NGMsGhost wrote on Dec 8^th, 2012 at 8:27pm:

Indeed; we agree. Ask your MP.

Quote:

As the providers of roaming services in the UK will be the parties to the agreement that sets the 15p rate for their own direct customers, it is a question of whether their provision of roaming services to users of foreign networks is covered by the agreement.

(I am happy to privately share the details of my Home Office contact, who will be able to answer this question. One could approach ACPO directly.)

Quote:

There is no standard EU 116 number for non-emergency contact with the Police. That is why 101 was needed. If 101 is not supported whilst roaming in the UK, a visitor using their own phone would need to know the relevant geographic number, which is the same as they would use from home.

I agree that we are thinking about situations which most of us would regard as an emergency for a visitor. The situations in which 101 is needed are however classed as non-emergency. Having to use data roaming to look up the number of the local police service on the internet, or pre-loading it into a list of useful numbers before travelling, is the sort of additional effort that someone may be expected to have to go through.

(This is fair enough if the visitor is intending to visit a local Police museum and wants to enquire about opening times or translation services, but not if they have to report that their luggage has been stolen, before contacting their insurance company.)

Quote:

If these are not 03 (geographic rate) numbers, then they are in breach of Home Office directions. I had understood that they had all been dealt with, by local members of this forum.

So long as these geographic numbers are published and available for those who begrudge paying the standard rate for a 101 call, in the same way that any other telephone number is made available, then I would feel content. (That is not to deny my disagreement with the decision not to use taxpayers' money to fund all 101 calls.)

Quote:

I cannot. That is one of many points that need to be made about the appalling quality of BT's consumer price information.

Quote:

Pursuing the fair telecoms campaign requires us to be in touch with lots of technical detail, as well as public policy, political and media matters.


I believe that we are in total agreement about the fact that many of the calls that have to be made to 101 should be handled by the 999 service, or some other “free to caller” service. If this were so, then the remainder of 101 calls would probably best be dealt with using geographic rate numbers - local for the relevant local service, 03 where needed to avoid a sense of bias within an area, or perhaps a single national 03 number. I feel the same way about 111, but that is a purely personal view, which may spark another debate.

Strange how this thread has never been merged or unified with the other main Police number thread in the forum at:-

www.saynoto0870.com/cgi-bin/forum/YaBB.cgi?num=1189257846/330

Firstly, thanks must be offered to bj for the thoroughness of his research activity and the issues which he brings to our attention.

The report seems reasonable, however, in my view, there are two omissions.

Not only is the charge for calling 101 relatively low - the key point is that it is the same for everyone. I believe that Home Office funding should have been provided to make it free for all, however one must accept the argument that a small charge may discourage nuisance calls and the government's reluctance to spend money on the public sector.

The continuing existence of geographic rate alternative numbers, and the failure of some to provide them, is not referred to. I believe that this answers the concerns of those who are able to call such numbers without charge and resent contributing to the funding of the 101 service as they use it.

NGMsGhost wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 2:10pm:

Fair point about payphones, however that does not undermine the point that it is the equity of the charge, rather than the level, that is important.

I too would be interested to know whether the UK carriers for the roaming service used by visitors apply the agreed charge to such calls. If so, then there is only the issue of charges on currency conversion to be used as a means of extortion.

We head into very deep territory when we attempt to equate GATT with the concept of the EU single market. Perhaps such matters require a separate thread.

NGMsGhost wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 2:10pm:

I assume we agree that the government is reluctant to spend money on the public sector. The argument that a small charge MAY discourage nuisance calls appears to be reasonable and it is impossible to disprove. The report did not address this point; let us hope that further studies will perhaps offer some indication of what happens in reality.

For myself, I am prepared to accept that there may be a deterrent effect of a charge. I would however argue that it is no less likely to discourage genuine calls, and it most certainly does not offer an adequate justification for the decision not to fund the service in total from taxation.

NGMsGhost wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 2:10pm:

The system is intended to be "self funding", although the Home Office is understood to be underwriting it, by standing ready to make good any unexpected significant shortfall.

The level of the charge is requested by the operators, agreed by the Home Office and ACPO and embodied in agreements with the call providers. I am not sure if PCC's will get involved, although it would seem likely. One must hope that the present level has been set to last for some time to come, although it would undoubtedly have been based on estimates of call volumes. If volumes are lower than expected and/or if cost inflation is greater than expected, then there will be pressure to increase the charge. There is some democratic accountability on the part of the government and the PCC's which may cause this to be resisted.

On principal I would never ring the 101 number, I have had a need to contact the police on local issues but if I cannot contact them on the 01/02/03 number I will not pass on the information, having said that I have just conacted South Yorkshire Police on the 0114 number and that works fine.

Every Police service is required to offer a geographic rate number as a local alternative to 101.

In Blackpool Lancashire, they do not provide a geographical alternative when asking for help in the local paper.  101 only!
Where is it defined that a geographical number must be published?