Dave wrote on May 9^th, 2012 at 5:44pm:


Your other examples are also of the "highest" importance for regulator intervention and action.  The fact that I used the term highest did not imply that mine was the top or most important example of such malpractice being rife in the industry.

But to try and con people an 020 number does not even exist that does not exist so they they will be forced to call an 0844 number where there is hidden revenue share that does not even have to be disclosed to the caller (nor the fact that the call is much more expensive than an 020 number in many calling situations) is I would have thought one of the worst examples of cynical abuse of the telephone numbering system by the telcos and the karge call centre businesses who they are partners in crime with.

Quote:


But two costs for calling the same service using two different phone numbers on the same time and date, which is quite clearly the point at issue here.

Quote:


Hardly surprising then that a company fined by the regulator for misbilling customers on a regular basis should think nothing of lieing that a number that still exists has been changed to another number.

Quote:


No the reason an alternative number hasn't been submitted is because there isn't one that works on any reliable basis.  As this is a very busy number no doubt Opal/TalkTalk go out of their way to make sure a direct permanent alternative cannot be deduced.

I thought we were both on the same side Dave in opposing all these misuses but sadly it now seems more important to you try and show you are Top Dog in the forum.

NGMsGhost wrote on May 9^th, 2012 at 7:29pm:

As a principle, I agree that these things are not right.

However, I think that it is likely that the regulator will not be interested. Seemingly, it intervenes for mass-breaches, but not matters that have minute ill-effect.

I much rather put my effort into a movement that is likely to result in change. The unbundled charging approach is "telling it as it is". It will mean that the revenue share will not be hidden as you say it is. Of the two, this would have a greater impact as it would affect all misusers of 084 numbers and not just this one which is likely not to be in existance in a few months time anyway.


NGMsGhost wrote on May 9^th, 2012 at 7:29pm:

There is no charge for the network-based "number changed" announcement given in the UK, so you cannot be referring to it.

Those who are overseas who can call the 0844 number will probably find that it is more expensive than ringing the 020 number. So in that case it could be said that there are two costs for calling the same service. But I don't see this as being a telecoms matter; if a particular party wishes to offer more than one telephone number to be contacted on, then it is free to do so.

A more common example is someone who carries around a mobile phone(s) with connections to more than one network operator. This could be of benefit to callers who have more favourable rates to ring one.


Earlier in the posting you had said that the issue was the fact that the network operator of the 020 number is "lieing" about it being changed to the 0844 number. If this weren't the case, then it would likely go to a recorded message when called from the UK informing callers to ring the 0844 number. This would obviously and rightly be a metered call. It would, however, not be the same service as I understand that the 0844 number goes through to a call centre and not a recorded message directing callers to ring back on the number they have just dialled!



NGMsGhost wrote on May 9^th, 2012 at 7:29pm:

I did not make mention of or question why an alternative may not have been submitted. A number which has not been found cannot be submitted. I was referring to the apparent lack of interest in paricipation in finding a possible number. Informing others of numbers that have been tried and don't work may help others home in on an alternative. Why they don't work may also yield useful clues.

I do not agree that a number should be listed which works apparently on an occasional or random basis for a tiny minority of people while ever the most obvious avenue where a more reliable alternative may be found has not been investigated.

NGMsGhost wrote on May 10^th, 2012 at 11:56am:

That is, of course, the aim of the unbundled approach. There will be no more "scamming" because it will be clear for all to see what charge is being imposed for any particular call.

Where tickets are on sale at box offices or through agencies such as is the case here, patrons usually find that the actual cost of attending is greater than the headline ticket price. "Booking fees" and the like are the norm. Another fee to book over the phone is simply another fee. The use of 0844 numbers in this particular field is therefore systemic of a culture of "fees" added to the base price.


NGMsGhost wrote on May 10^th, 2012 at 11:56am:

It is not for anyone, including me, to request that any particular individual does anything in relation to finding an alternative or clues that may help in a search. People are free to assist in any way they wish.

I have simply offered my ideas of what I would do in an attempt to seek out an alternative. If no one wishes to do any work and come up with an alternative (and this includes finding and sharing clues that might help someone else) then everyone will have to be content to ring the premium number.

While not wanting to become embroiled in this matter over this particular number, I would take issue on one point in Dave's most recent post.  I know that "unbundling" is seen as an advance which in a very small way I suppose it might be BUT it does not mean in my view that there will be no more scamming; people will merely know how much they are being ripped off, it does not provide them with any mechanism to avoid being ripped off if they really need to contact that particular organisation; the only thing which will do that is to prohibit the use of numbers with an additional fee by which I mean 084x & 087X numbers (I see 090 as completely different as they do not seem to be used for basic services).