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

Well, I now know where I'll be making calls to the police from, should the alternate number stop working. That's assuming it's for something that Crimestoppers isn't appropriate for.

bigjohn wrote on Nov 18^th, 2011 at 5:11am:

BE Unlimited is part of O2 - I was going to mention that.

As may have been found, I was not amongst those forum members who contributed to the Ofcom consultation, as discussed in this thread. My engagement with this issue is more recent and postdates much of what has been achieved by campaigning. I did contribute to public discussion of the decision by the Met to move to 03 and used this as an opportunity to draw out the Cabinet Office on this issue (see this clip). Further, productive contact with the Cabinet Office was on a wholly informal basis.


It is fair enough to comment on this issue from the perspective of someone who is used to making free calls to the Police, however there are some who have been paying 51p, 63p, £1, £2 or £1.40 for a five minute call and will now be paying 15p, or, in the latter case, nothing.

I think it would be unfortunate, and show an undue bias, if, as a campaigning forum, this site were seen to be wholly disregarding the positive side of the flat call charge for 101. It is not my preferred option, but I admit to being drawn to the principle of equity which it represents.


The website analogy is flawed in a number of respects, not least because it fails to reflect the situation of those who are now paying less than they were. The "101 is more expensive" argument is exactly the type of selective argument which is used to support the claim that "calls to geographic numbers are more expensive than calls to 0844". One cannot ignore particular cases, but a fair minded approach does not ignore any significant particular cases.

There was also an analogy of paying the Police for their fuel and dog food, and the reference to paying the Police for access to their websites is repeated again. This is why I have continued to refer to the fact that the 15p is only going to the caller's telephone company, as these comments seem to suggest that funding of the Police is somehow relevant.


As I have said, my personal view is that 101, as it is currently presented, should have been made "free to caller". (All things being equal) this would however result in fewer bobbies on the beat, tax increases or a bigger deficit. Conversely for 111, my view is that call charges should have been set at the geographic equivalent rate, probably on separate locally focussed numbers, as I do not believe that the case for a national number is sufficiently strong. There are strong arguments against the public expense involved in both projects, especially as both have been changed from their original purpose in the course of implementation.

I do however believe that the case for the re-launch of 101 is well made. The idea that the agreed call charge arrangements have something to do with callers paying the person called, which I understand to be the issue of primary focus for this site, is mistaken. 101 is however a wholly valid topic for discussion here, as the site seeks to encourage discussion of relevant issues, not just to push an agreed doctrine.


I comment as one who is concerned about these matters, keen and ready to contribute to public discourse. For the record, I must indicate my dissent from the suggested focus of a campaign for calls to be charged at the rate applied to standard telephone numbers. I deplore the decision by BT and others to require package subscribers to contribute to the revenue share paid to users of 0845 numbers. I look forward to the imminent scrapping of the "NTS condition" on BT. Similarly, I will be unhappy if, as is likely, landline calls to mobiles come to be included in standard packages before the enhanced termination fee is completely removed.

I understand the argument for the cost of standard calls, and packages of such calls, to be increased so as to cover more items, however I do not see this as being the answer to issues that are raised here. Furthermore, I fear that those who support this argument may not be ready to stand by the consequences of what they propose. Both 101 and 111 are intended to generate more call traffic than previously used numbers. I would have been content to see this put pressure on standard call pricing in the case of 111, however, in my personal opinion, 101, as it is currently presented, should be treated differently.

15p per call for everybody shows a similar (although lesser) degree of equity to the preferred "free to caller" approach. Use of 01/02/03 numbers, or the equivalent charge, is less equitable, given the declared nature of the 101 service, but far more so than 0845.

I hope my position and my personal views are clear. I declare my public involvement in these matters through my blogs and news feeds. I am also happy to engage in private discussion about the detail of my campaigning activities, however there are many good reasons for not discussing all tactics in a public forum.

I recommend you all consider signing this Downing St ePetition against 101 charges:

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/22025

bazzerfewi wrote on Nov 19^th, 2011 at 1:59pm:

Indeed, to the caller there is a similarity - neither are charged at the same rate as geographic calls; they may be cheaper, they may be more expensive.

(There are situations where the cost is effectively the same, e.g. inclusive geographic calls cost the same as 080 calls from landlines, along with 0845 calls that are treated as inclusive.)


For some, calls to 101 are cheaper than calls to geographic numbers, for others they are more expensive.

The same is true of 080, 0844/3, 0845 and even the lower rated 0871 numbers.


Calls to both 101 and 08 are either cheaper or more expensive than calls to geographic numbers. That is what they have in common. The effect varies according to the particular number and the caller's tariff.

The crucial difference between 101 and 08 is in relation to what happens to the money.

With 08 numbers, the person called is involved with the money, with 101 they are not.

On every call to a 08 number the caller's telephone company (the "OCP") pays money to that of the person called (the "TCP") - with 080 the amount is negative.

With 101 there is simply a different scheme being followed for how the telephone company charges the caller. The Police and the Home Office were instrumental in getting this to be adopted, by agreement, but they are not involved financially.

---

It would be interesting to hear what those who oppose the 101 charging structure propose for those who are benefiting from it.

As the telcos have agreed to 15p per call, presumably on the basis that they would get an acceptable return overall, an alternative scheme would need to achieve that effect also.

If those with inclusive packages for geographic calls were not paying their 15p's to call 101, then where should the money come from?

a) existing Police or Home Office budgets, higher taxes or a bigger deficit (make it free to caller)
b) callers without inclusive packages (set 101 at geographic rate - up to 20p per minute)
c) telephone users in general (a cap of 15p per call on geographic rate for 101 calls)

Option c) is what some would say is "the telephone companies". They would argue for the fee (cap) to be increased for the sake of their other customers, and may even withdraw from the agreement. Extensive use of geographic alternatives is another way of achieving the same effect. If these are in use, then I see it as vital that they receive an adequate degree of publicity by the Police.

I try to avoid being openly political, but my personal position has been questioned. My personal preference is for the latter parts of option a). I do however acknowledge that the consequences would not be likely to achieve a sufficient degree of approval from the public in general. I find the present arrangements preferable to options b) and c).

Oops.

jrawle wrote on Nov 20^th, 2011 at 2:39pm:

I have always believed that the primary focus of the site was the covert benefit of revenue sharing.

I am not aware of a general campaign against numbers that are cheaper than geographic rate calls (e.g. 080 for some). Some members oppose the inclusion of 0845 calls in packages, where they are treated as standard numbers. Not all members are opposed to all Directory Enquiries and recorded information services.

jrawle wrote on Nov 20^th, 2011 at 2:39pm:

Surely this is true of any telephone number. (Package prices get adjusted if they fail to yield the necessary return for shareholders.)

jrawle wrote on Nov 20^th, 2011 at 2:39pm:

If only that were true. Sadly there are many who fail to recognise the extent of the penalty charge incurred by landline users who call geographic numbers outside the terms of their call plan; it is generally much more than 15p per call. Barring present anomalies that we wait to hear about, I do not believe that there is likely to be much confusion about the cost of calling 101 - it is the same for everyone.

(101 is one of the exceptional cases where I would not oppose use of a PCA.)

jrawle wrote on Nov 20^th, 2011 at 2:39pm:

I cannot see why it should be wholly disregarded, if that is the difference which some will be experiencing. Should we ignore what callers have been paying previously? I recall the increase from 0p to 15p per call being given as the basis for objecting to the 101 charge.

Is it right to compare the overall cost of calling a geographic number (up to 20p per minute) to 101, or must we only look at certain selected cases?

---

I have stated my position of opposition - I believe that 101, as it is presented, should be "free to caller". I only seek to see the issue discussed fully and the benefits of the selected approach recognised against the proposed alternative.

I was not engaged in these matters in 2005 when Ofcom undertook its consultation. The option of a tariff based on that for geographic calls was mentioned by Ofcom, but this was not one of the 4 specific options proposed for public consideration by the Home Office.

Those concerned about this matter may be interested to read the consultation document, the responses and the Ofcom statement, all of which may be accessed from http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/consultations/snen/.

One particular point of interest is paragraph 6.21 of the Ofcom statement which says:
Quote:

We now have only the Police element of the "partnership" and the 10p has become 15p, however this statement should provide a basis for those who wish to campaign on this particular point. I note that the e-petition does not refer to the Home Office honouring this commitment.

My personal view is that the single point of publication for alternative geographic numbers is insufficient, as this will not be adequate to ensure that all those who could benefit from using such a number would be able to do so. At the same time, I am concerned about the upward pressure on the 15p that would result if many callers do not pay it. If this level of fixed charge had to be protected by funding from the Home Office, then one must question whether it would not be better to have no charge at all.

It is interesting to note that the Home Office had hoped that in due course it would be possible to remove the fee. The approach to public spending has however moved in the opposite direction to that which was anticipated in 2005. As I have said, I see little chance of there being general consent to increased public spending on this service; what we have may be the best that we can realistically hope for.

bazzerfewi wrote on Nov 20^th, 2011 at 7:38pm:

I think you meant to say:

Quote:

101 is the non-emergency contact number for the Police. It is an alternative to the emergency service. Nonetheless, many of us believe that it should be "free to caller".

I must ask how the telcos themselves are to meet the costs incurred in providing this service, if not out of the revenue they take from users of all their services.

It is perfectly fair to argue that telephone users in general should pay, but please do not assume that telco profits derive from any other source, or that the market is sufficiently competitive to prevent costs from being reflected in prices.

---

If anybody knows how calls to the actual emergency service (999/112) are funded, it would be very useful to perhaps be able to bring this into the discussion. I believe that it may be funded by customers of BT, Virgin Media, Kingston and the mobile network owners.

We await the launch of a government sanctioned "alternative emergency service"; G4-Police springs immediately to mind. It would doubtless use a premium rate telephone number to avoid nuisance calls, and offer a service that was far superior to that of its public sector rivals. (I hope that I do not get supporters of consumerism and consumer choice too excited by mentioning this possibility.)