, to see if Virgin Media is one of their members. Or, you may want to
contact the regulator, Ofcom, on 0300 123 3333 or 020 7981 3040, or at www.ofcom.org.uk who
may be able to give you more advice.
The attached booklet 'Two sides to every story' explains our role in more detail.
If you decide to contact us again about this, please quote the reference at the top of this letter.
Yours sincerely
Elizabeth Diamond
Enquiry  Officer


My reply to Otelo was:


I find your response manifesting ignorance, bureaucracy, and a waste of public funds.  It invites a strong recommendation to Mr Osborne, the Chancellor, to make a substantial contribution to reducing our national debt by closing down a useless public service.

You take 3 weeks to tell me that a national abuse by a large Telecommunication company is not something that you can handle because the perpetrators of a nationwide abuse are not members of a club!  The half-wit that responded is unable to comprehend that thieving money from customers for not providing a service is unacceptable and can continue to be perpetrated by them.  

My response to you is:  I hope that the parasites that make up the Department get fired in the deserved and imminent cuts of the " Civil Service"



Do the experts of SAYNOTO0870 have a view on this with especial reference to the legality of this contrived theft apart from the uselessness of Otelo!?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Dave
Global Moderator
*****
Offline



Posts: 9,902
Yorkshire
Gender: male
Re: Charges for engaged lines
Reply #1 - Nov 19th, 2010 at 6:57pm
 
Maxadolf wrote on Nov 19th, 2010 at 6:29pm:
I recently noticed that my provider was charging me for attempted land-line calls when the recorded voice indicated engagement.  I tried recalling a few times more.  Each time I was made aware of the engaged line, which immediately resulted in my replacing the handset, I was charged 17p.  No attempt was made to leave a message. …

When a number is (technically speaking) "Engaged", then you should not be charged.

However, to get round this, telephone companies offer network based answering services. You said that you didn't attempt to leave a message - what do you mean by that? Are you saying that you could have left a message if you had hung on?

Perhaps we could try one of these numbers ourselves. You can send me a Private message if you wish not to make it public.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Nov 19th, 2010 at 7:01pm by Dave »  
 
IP Logged
 
Maxadolf
Newbie
*
Offline



Posts: 26
Re: Charges for engaged lines
Reply #2 - Nov 20th, 2010 at 1:40pm
 
Hi Dave,

You rapid response is much appreciated - many thanks.

This abuse in contriving charges by Virgin, without use of a facility, may well be peculiar to that telecommunication company and, if so, it needs to be given publicity because, if guys such as yourself are not apparently aware of the scam then Virgin may well have hit the jackpot.

The situation that I refer to is when I make a call to a party that is engaged talking to a third party.  Virgin then immediately cut in with their voice mail stating that the person is not available and would I like to leave a message.   If, as I do, the handset is immediately  -  i.e. within a second or so  -  replaced with the intention of calling that person at a later time, a charge of 17p has already been incurred.  That situation is to be contrasted with when there is nobody to answer my call and the ringing continues for, say, 20 seconds or so at which time the voice mail also cuts in inviting me to leave a recorded message.  In that situation, if the handset is returned and the line closed, despite not leaving a message, there is still a 17p charge.

Both sets of circumstances reflect a scam based on charging for a service that is not used.

I hope this clarifies the issue.

Thanks again.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Heinz
Supreme Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 1,362
Essex
Re: Charges for engaged lines
Reply #3 - Nov 20th, 2010 at 2:10pm
 
Maxadolf wrote on Nov 20th, 2010 at 1:40pm:
The situation that I refer to is when I make a call to a party that is engaged talking to a third party.  Virgin then immediately cut in with their voice mail stating that the person is not available and would I like to leave a message.   If, as I do, the handset is immediately  -  i.e. within a second or so  -  replaced with the intention of calling that person at a later time, a charge of 17p has already been incurred.

That's absolutley standard with 1571 'answering machines' and is the reason for my 'DUMP 1571' campaign to get everyone to switch 1571 off and get a proper answering machine for use when they're out.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Nov 20th, 2010 at 2:12pm by Heinz »  

After years of ignoring govt. guidelines & RIPPING OFF Council Tax payers using 0845 numbers, Essex County Council changed to 0345 numbers on 2 November 2015
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Maxadolf
Newbie
*
Offline



Posts: 26
Re: Charges for engaged lines
Reply #4 - Nov 20th, 2010 at 3:07pm
 
Heinz, well recognised!   You're bang on.  But isn't it strange that the so-called regulators have done nothing about blocking this scam!   What is the point of their existance if they can't recognize a flagrant misrepresentation that is no less than theft on a national scale.  To your knowledge has the matter ever been addressed by any of the regulators, including the Office of Fair Trading? 

Thanks!

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Dave
Global Moderator
*****
Offline



Posts: 9,902
Yorkshire
Gender: male
Re: Charges for engaged lines
Reply #5 - Nov 20th, 2010 at 3:15pm
 
Maxadolf wrote on Nov 20th, 2010 at 1:40pm:
This abuse in contriving charges by Virgin, without use of a facility, may well be peculiar to that telecommunication company and, if so, it needs to be given publicity because, if guys such as yourself are not apparently aware of the scam then Virgin may well have hit the jackpot.

This is standard practice and not one I agree with, which is why I back Heinz's campaign to switch off answerphones on landline and mobile phones, unless there is a specific reason it is required and calls will be returned when messages are left.


Maxadolf wrote on Nov 20th, 2010 at 1:40pm:
The situation that I refer to is when I make a call to a party that is engaged talking to a third party.  Virgin then immediately cut in with their voice mail stating that the person is not available and would I like to leave a message.   If, as I do, the handset is immediately  -  i.e. within a second or so  -  replaced with the intention of calling that person at a later time, a charge of 17p has already been incurred.  That situation is to be contrasted with when there is nobody to answer my call and the ringing continues for, say, 20 seconds or so at which time the voice mail also cuts in inviting me to leave a recorded message.  In that situation, if the handset is returned and the line closed, despite not leaving a message, there is still a 17p charge.

Both sets of circumstances reflect a scam based on charging for a service that is not used.

Thanks, that does clarify the situation. As I say, the call is classed as being Connected (or we might say the call has "Tripped" or has been answered).

In your posting you say that Virgin "cut in with their voice mail stating that the person is not available." This implies you are only referring to when you call someone on Virgin.

The same would happen when you call someone on another network, for example BT or Vodafone, from your Virgin Media phone, the difference being that it will be the BT or Vodafone answering service (assuming that the person you called had it switched on). In that case your call will also have Tripped, and therefore you incur a charge (assuming your call isn't part of inclusive minutes).

This will also be the case choose what network you call from. So let's say you call from a mobile phone to a Virgin Media or BT number which has a network-based answering service switched on, once it answers, you will be billed for the call.


With the greatest of respect, I totally disagree with the way in which you are pursuing this. This is industry-wide and not peculiar to Virgin Media. All telephone companies offer "free" answering services. It's because, whilst they cost the user nothing, they cost the caller.

In a free market, prices are determined by what consumers are prepared to pay, as well as what the competition is charging. Thus, price competition works best when the person making the choice is the one making the payment. Supermarkets wouldn't have an incentive to drop prices if those filling their trolleys weren't the ones paying. In fact, if you could fill your trolley with whatever you wanted, knowing you weren't the one paying, then you would probably select the premium products!

With telecommunications, there are consumers at either end of the chain; the callers and the receivers. Obviously, a consumer can be either, depending on whether he/she is placing or receiving the call.

The choice of a telephone user (call receiver) to use a network-based answering service is done without consideration to the cost incurred by the caller. In many ways this is often similar to the way in which 084 numbers are used; the number users reap the benefit with little or no consideration (or perhaps mis-consideration) of the cost burden they are placing on callers.


On another but not unconnected note, it is worth pointing out what's happening with landline to landline call charges in general. The fact that you incurred a minimum charge for such a call is very relevant.

In general, the cost of chargeable landline calls (i.e. ones made at times when they are not included in the subscriber's package) has skyrocketed. Conversely, the cost of inclusive packages has dropped. Thus, it is now more and more worthwhile (from a financial point of view) to move to a landline tariff that includes calls during the times calls are usually made. Or to put it another way, the threshold of volume of calls you need to make in order to break even has come right down. It is so low that the call rate for non-inclusive landline calls is effectively a penalty for using the phone at that time.

You made reference to the BT monopoly and back in the day, the minimum call charge was 5 pence. Over the last few years, telephone companies, including BT, have changed the way in which they charge. In general, it is now a call connection (or call set-up) fee plus a 'per minute' charge, usually billed to the next whole minute. So the minimum charge is now the connection fee plus the cost of one minute!

Now you can see what all those wretched answering services are doing to telco's revenue. The more of these answered, yet abandoned, calls you make, the more it's worth your while to switch to your provider's inclusive tariff.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Maxadolf
Newbie
*
Offline



Posts: 26
Re: Charges for engaged lines
Reply #6 - Nov 20th, 2010 at 3:50pm
 
To Dave:  Thanks, your points are noted.  BT are probably a better value-for-money provider than Virgin on the basis that, unlike the latter, they do not charge for 0870 and 0450 numbers.  If ever Virgin respond to that kind of competition, you may need to change the name of your <saynoto0870> address!
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
sherbert
Supreme Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 2,011
Gender: male
Re: Charges for engaged lines
Reply #7 - Nov 20th, 2010 at 5:19pm
 
Maxadolf wrote on Nov 20th, 2010 at 3:50pm:
To Dave:  Thanks, your points are noted.  BT are probably a better value-for-money provider than Virgin on the basis that, unlike the latter, they do not charge for 0870 and 0450 numbers.  If ever Virgin respond to that kind of competition, you may need to change the name of your <saynoto0870> address!


You mean 0845 not 0450 surely?
Back to top
« Last Edit: Nov 20th, 2010 at 5:20pm by sherbert »  
 
IP Logged
 
Maxadolf
Newbie
*
Offline



Posts: 26
Re: Charges for engaged lines
Reply #8 - Nov 20th, 2010 at 6:18pm
 
Correct! My apologies.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
bbb_uk
Global Moderator
*****
Offline



Posts: 2,041
Re: Charges for engaged lines
Reply #9 - Nov 20th, 2010 at 6:56pm
 
If this is same thing I remember from a long time ago, this feature/service where Virgin cut-in was not related to a voicemail service that the person called had setup (either via a network voicemail or normal phone voicemail).

Assuming it is the same thing then a Virgin automated voice kicks in when the called party is engaged and asking if you want to wait.  I assumed it was call waiting service of somekind.

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Dave
Global Moderator
*****
Offline



Posts: 9,902
Yorkshire
Gender: male
Re: Charges for engaged lines
Reply #10 - Nov 20th, 2010 at 7:25pm
 
bbb_uk wrote on Nov 20th, 2010 at 6:56pm:
If this is same thing I remember from a long time ago, this feature/service where Virgin cut-in was not related to a voicemail service that the person called had setup (either via a network voicemail or normal phone voicemail).

Assuming it is the same thing then a Virgin automated voice kicks in when the called party is engaged and asking if you want to wait.  I assumed it was call waiting service of somekind.

BT does Ringback which sounds similar to bbb_uk's description of Virgin Media's service.

The busy tone plays, with a message "The number you called is busy. To use Ringback, press 5. There is normally a charge for this service."

This service is different to what the OP describes. It rings the caller back (with a triple ring) when the recipient's number becomes available.


Coming back to the point the OP raised, I definately think that these network-based voicemail services should tell the caller that the recipient is busy (which should be free), and to hold to leave a message (which would be chargeable).

I feel that for this to happen (assuming that it's technically possible), it would require regulatory intervention to force the telcos to do this.

If it did happen, then receivers' telcos (the telcos which operate the services) would no longer be getting the revenue from many of these calls as callers won't leave messages. On the other hand, when the telcos offer call packages, they will no longer incur inter-operator charges for those calls where a message isn't left, which will act to counter any increase.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Barbara
Supreme Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 598
Re: Charges for engaged lines
Reply #11 - Nov 20th, 2010 at 7:46pm
 
I'm glad I read this thread as I had no idea about this scam and it would surely be difficult for any caller to know in advance that the person they were calling had 1571 which would cost them.  How does the caller, when hearing a message that the recipient is not available, have any idea whether that is the standard pre-recording on an answerphone or a teleco about to charge them?   We have never recorded our own message on our answerphone for a variety of reasons (including deniability of a mesage received!) but the message sounds exactly the same as my father's who I think uses 1571.   Surely this is yet again a matter that the caller should have the right to know that they are incurring a charge and its level before it kicks in not perhaps a month later when they get a bill?  I'm also glad I have not been tempted to take up 1571 on our phone as I would hate to scam people like this, even unwittingly.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Dave
Global Moderator
*****
Offline



Posts: 9,902
Yorkshire
Gender: male
Re: Charges for engaged lines
Reply #12 - Nov 20th, 2010 at 8:12pm
 
Barbara wrote on Nov 20th, 2010 at 7:46pm:
I'm glad I read this thread as I had no idea about this scam and it would surely be difficult for any caller to know in advance that the person they were calling had 1571 which would cost them.  How does the caller, when hearing a message that the recipient is not available, have any idea whether that is the standard pre-recording on an answerphone or a teleco about to charge them?  …

Once the message is heard, it's too late and the call has been answered and is therefore billable. If the person being called is on another call, the answering service usually kicks in straight away without any ringing or with one or two bursts of ringing. In any case, you wouldn't know before it answered that it was the answering service and not the person you were calling, so it's immaterial really.

It's important to point out that calls are only chargeable when they are made at times when calls aren't inclusive. So those on anytime inclusive packages won't pay extra for these calls. Those with evening and weekend inclusive elements will pay during the weekday daytime, but not during the evening and weekends.


Irrespective of whether the call is inclusive or not, the caller's telco incurs charges for connecting the call with the recipient's telco. So it generates revenue for the recipient's telco (the telco which hosts the answering service) as well as costing the caller's telco money which it will recoup from its customers in general.



Barbara wrote on Nov 20th, 2010 at 7:46pm:
… We have never recorded our own message on our answerphone for a variety of reasons (including deniability of a mesage received!) but the message sounds exactly the same as my father's who I think uses 1571.   Surely this is yet again a matter that the caller should have the right to know that they are incurring a charge and its level before it kicks in not perhaps a month later when they get a bill?  I'm also glad I have not been tempted to take up 1571 on our phone as I would hate to scam people like this, even unwittingly.

So you use an answering machine device at your home rather than network-based service like BT1571 or BT Call Minder?

If that's the case, then callers will always get the engaged tone (assuming that you don't have call waiting) when you are on a call, and never your answerphone. However, when you don't answer the phone, the answering machine will kick in (after a pre-determined time which will be set on the machine), and thus answer the call. Any calls where the machine kicks in, but where people don't leave a message will be billable to them (and chargeable to them if they don't have an inclusive tariff).
Back to top
« Last Edit: Nov 21st, 2010 at 12:59am by Dave »  
 
IP Logged
 
derrick
Supreme Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 1,124
Re: Charges for engaged lines
Reply #13 - Nov 21st, 2010 at 9:58am
 
Maxadolf wrote on Nov 20th, 2010 at 3:50pm:
To Dave:  Thanks, your points are noted.  BT are probably a better value-for-money provider than Virgin on the basis that, unlike the latter, they do not charge for 0870 and 0450 numbers.  If ever Virgin respond to that kind of competition, you may need to change the name of your <saynoto0870> address!



Yes they do,it is included in your line rental,(and dependent on call package), which they increased last year(?) when they decided to include these numbers,(0870 & 0
8
45), within the line rental, you get nothing for nothing, don't pay your line rental and you won't get inclusive,(not free), calls!
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
SilentCallsVictim
Supreme Member
*****
Offline


aka NHS.Patient, DH_fairtelecoms

Posts: 2,494
Re: Charges for engaged lines
Reply #14 - Nov 21st, 2010 at 4:54pm
 
Some good points are being raised here, I will add some thoughts of my own.

I am surprised to find contributors being unaware that telephone call metering begins when the call is first answered. It seems that there are some odd assumptions about it beginning at various later points, according to the manner of the locally deployed answering mechanism.

I believe it is important to understand the positions of the two parties to the call.

The caller
If I decide to call someone I must be ready to accept the charge for the call, as I must hope that it will be answered. It may be that the person I want to speak to is out and someone else answers, or they may answer the call but not be able to speak with me at that time. In both cases I pay for a totally wasted call, unless I chose to leave a message. I cannot see any difference between these situations and the automated equivalents.

The recipient
If I decide (as I do) to have the call waiting facility and a network answering service on my line, I must accept that some of those who call me will pay for a call that they cannot complete by speaking with me directly. If engaged on a low priority call, I will respond to the call waiting signal. I always listen to voicemail messages and respond accordingly, generally being ready to call back, at my own expense, if invited to do so. To help me respond to messages I use an advanced answering service feature that notifies me on my mobile when a message is left on my landline, and plays it to me.

If someone chooses not to leave a message, I assume that this is probably for one of three reasons. They may be happy to try me again at some other time in the hope of being able to have a conversation, OR there would be no purpose in completing the call at some other time as the reason for the call may well have passed, OR they will try and contact me in some other way. I believe I have done all I can to offer callers the best possible alternative in the event that I am unable to answer their call directly.

I trust that those I choose to call will be taking a similarly responsible approach to their use of the telephone. If I find that they are not, then I may offer them advice; I would not think of blaming my telephone company.

The telcos
The fault with the Telcos may be in failing to make their customers aware of how the various facilities work and advising them of the need to accept their own responsibility for how they handle incoming calls.

Answering services should never be automatically put in place by default, especially not with a facility to retrieve messages configured with a widely known default password.

A lot of fuss has been made about the activities of journalists who exploit the latter feature of many mobile services. The improper behaviour of the service providers and the foolishness of their customers (e.g. MPs and "celebrities") have received little attention. The activity is even referred to as "hacking", which implies that it is much more devious and harder to prevent than is actually the case.

My conclusions
It would be great if telephone companies were to offer more generous terms, including those which apply in these situations, however I see no evidence of a scam.

Anyone who deploys an answering service, but fails to respond to messages is simply wasting caller's time and money.

I cannot see how it is any business of a caller's telephone service provider to consider when I chose to answer incoming calls and how I deal with them. This is matter between me and those who call me.


The only similarity between "Oftel" and "Otelo" is a possible similarity in the component letters of the names. It is perhaps a fault of our education system that the meaning of the word "Ombudsman" is not properly understood. The functions of Otelo are described fairly clearly on its website - http://www.otelo.org.uk/. Use of the "Of-" prefix to the name, to signify a statutory industry regulator, is perhaps also not sufficiently well understood. It is only just short of 7 years since the functions of Of-tel were passed to Of-com.


I believe that Virginmedia is to be congratulated, not condemned, for not making all subscribers pay the revenue sharing surcharges that apply to 0845 calls, by including these calls in "unlimited" packages. Many would think that BT's decision to require those who do not call revenue sharing numbers to pay those who benefit by covering these costs in a package fee is the scam. I must declare myself to be firmly at difference with those who promote this "scam" and even encourage others to adopt it.

Virginmedia has no justification whatsoever for continuing to charge premium rates for calls to 0870 numbers, more than 12 months after it ceased to pay on a revenue share to the call recipient. This totally unjustified improper action should be more clearly advised in its pricing information than is the case and Virginmedia should therefore be found to be in breach of the relevant revised General Condition.

Anyone particularly concerned about this latter issue should make a formal complaint to Ofcom. The fact that use of 0870 numbers is diminishing, as intended, does however weaken the need for such a complaint.

It is likely that both of these issues will be covered by the proposals shortly to be presented in a consultation by Ofcom.
Back to top
 
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 2 3 
Send Topic Print
(Moderators: CJT-80, bbb_uk, Dave, Forum Admin, DaveM)

Website and Content © 1999-2024 SAYNOTO0870.COM. All Rights Reserved. (DE)
Written permission is required to duplicate any of the content within this site.

WARNING: This is an open forum, posts are NOT endorsed by SAYNOTO0870.COM,
please exercise due caution when acting on any info from here.


SAYNOTO0870.COM » Powered by YaBB 2.5.2!
YaBB Forum Software © 2000-2024. All Rights Reserved.


Valid RSS Valid XHTML Valid CSS Powered by Perl Source Forge