SilentCallsVictim wrote on Nov 16^th, 2011 at 1:36pm:

The company is Be Un Limited, with their BE Landline product. Unfortunately their forum is not publicly accessible, and I think you can't join unless you are a customer. This is the response from a staff member on Monday:

Quote:



SilentCallsVictim wrote on Nov 16^th, 2011 at 1:36pm:

The answer is that I do. But as Barbara says, the issue is that this number is not included in the calls package that I pay for. I never pay to make calls because I pay money to BT for a calls package that suits my needs. What I have been fighting against, via this site, for many years is companies using NGNs because they are not treated the same as standard numbers, meaning callers have to pay twice for the call.

I suppose it's fair enough if people want the extra convenience of not having to look up a number that they can pay 15p just to dial 101 (a fool and his money, and all that). However, it is imperative that police forces continue to have proper numbers, and that these are advertised widely so that anyone who wishes to find a standard phone number can do so.

The cost of the police force having a phone line has always been there, and doesn't need to have changed. (If we have to pay for that what next? Paying for the fuel for the police car if they travel to the crime scene? Paying for the police dog's food?) The only additional cost is the 101 forwarding system (which I believe forwards the call to the force's existing control room, not to a national centre). So only that part of the system needs to incur an extra cost that hasn't always existed.

As for the cost being the same for everyone under this system, that's rubbish. If I pay £10/month for a landline with inclusive calls, and someone else has a PAYG mobile, I'm being charged twice for the call and they are not. How can that be fair?

Do you also think it would be fairer for public service providers to use 0844 or 0871 numbers because all landline callers had to pay the same, even those with inclusive packages?

I don't think anyone who has campaigned against NGNs on sites such as this should be in favour of 101.

jrawle wrote on Nov 16^th, 2011 at 3:20pm:

The representative is misinformed. The price is 15 per call from all those who have voluntarily signed-up to an agreement with the Home Office to maintain a consistent single call charge. This includes the overwhelming majority of providers.

The statement about the call cost is based on the assumption that nobody has been missed. Let us hope that the company in question will shortly sign-up.


jrawle wrote on Nov 16^th, 2011 at 3:20pm:

The important point about the charge for calling 101 is that it only pays for the connection of the call by the telephone company up to the point where the police system takes it. In this sense it is totally different from the revenue sharing arrangement which applies with 084 and 087 numbers.

If 101 were "free to caller" in the normal way then the Police would be carrying the cost of the call imposed on them by the caller's telephone company. Callers are paying to save the Police this potential expense. I do not think that this is quite the same as their fuel and dog food bills.


jrawle wrote on Nov 16^th, 2011 at 3:20pm:

The £10/month is calculated to cover the cost of only some calls. I understand that you would rather pay more so that more calls could be covered, but whilst you are not doing so you are not paying twice when for you pay for a non-inclusive call. (The fairness of the actual amount that anyone pays is a separate issue.)

One must note the increase to the package fees which followed BT's decision to include 0845 calls. We may disagree about whether or not this was a sensible decision, but we must note the effect.


jrawle wrote on Nov 16^th, 2011 at 3:20pm:

I have never campaigned against NGNs. In this thread I only seek to promote informed discussion of the issues raised by 101. I fear that they may be confused with other important and quite separate issues. My fears may have been realised.

Apart from concerns about the potential for a "free to caller" service to suffer misuse, my personal view is that 101 should have been placed in this category, unless it could be made clear that calls are for administrative matters only and will never lead to any form of direct response.

More broadly, I believe that all call packages should be as inclusive as possible, so that telephone call charges are a truly rare event. I disagree with points made above, in that I believe that calls must be charged whenever the recipient is deriving any financial benefit, and the value of this charge/benefit must be declared by that person.

I can think of only very few cases where it could be appropriate to declare a charge for accessing a public service by telephone. I also suspect that many private companies would not think it worth the pain and shame of declaring a modest charge - they would either move to levy a serious charge that they could justify, or revert to geographic rate numbers without revenue share.

jrawle wrote on Nov 16^th, 2011 at 6:54pm:

The phone companies were always charging the caller, either bundled into a package of calls or charged separately. What has changed is that whilst some were able to use their inclusive package to contact the Police at no extra cost, a mobile user calling a 0845 number could have been paying £2 for a five minute call - now everybody pays 15p per call.

I have no idea about the precise calculations used to arrive at the 15p as some sort of midpoint, but it would make sense that if those with inclusive packages were able to call for free, then those who could not would be paying much more than 15p.

I understand that the Police will need to retain their geo numbers to allow contact from outside the UK. This leaves a loophole for those who are able to call geo numbers for less than 15p per call to do so. More seriously, the geo numbers allow direct contact with a particular force/constabulary/service from outside its area and so they need to be retained for this purpose. If the 15p has to be increased as a result, then that is unfortunate, but inevitable.


I believe that if we get away from the idea that 101 is specifically for reporting crime, so as to solicit a (non-emergency) response from the Police, and accept that it is for administrative contact only, then there is no reason why it could not be replaced by a geographic rate number and only available during office hours. Whilst it is presented as being a (second degree) emergency services number, then it should be "free to caller".

I hope the fact that the Police themselves earn nothing from calls to 101, removes any connection from paying their fuel or dog food bills.


If access via the geo number were removed, so that you were compelled to use one of many special numbers which are not covered by your package, then you would be paying more, although not paying twice for something. Perhaps you are arguing for your package to include calls to 101 and the price be increased to £10.01, on the basis that less than 1 in every 15 subscribers would make a call to 101 each month. I am not sure if the agreement with the Home Office prohibits this, although it may do because of the concern about nuisance calls being more likely if there is no call charge.


I argue that the "Service Charge" element of the 0844 call charge (up to 5p per minute) must be declared by the service provider. If a local authority chooses to impose a 5p per minute charge for reporting faults with street lights to save money on the Council Tax (probably in repairing street lights, as fewer faults would be reported, but also to provide a subsidy towards the cost of the call centre handling the reports) then that must ultimately be a matter between it and those it serves. I campaign for strong Cabinet Office guidance against such charges by public bodies.


There is a similarity between this and 101, in that there is no market mechanism working to determine what you pay, both are examples of public policy set by public bodies. I personally find it regrettable that we place so much reliance on markets and the related concept of "personal choice" that we forget the need for public officials to act in proper consideration of the public interest when dealing with public services. I strongly disagree with the assertion that the market model fits all situations and that a market solution is the only solution to any problem.


jrawle wrote on Nov 16^th, 2011 at 6:54pm:

It may seem perverse, but given that the geo numbers need to remain in use, I am anxious that they should be clearly described for what they are and made known to as many people as possible. 101 needs to be publicised for what it is and I would not wish for advice of the geo numbers to detract from, or confuse, that message. I do not however see it as satisfactory for them to be wrongly described or hidden in the form +44 1865 ... (or incorrect alternative international representations).

Forgive me for replying in a brief form.

Any system whereby everybody pays the same price for a service must represent cross-subsidy to some degree. One could say that weekend callers are subsidising weekday daytime callers, both on Anytime packages and calls to 101.

I suspect that on being connected through 101 you could be passed on to another area - I was referring to direct contact.

Packages do not cover all calls; you cannot say that you are paying twice e.g. for an international call or to call a premium rate number, if these calls are explicitly excluded from the package. For those without a landline already installed and / or with a poor credit history, a home phone is priced in the luxury bracket.

My point was about paying the service provider, in addition to the telephone company, to access a service by telephone. This may, but need not, be related to whether or not there is a charge for delivery of the service itself. Access via the web is equivalent to a geographic rate telephone call - you pay for your device and your internet connection, you do not pay the other party for theirs and neither do they cover your costs.

Barbara wrote on Nov 17^th, 2011 at 3:57pm:


Barabara, remember there are the dial through numbers (020 0222 0900 and 020 0222 0700) when dialling 0800 numbers from a mobile phone, so no need to wait till you get home!

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Nov 17^th, 2011 at 12:46pm:

But now we have to pay for something that previously we didn't, without receiving anything extra. Except, you have now explained that we actually have to subsidise people who call from a mobile.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Nov 17^th, 2011 at 12:46pm:

So that must be the reason that from next week, you'll have to pay 15p every time you look at a police force's website. Never mind that you have already paid for your internet connection, and that it cost nothing extra to look at a police site this week. From next week, you have to pay the 15p as you need to subsidise people who use dial-up. No looking at crime-prevention information unless you pay up.

I have looked at a few police websites, and they all say the existing number will be available for a short overlap period. However, most of them also say you need to use the old number to call from abroad. Are they to stop overseas calls in a few months' time?

Avon and Somerset also say that if you need to call another force, you should dial 101 and ask the operator to put you through:
http://www.avonandsomerset.police.uk/contact/101/101FAQ.aspx

One question you might be able to answer, as I can't find it anywhere. What is the cost of calling 101 from a payphone? Is that 15p too?

sherbert wrote on Nov 17^th, 2011 at 5:22pm:

With the 60p minimum fee for chargeable calls, BT had little option.

Where the Police were using 0845 numbers, a five minute payphone call was costing £1.40.

In every case a 5 minute call to a 0845 number was earning the Police around 8.5p. On 101 they earn nothing.

Under 101, the cost of contacting the Police will change - some will pay more than they did previously, some will pay less. Amongst those who will probably pay less are landline daytime callers subscribed to a weekends, or evenings and weekends, package.

You can think of that as a subsidy of one group of landline users by another if you wish, but the same principle applies in every other case where all users of a service pay the same price. The notion of a subsidy only arises by looking at the before and after position. To give other examples which could similarly be described as being subsidies: local landline callers subsidise national callers, now that the distinction has been removed; peak rate (morning) callers subsidise off-peak (afternoon) callers now that a single daytime rate applies. Lighter users of inclusive packages will always be seen to "subsidise" heavier users. I would try to reserve use of the word "subsidy" for situations where there a more clear transfer of money between the two parties, e.g. a victim of crime and a Police service with a 0845 number.


The numbers being retained only for the changeover period are the 0845 numbers which have been widely promoted but will be fully replaced by 101, as they cannot be guaranteed to be accessible from overseas.

I cannot think why a Police service would seriously consider blocking telephone calls from overseas. The only concern for those who wish to use the overseas calls number for UK calls is the possibility that the overseas number be connected to a special contact point for that purpose alone, rather than routed into the same call centre as 101 calls.

If 101 calls made from another area can be re-routed, avoiding the need for a direct number to contact the Call Centre, then it is possible that the geographic number for overseas calls may not be a true alternative to 101. Some of the functions performed by the 101 Call Centre would not be relevant in the case of calls from overseas, so overseas calls could be handled differently.


Telephone providers include only some calls in packages, they charge for others. Calls to 00, 07, 08, 09, 118 and others are typically excluded. The cost of some excluded calls incorporates a Service Charge that is passed on to the person called. 101 is NOT an example of this. The basis for the 101 call charge is established by a voluntary agreement between the Home Office and the telephone companies. This does not include any transfer of funds to or from the Home Office or the Police.

ISPs do not charge according to the point being accessed, nor do they collect charges that are passed on to other parties. Chargeable internet site access is covered by a separate subscription process managed by site owners.

ISPs provide direct access through subscription, or public network dial-up access paid for through the revenue share paid over by whichever telephone company connects the call. That telephone company will also add its own charge for a dial-up call using a revenue sharing number.

As Police websites currently sit on the world wide web, I cannot see any need for special access arrangements to be established, distinguishing between different types of connection. If Police websites came off the www, so that special access arrangements were needed, the equivalent to using a three digit telephone number outside the standard national numbering plan and tariff arrangements, then a scheme such as that suggested could be applied.

I cannot however think why the Police would wish to do this.


In many cases they have given up the revenue share benefit of 0845 numbers to take a neutral revenue position. They have not raided their pressured budgets to meet the caller's cost of calls to 101, as an new item of expenditure. In conjunction with the Home Office and the telephone companies they have come up with a scheme whereby everybody pays the same to make calls to 101.

We may be unhappy about the effect on ourselves and may have better policy options to propose, however I see nothing to support the idea that any of the further possible measures suggested have anything in common with what has actually been done.

From a political viewpoint, I believe that the option of tapping citizens for financial contributions to public services (that are not privatised) as they use them will not be deployed for a while yet, if ever.