See the full fair telecoms campaign response to the NHS Sussex statement -
http://www.fairtelecoms.org.uk/1/post/2013/03/response-to-statement-from-nhs-sus...

Dave wrote on Mar 9^th, 2013 at 11:42am:

I don't understand this statement.   For anyone with a package, landline or mobile, the premium incurred when calling an 084/7 number also costs the "access charge" and the connection charge.   Can you explain please Dave?

---

loddon wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2013 at 9:46am:

There are many circumstances under which a premium charge may be incurred when using the telephone, e.g. exceeding a limited bundled allowance, making a Weekday call under the terms of a Weekend only Call Plan. Premiums are also incurred when calling numbers not covered by a Call Plan or bundle (e.g. mobiles from a landline).

That referred to by Dave was the premium that is invariably incurred when calling a 0844 number because of the additional Termination Fee paid on to the benefit of the person called. This is always in place, regardless of other possible premiums imposed by the telephone company. Under the forthcoming Ofcom regulations this will have to be declared, it will be known as the Service Charge.


The premium Access Charge which may be incurred is consequential on there being a Service Charge. Many campaigners stress the fact that the Service Charge will have to be declared in the hope that those who are unable to justify imposing a charge for the call, by their choice of number that includes a Service Charge, will feel compelled to relieve callers of all premiums other than those which may be incurred in calling a geographic rate number. This is the essence of SayNoTo0870. As numbers that include a Service Charge will continue to be permitted, pressure must be applied to discourage their use.

It is for this reason that great emphasis is placed on the Service Charge, which will remain largely unchanged as we move into the "Unbundled Tariff" regime. Simplification, transparency and removal of the special regulation of BT will cause the "Access Charge" to be very different under the new regime to what it is at present. For now, it is simply defined as being the remainder of the total call cost after the Service Charge has been removed. In some cases this makes it negative! We have not yet had any clear indications of what individual telephone companies will be doing with it in future. 


Some argue that the "Access Charge" and the rate for calling geographic numbers should be equalised, so that the "Service Charge" represents the only premium over the cost of calling a geographic number in all cases. The fair telecoms campaign takes the view that those who choose not to call numbers with "Service Charges" should not be compelled to subsidise such calls by paying the same rate to the originating telephone company. Equally, we do not believe that Access Charges should be pegged to "penalty charges" for Out of Plan calls to geographic rate numbers.

We foresee many changes with landline package arrangements in the medium term, most notably the inclusion of unlimited calls to mobiles. We are content to wait to see what the market delivers and will press Ofcom to intervene should any clear unfairness be seen. The issue of what must and what may be included in bundles will be addressed at length in the forthcoming Ofcom consultation on Simplifying Non-Geographic Numbers.

The imperative issue is that the Access Charge be kept simple, so that the greatest possible number of callers will know what it is at the time when they consider making a call on which it will be incurred.


The connection charge (or "call setup fee"), on calls that are otherwise charged by duration,  has an uncertain future. We wait to see if Ofcom will be proceeding with its intention to abolish it. If it remains, it will become part of the "Access Charge", exclusively to the benefit of the call originating telephone company. At present, it could be said to be part of the Service Charge, however with a simpler future in prospect, due to be outlined shortly, it may be best not to go too deep into this at this time.

loddon wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2013 at 12:58pm:


In a case where the "premium" is over a cost of zero, then this is true. The Access Charge plus the Service Charge is the total "unbundled" cost of the call. Whilst the overwhelming majority of calls to geographic numbers incur no call charge, it cannot be said that none do. The word "premium" loses something of its meaning when set against zero, so the context assumed by the suggested statement serves to make it pointless in isolation.

As stated above, we must also take care to distinguish between the present and the future when it comes to Access Charges. Service Charges will not change that much under the new regime, other than being brought out into the open, however Access Charges will undergo something of a revolution.

The point is that for the minority who pay for geographic rate calls, where the "ordinary charge" or "usual price" is not zero, the suggested statement is untrue.

In general terms, a charge or price of zero would be seen as an exceptional case.

Another fantastic post by Stuart (do you post here Stuart) on the  http://wilsonrichard.com site re the Lightwater Surgery in Surrey.

Also remiss of me to not congratulate Richard Wilson on his campaign.

Keith wrote on Apr 4^th, 2013 at 10:56am:


Is this post appropriate??   I have looked at this link and can find only a passing reference to a GPs 0844 number, so what is so "fantastic" about it?   It seems to me you are trying to push the electioneering stance of a political candidate rather than discuss topics relevant to this Forum.

Lodden,

If you look at my history on this site you would see I would never do what you are suggesting. I have posted since 2005 and have never made a political point in any post.

I think you must have missed the details. There is a long article followed by 49 posts. the final ones by Stuart are fantastic. He knows his stuff and has gone into comprehensive detail.

Stuart who has made the posts I refer to also makes no political points either.

FYI I am a member of a political party and it is NOT the one promoted by this site, so I would hardly be pushing it for electioneering purposes. I would be linking to it whether it be Con/Lab/LD or whatever because of 0844 issue being discussed and for no other reason.

Go to  http://wilsonrichard.com and go down to latest comments on the right and click on any of the 0844 references to see the comments to the 21 January article. I think you must have missed them.