---

---

---

The question of what will happen with the levels of "Access Charge" has been raised in a number of places.

The present situation, where T-Mobile imposes an Access Charge of 39p per minute on calls to 0845 numbers, whereas BT has an Access Charge of -2p per minute, in both cases for callers on an inclusive call plan, is highlighted in this Daily Mail article - £3.70 to phone NHS Direct but free number for patients is axed. (The "free number" is a simplified reference to the fact that with call plans and packages in place, most contract customers would not pay a call charge to call 0345 4647.)

The equivalent "Access Charges" for a 0871 (type g7) number are: 30p per minute from T-Mobile and a setup fee of 11.5p from BT. "A complete mess".

I quote comments posted in another thread:

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

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Feb 10^th, 2011 at 8:02pm:

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


Under the "unbundled" proposal the structure would be different, because "Access Charges" will be at fixed levels for each caller, rather than varied across the various "Service Charge" levels. This is not true of the proposed "maximum price" option.

Whatever the injustice, I am not sure how far it falls within Ofcom's remit to regulate the way in which airlines participate in discussion forums or even in the types of telephone number which they select for particular purposes. Ofcom certainly has a duty to ensure clarity and transparency in relation to charges for telephone calls. It has been failing badly, but has now proposed improvements.

loddon wrote on Feb 12^th, 2011 at 10:20am:

In the case in question TfL has selected a number which imposes a Service Charge of 5p per minute on callers. If its arrangements include 3.5p per minute being retained by TfL's telco, in lieu of charges that would otherwise be met by TfL, that point of detail is of no consequence to callers.

Under the "unbundled" proposal, how the NGCS "Access Charge" relates to what could be considered as the caller's "normal" cost is a matter to be determined between callers and their respective telephone companies. The existence of inclusive packages and penalty charges for calling outside the terms of the package makes it impossible to make any general determination of what is a "normal" call cost.

This is not a simple issue, as I will try to explain with two examples. If providers were to be required to cover the "Access Charge" element of NGCS calls along with 01/02/03 calls in inclusive "unlimited" packages, then the price for such packages would "undergo upward pressure" (possibly increase) as more calls would qualify. If, alternatively, providers were to be required (or expected) to set the level of the Access Charge at the same level as the penalty charge for making otherwise inclusive calls, then it would probably be higher than it would be otherwise, disadvantaging both callers and users of NGCS numbers.

The important feature of the "Access Charge", as proposed, is that this is a single figure which applies to all NGCS calls. Unlike the present situation, where it is variable and undeclared, this figure would be as visible as any other feature of a tariff. This means that it would be as likely to be known as any other fact about the caller's costs in using the telephone and therefore subject to the effects of competition.

I comment further on this, quoting myself in reply #63.

There are many issues regarding the way in which the unbundled proposal will or could be implemented, however the concept addresses the issues.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Feb 12^th, 2011 at 12:59am:


Where does it say this in the Ofcom proposals?   And does it make clear that the current  situation where numerous rates can be applied by each Telco, will be prevented and that only one "access charge" rate will apply to an 08 or 09 number?   I raised this question in Post #14 on this thread with --- "Could someone explain how the Ofcom proposals will simplify the current pricing complexity of non-geographic calls, because I cannot see in the Ofcom consultation document.   For example, if you want to find out the charge rate for any non-geo number from Virgin Media, you need to consult their pricing tables to be precise, here :---  http://allyours.virginmedia.com/pdf/uk_non-geographical_calls_a.pdf  

This document is 24 pages long and contains lists of non-geo numbers with the "chargeband" alongside.   You then need to look up the chargeband somewhere to find out the cost.   As you can see there are thousands of numbers and hundreds of chargebands ..."

The following posts did not clarify to me that the nonsense where Virgin Media currently charge hundreds of different rates for calls to 0843 numbers will be prohibited.   For example their charge for calling an 0843001xxx number is on the "PG24" scale whereas a call to an 0843002xxx number is on the "FF29" scale.   Can you assure me that under the proposed scheme VM and all the others will only be allowed to charge a single access charge rate to all 0843 numbers?

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Feb 15^th, 2011 at 3:30am:
Some OCP's now only publish their prices for NGN's in hard-to-find areas which is going against GC14.2.  It took Ofcom two tries and getting OCP's to comply with GC14.2 and BT doesn't do it now.

So with this in mind, what would Ofcom do to ensure that OCP's provide a look-up table of somekind when Ofcom has trouble getting OCP's to comply with a GC? 

A number of members have commented on the difficulty of reading the Ofcom document.

It is too big to read start to finish and there is no usable index that provides any guide to the content of sections. I have made appropriate representations to the Ofcom "consultation champion".

For my own purposes, I have prepared an "indexed" version, using a standard feature available when creating a pdf document from MS-Word. As the published versions of all Ofcom consultation documents are prepared in this way, I can see no good reason why this feature is not used generally.

My version, which stops at the end of the material subject to consultation, has been subjected to manual editing so there may be errors, the pagination is different and some graphics have not survived the out and in conversion process. I cannot therefore formally publish this as an "alternative" version. I do however keep a copy on the internet for easy reference. Members may be interested to know that it can be accessed via this short url - http://tinyurl.com/dhtiny/ofcon.

bbb_uk wrote on Feb 19^th, 2011 at 9:49pm:

Thanks for the positive input to the discussion.

I can see two points of merit in use of the term "Business Rate", given that there is any validity in making some distinction from "Premium Rate". It is important to remember that for the caller, there is no fundamental difference; the "Access Charge" and the need for price declaration are identical.

The way I see the difference is that "Business Rate" (084 and 087) numbers are used by businesses, other than those who are providers of telephone services, to obtain subsidy towards the cost of their business operations in whatever field they occupy. I doubt that anyone would set up a 087 number, where they did not otherwise receive telephone calls, simply as a means of generating fresh revenue. There simply would not be enough money in it, given that the calls were actually going to be handled in some way (scams are different).

As an alternative to using a "Geographic Rate" (01/02/03) number for the same operation, the cash or discount benefit is seen by some as worthwhile, even when offset against a directly corresponding cost to callers. That is a business decision to be made, and a much clearer decision in a more transparent environment. I hope that when faced with this clearer decision, businesses will think carefully about whether they wish to openly impose charges on callers. Some will decide that they do not, others will be required to present clear justifications without being able to blame telephone companies.

The term "Business Rate" suggests a valid connection with "Business Class", as used by airlines and hotels. It is not the top of the scale, but it is conveys some sense of unnecessarily extravagant expenditure to many people. It also reflects the fact that there is some commercial motive behind its use.


The concept of a "Lower" "Premium Rate" has been understood for some time, as it provides the only justification for the use of the awful term "Lo-call". The "Lo" simply means lower than other premium rates. The phonetic connection with "local" is a most transparent deceit.

I fear the suggestion that LPRS calls were cheaper than Premium Rate calls being used to imply they may not always be more expensive than Geographic calls. "How much lower?" is the obvious question, to which answers will be expected to be predictable. Campaigners will be expected to say "not much", users will be expected to say "lots". Longstanding confusion will continue.

There is the even greater danger that, as is common, terms get shortened in regular use, missing out a vital element. "Lower Rate" would be a most convenient shorter version for the term "Lower Premium Rate Services"! As with "lo call" the implication would be that the rate is low with reference to rates in general, rather than just to some very high rates.


With my focus on the public services, I feel that the term "Business Rate" would be more uncomfortable than "Lower Premium Rate" for service providers to use. A primary purpose of these proposals must be to get those who should not be using 084 numbers away from them and onto 01/02/03. If, as Ofcom believes, there are a large number of people who would be happy to justify their use of 084 numbers, they need to be set the fairest possible test.

bbb_uk wrote on Feb 19^th, 2011 at 9:49pm:

When I have referred to a table held by Ofcom, I was speaking about the large and complex table of "Service Charges". The "Access Charge" is part of the normal commercial relationship between a telephone service provider and their customer. Ofcom has no need to be involved in keeping records of what these are.

Ofcom is adamant that "Access Charges" must be very simple - one rate per customer / contract is suggested. OCP price lists would no longer have to include the complex tables of rates for UK NTS calls, which are commonly larger than the sections covering the rest of the world - in time rats for calls to UK mobiles will become simpler too.

I cannot think why the Access Charge for Business / Premium Rate calls would ever be presented anywhere other than on the first page of calling rates, as one of the first half dozen figures quoted in a call charges price list. It is perhaps too early to judge whether this charge will be something that OCPs would wish to hide, or whether they would want to be quick to show that when one is paying £1.50 a minute to call a premium rate number, only a few pence of this is going to them.

It is also important to remember that under the unbundled proposal, every advert for a Premium Rate Service or announcement of a Business Rate number will contain a reference to "your telephone company's access charge". Every viewer of some of the most popular television shows will see this on the screen and hear it announced, even if they have no thought of calling themselves. Customers will want to know what this is. Those who have paid their provider for all of their calls will understand that they have to p