sherbert wrote on Nov 21^st, 2011 at 8:38am:

Well found - many thanks.

I would tend to take the view that shareholders meet the capital funding requirements of a business. Running expenses are met out of revenue from customers, from which the excess after overhead expenses (profit) is distributed to shareholders. Except where price competition, or demand elasticity, is so severe as to prevent costs from being reflected in prices, consumers meet the effect of increased costs before shareholders. I argue that this applies to the telephone calls market in general, especially where a (relatively) small cost can be spread over many prices.

Have just read up on the last couple of days' posts.   There is a lot about who pays/should pay but I would say who pays for the inclusive geo calls in a package?  Is it certain that the cost of each subscriber's calls is covered by the fee they pay for their package each month?   Surely 101 could be included in a package on the same basis as geo nos ie paid for by whoever pays for the geo calls (it is, after all, unlikely that a subscriber is going to make 100s of calls per month to 101) and that the cost of calling 101 is capped at 15p for those who do not have the relevant package?  Any argument against the inclusion of 101 could surely also be used against the inclusion of 03, all it needs is a simple change to the regulation, 101 included as is 03 is, job done.  I'm sure I'll be told I'm being too simplistic.

Barbara wrote on Nov 21^st, 2011 at 4:20pm:


My seniments exactly as per my earlier post - but can anything be done about it. - Maybe a petition to the relevant body would be a start who ever that may be.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Nov 21^st, 2011 at 11:46pm:

This is the first of two.

In response to general points about the forum and politics

There is perhaps a difference between the money-saving facility provided by the database of alternatives and the campaigning element of the forum. Some of the forum is largely about the mechanics of the database and the pricing policies of telcos, but a lot of discussion is about the mis-use of revenue sharing numbers, rather than simply avoiding calling them.

I hope that, as this is a public forum, guests and members feel free to read and contribute to those threads which they find to be of interest. It could be that a better structure for the forum sections would make it easier - i.e. there could be sections where the word "Ofcom" and any reference to public policy were banned.

There is nothing fundamentally wrong in saying "I want the best deal for me and I do not give a damn about anyone else"; that is how consumers should behave in a market. This approach does not however enable one to make much progress when attempting to discuss public policy enacted by Ofcom, the Police, the Home Office, the Department of Health etc.

I understand there to be some agreement about there being two aspects of this site. It is public awareness of the issues and the arguments honed in discussion here which have contributed to the achievements referred to, rather than the pressure created by use of alternative numbers.


As I read it, this thread is totally about public policy. In 2005, the Home Office declared that a list of geographic alternatives to 101 would be published. If that is all that is being sought, the only issue should be the 0845 numbers which are included on that list. For those who want nothing more than a way to make a non-emergency call to the Police without calling 101, there should be no need to get involved in discussing how calls to 101 should be charged. The 0845 alternatives are not what was promised - perhaps that should be the only issue worthy of discussion here.

Whilst I see alternative numbers as valuable, use them myself and pass them on to others, I do not see them as the answer to misuse of revenue sharing numbers, especially in the public sector. I do not believe that anybody has a duty to join in campaigning efforts, however I note that campaigning energy which could be utilised to press for change for the general public good can sometimes be diverted by the ability of those who are particularly concerned about an issue to avoid it.

There are some who argue that a geographic rate alternative should be published alongside every expensive number. I disagree, arguing that there can be no justification for publishing the expensive alternative alongside the geographic rate number.

One exception is where this can be noted as being especially for the use of those with certain perverse tariffs. The other exceptional cases include those where the expensive number is offered for those who wish to make a donation, perhaps to subsidise the running costs of the body being called (e.g. the National Trust), and where a geographic alternative is provided for a 080 number that is only offered as free to landline callers.

On specific points

jrawle wrote on Nov 21^st, 2011 at 11:08am:

One could argue that the rip-off is being practised by those 080 users who do not qualify for the Helpline Association scheme, but, unlike the DWP, refuse to pick up the tab.

jrawle wrote on Nov 21^st, 2011 at 11:08am:

I quite understand why this makes people particularly angry. I would not however agree that revenue sharing numbers are OK if there is an alternative means of making contact or an alternative number. If there is a "service charge", on top of the charge to the benefit of the telephone company, for making contact by telephone, it should be declared and justified. I suspect that only in very few of the cases one has in mind could any reasonable justification be offered.

Barbara wrote on Nov 21^st, 2011 at 4:20pm:

The particular point about 101 is the arrangement about funding without payment from the Home Office - there must be doubt that the level of 15p would be sustained if inclusion was also part of the deal.

03 must be included when 01/02 are included. As more move from 084 onto 03 one would expect upward pressure on the cost of packages.

Barbara wrote on Nov 21^st, 2011 at 4:20pm:

I think that we are arguing about the additional cost of a 15p call on a point of principle. I doubt that, unlike the £2 for a five minute call which some would be paying to call the Police at present, the 15p is regarded as a serious expense. That is not to say that the principles involved are unimportant, but an appeal to consider the significance of the issue

My post #120 still stands

There has been a little comment in our local newspaper about the 101 number and the 15p charge.

I added my comments for what they're worth.

http://www.kidderminstershuttle.co.uk/news/9348290.New_non_emergency_number_laun...

As I said, if someone robs a Post Office of £1000, you're supposed to dial 999 but if someone runs off with your £30k BMW you are supposed to ring the non-emergency 101.

Pure stupidity!  I for one will NEVER ring 101.

With reference to the National Single Non-Emergency Number - Designating number “101” - Statement - 8 March 2006,
SilentCallsVictim wrote on Nov 20^th, 2011 at 7:11pm:

The Home Office has duly published Your force's non-emergency number. The reference to "anti-social behaviour" could be misleading, as many examples of this should be reported to the local authority (the other member of the intended "partnership"), not the Police. The 0845 numbers on this list are in breach of the undertaking given by the Home Office.

sherbert wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2011 at 8:21pm:

That same number is indeed given for West Mercia Police on the Home Office site.


If the "switchboard" asks for the name of a "particular person or department", the answer is that one is calling the Home Office advised "alternative geographic [rate] number" for 101 because of "concerns about call-cost". It may be prudent not to tell the switchboard operator that you can afford to buy a £50,000 BMW and it has been stolen. Concerns about paying your phone company 15p to get through to the Police simply to ask for a crime number to put on a £50,000 insurance claim may not be treated with the greatest sympathy.

You could be reporting £1000 having been pinched from a Post Office. If either crime were in progress at the time, then you should have called 999.

The fact that the Police will apparently do nothing else about your stolen car other than adding it to some statistics, because nobody reported the crime whilst it was in progress, is a wholly separate issue. Although this is of great concern to me, it is strictly outside the scope of this discussion. I have already noted my concern that the reporting of crime is grouped together with contacting the Police on purely administrative matters. I believe that the latter needs a geographic rate number, the former should be "free to caller".

I fear that calling 999, as the number which prompts a response, when no response will be made, is not going to change Police policy or resources. 101 was deliberately chosen so as to make it less likely for calls to 999 to be made out of ignorance of the proper number to call. One may have to take care in deliberately calling 999 knowing that the call is inappropriate, and soliciting others to do the same; I understand that this could be a criminal offence.


One could say that it is "taxpayers" whose pockets are being lined as a result of the Home Office choosing not to use their money to pay to make 101 "free to caller" or "free to some callers". This of course includes those taxpayers for whom 15p is a lot cheaper than calling a normal telephone number, who could be lining their pockets with the money they have saved. One could also say that telcos are lining their pockets because they charge for their services, even though they typically charge 101 callers without inclusive packages in effect at the time less than what they charge them for a geographic call.


(I am not sure if the misrepresentation of the situation with 101 arises from genuine misunderstanding, or if it is deliberate. I too believe that it should be "free to caller", but I am prepared to try to understand it as it is, so that my arguments may be sustained.)

sherbert wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2011 at 9:50am:

Indeed there are!

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2011 at 3:33pm:

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2011 at 1:06am:


sherbert wrote on Nov 18^th, 2011 at 10:18am:

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2011 at 3:33pm:

I must regret the fact that, although they were highlighted in the original, I had apparently buried points of interest amongst points that some members find to be too complicated.

I am however grateful that a point which was seen to be unnecessarily complicated is now noted as being of interest.