http://pitsnpots.co.uk/news/2011/02/council-0844-number-repairs-goes-live

bigjohn wrote on Feb 26^th, 2011 at 8:25pm:

Many thanks for bringing this to our attention. Members may be interested to follow a dialogue that is developing in comments below the artcile.

This could be another case where the launch of a 0844 number is quickly followed by a switch to 03.

Oh dear oh dear.

This has the hallmarks of an assumption that BT 0844 call rates and BT geographic call rates for non-inclusive calls are "the norm" as it were.  

In fact, we have two extremes:

1. BT 0844 call rates are abnormally low due to the fact that it (as the retailer) is only allowed to impose a "service charge". That is the "wholesale" amount it must pay to the receiver's telephone company for connecting the call. It is only allowed to put a negligible mark-up on these calls and this is the topic of the current Ofcom consultation.

2. BT call charges for non-inclusive geographic calls are high. This is so as to incentivise subscribers to switch to packages which have inclusive elements at the times they use their telephone. Or to put it another way, only a few calls need be made on the non-inclusive package (i.e. that with chargeable geographic calls) in order to make it worthwhile switching to an inclusive package. This is not perculiar to BT, but common with most landline providers.

I do not understand what your point is yes I agree that 0844 or 0800 numbers should not exist but I have just sourced the hich is  234+44 01782 234567567 from the web site so I do not fully understand what you are getting at

I have also tested this number in the past and it has worked OK

Interesting, they didn't choose a memorable number (like the 234234 number was) and neither did they choose the most costly  (0844 894 numbers are charged at 3.062ppm from a BT line).

I wonder what the thinking behing those decisions was?