Dave wrote on Oct 25^th, 6080 at 9:58pm:


Playing with words.  Call it income, (which Tfl wrongly deny), revenue, defrayment of costs or cost offset -- they are still receiving a 1.5ppm benefit of revenue in kind from callers.   They might claim rightly that they make no profit or surplus revenue.

Dave wrote on Oct 25^th, 6080 at 9:58pm:

Don't understand your question or your point.

Dave wrote on Oct 25^th, 6080 at 9:58pm:

I don't understand this point.  What is wrong with discussing the rights and wrongs of charging callers a premium to call 08 numbers?

loddon wrote on Feb 9^th, 2011 at 4:05pm:

Sorry. I'll write it again with a few more words in: 

Still not sure why you're distinguishing between the 1.5ppm they receive in direct payments and the 4.5ppm they receive as services in kind though.

Dave wrote on Feb 9^th, 2011 at 4:17pm:


It follows from what I said in Post#7 above.  I was using this to make the general point (with the current Ofcom Consultation in mind) that charges for calls to 08 numbers are fundamentrally wrong, unethical if you prefer, because the "owner" of the 08 wants a certain service from their Telco and I say passing the charge for this service to callers is wrong in principle and is a great incentive to inefficiency, and in some cases leads to exploitation of callers.   Many people resent the charges incurred in calling these numbers as evidenced by the existence of this website.  

Tfl should pay the service costs levied by their Telco instead of imposing them on their callers.   If this was the situation then Tfl would have a considerable incentive to get the best service possible for their purposes at the best available price and to keep both service level and costs (currently 3.5ppm) under review.  As it is now set up Tfl do not have the incentive of managing the phone service charges and appear to be shamelessly uncaring about the excess costs imposed on their callers.  By insisting on using 0843 and a number of other 08 numbers they are imposing a massive surcharge on their mobile and callbox callers, who I would suggest are the majority, as most callers will be out and travelling, because Tfl are depriving them of the opportunity to phone Tfl within their inclusive minutes within their call packages.   There is probably a lesser cost imposition on their landline callers but it is no less unethical.   These criticisms apply equally to all "owners" of 08 numbers.

The remaining 1.5ppm is the so-called micro-payment and the shared revenue part of the 5ppm surcharge.   I am against the concept of these micro-payments and feel there must be a better way.   As has been said many times before on this Forum using 08 numbers is a very inefficient way of collecting revenue and results in massively increased costs for callers.

loddon wrote on Feb 9^th, 2011 at 6:20pm:

The comment about a charge of 1.5p per minute in post #7 was incorrect. In terms of the proposal in the Ofcom consultation, and in reality, the charge levied by TfL is 5p per minute.

I have always opposed the idea of trying to conceal what is happening by considering the way in which the 5p is used, i.e. pretending that it is only 1.5p or nothing at all. I regard the question of whether some or all of this money is used to pay the NGCS user's telco, to save money for the taxpayer, to boost the profits of a highly efficient organisation or wasted on an inefficiently run call centre, as totally irrelevant to the truly fundamental issue - the caller is paying a premium charge to access a particular service by telephone.


The present situation with 084 numbers is a complete mess, because callers are unaware of how much of what they paying is down to their telco and how much the "Service Provider". This is further confused by the fact that the largest single (although minority) telephone service provider is in a wholly unique position and therefore unsuitable for use as an example if suggesting likely call charges. Furthermore, the way in which mobile telcos group together many different types of NGCS numbers into a common aggregate charge rate means that their Access Charges differ widely, making more when the Service Provider is making less. This latter approach makes it easier for callers to determine the call cost, but is hardly fair.

This has to change.

The unbundled proposal offers a serious way forward to address the transparency issue. As I suggest above, I see no reason why the essence of this proposal could not be adopted by TfL and others immediately. The suggestion that Telcos should not be allowed to vary their Access Charge to give grouped aggregate charge rates addresses one of the inefficiency issues. The removal of the special regulations on BT will help with clarity, even though BT customers would be expected to incur higher charges for calling NGCS numbers.


Total opposition to third parties collecting money through phone bills would be a coherent position to take. It is not clear as to whether this is opposed in respect of Premium Rate (09) numbers, or only 084 and perhaps 087. If so restricted, then suggesting that there must be a minimum level (over 10p per minute, 5p if just 084) at which this should be allowed is a position that needs to be justified against the proposed clearer future for all NGCS numbers, not simply by reference to the current unsatisfactory mess. A proposal for what to do with the presently used numbers is also required to complete a coherent position.


As a London taxpayer with access to the internet, where I use the TfL services without charge, I have an interest in this. What I pay to run TfL is offset by the 5p per minute paid by callers to its newly enhanced telephone enquiry service. Personally, I would rather that we London taxpayers footed the bill in full, although I accept that others may feel differently. If TfL wishes to help us by imposing a charge for a service that may be used more by visitors than London residents, then I believe that it should declare this charge openly. It is not acceptable to quote (out of date) BT call charge rates. I do not believe that TfL should be compelled to charge either over 10p per minute (on a 09 number) or nothing at all for access to this service. I have no reason to suppose that TfL is any more or less diligent in how it manages its finances and negotiates with its suppliers over this service than in any other aspect of its operations.

loddon wrote on Feb 10^th, 2011 at 6:59pm:

I was actually addressing a different issue, however the response goes on to raise another important point, which has not been discussed at any length - the level of the "Access Charge". This same point applies equally to 084, 087 and 09 call charges.

Because of the present bundled situation, along with special conditions relating to BT, we currently have a complete mess. The status quo is indefensible. Ofcom admits this, although rather than beating itself up with guilt over its responsibility for it, Ofcom tries to move on by proposing radical measures.

We may get some idea about how telcos will deal with the "Access Charge" issue in their responses to the consultation. I am reluctant to guess, however there is an interesting possibility, which is linked in with another situation that will be changing over the coming years.

It is not impossible that telcos will be taking all of their income through packages covering calls to geographic rate numbers, mobile numbers and the access charge element of calls to Business and Premium Rate numbers. This will leave the only call charges on the telephone bill as the Service Charges associated with calls to Business and Premium Rate numbers.

There is a strong preference for packages, as many telcos have indicated that mobile call inclusive packages will be offered when the excess termination rates disappear. I am not an expert on PAYG deals, however top-up packages and bundles, rather than simply a cash credit against fixed charges, seem to be increasing as a feature in this market.

The situation has to change; TfL has taken a bad decision given the current realities. I cannot say whether failing to upgrade the telephone service or getting taxpayers to pay for it would have been worse decisions.

loddon wrote on Feb 11^th, 2011 at 11:06pm:

Perhaps for the sake of good order in the forum, we should keep our comments in the appropriate threads.

I reply Re: Ofcom consultation: ... and Re: bmibaby.

bazzerfewi wrote on Mar 14^th, 2011 at 1:37pm:

This is all a hang-over from the days when BT was the dominant provider and could not pass on the premium cost to callers. This meant that users had the benefit of non-geographic numbers and the associated advanced features at no cost to themselves, or those who actually called them. As BT continued to make a profit, the cost was (indeed still is so far as BT is concerned) met by telephone users in general.

It is natural that telcos would promote them under those circumstances, but they still do so, failing to advise that the situation has changed substantially. BT is still subject to this regulation, but it now originates only around 40% of non-business calls from landlines, which account for only around 60% of all non-business calls. This makes the BT share of the non-business calls market around 24%.


When a non-geographic number is selected, the user (known as the Service Provider - SP) can pick it from a price band which determines the amount their telephone service provider (the TCP) receives for each call minute. Essentially, this is the rate that BT must charge for the call, it cannot add its own charge. Other providers are free to add their own charge to give whatever rate they advertise. We therefore have the Service Charge (to the benefit of the recipient) and the Access Charge (to the benefit of the originating telephone company) bundled together.


The Service Charge which callers pay (except with 03) first subsidises the cost of the advanced features on non-geographic numbers, so it is only any residue that gets passed on as "revenue share". (If call volumes fall well short, the user may actually get a bill.)

Because this is the way that non-geographic numbers have always been financed, operators generally apply the same model with 03 numbers, charging by the call, rather than as a simple rental charge. I am not sure whether Ofcom should intervene to determine the basis on which telcos charge users of 03 numbers for their services.

In general, I do not believe that the terms of the commercial relationship between the TCP and the SP should be a matter of any concern to the caller. Ofcom should only intervene if there is a serious problem that could be effectively addressed by regulation. If 03 users are unfairly denied the option to pay for their service other than by paying to receive calls, then they should make a case for Ofcom to intervene.


The level of the Service Charge paid by the caller, according to the number selected by whoever they are calling, should be all that matters to them, regardless of how it is distributed. The Access Charge added by their own telephone company is another separate issue.

Ofcom proposes that the existing arrangement (using the terms given above) be made transparent under what it calls the "unbundled option" presented in its (now extended) current consultation. The key feature of the proposal is that the Service Provider be required to declare the Service Charge that they have selected to be imposed on the caller. They will also be required to refer to the Access Charge imposed by the caller's own telephone company.

The telephone companies will also be required to make their Access Charge simple to understand and clearly presented. Whilst these proposals are nothing like as radical as some advocate, I believe that if they are properly implemented then the transparency will have an effect on the way in which these numbers are used. Present patterns rely heavily on misrepresentation, ignorance and misunderstanding of complex issues.

Ofcom also proposes that the current special regulation on BT be lifted, so that competition can occur on an equal basis (in terms of regulation). Is essence this means that BT will be free to add an Access Charge and it will not be able to hide the Service Charges incurred when calling 0845 numbers in packages, where they are effectively paid by all package subscribers.

If this option is adopted and put into effect, those promoting "Business Rate" 084 numbers will have to point out that the selected level of Service Charge must be declared to callers. In some cases, this may make 084 numbers harder to sell. As the requirements will apply to existing users of 084 numbers, we will have to look out for a possible mass migration to 03, or a return to geographic numbers.


Members may express their views about whether or not this is the right plan in response to the consultation and / or in the associated discussion in this thread

I am just a humble user of the telecom services and do not fully understand its implications but it appears to me that the industry is all driven by profit and the general public do not understand all the different pricing structures.

There's nothing wrong with profit that's what makes the world go around but it's all the different pricing and plans that confuses people.

It could be made easier if Ofcom put their mind to it