Hi,

I'm a member of a local voluntary group that uses an 070 number for its publicised point of contact, and has suggested abandoning this due to the call costs putting off potential enquiries. Off the back of this, I suggested an 03x number - and in the ensuing email exchange, some very interesting points were raised. I've changed some of the names and references so as not to draw attention to this particular group, but the basics and significant details remain as they were written to me.

"When I raised "03 number" only one person had heard of it, but
could not describe its features.  No-one else was even aware of 03.  Outside , I asked our grade 1s and 2s up to a total sample of 50 people, and not one had even heard of 03.  Some hazarded a guess it
was the new series of local numbers (3xx xxxx for certain providers), and
others thought it was a free call service like 0800.

I understand from HQ that only one local Group out of the 260 total
is listed as having its contact on an 03 number.  I have spoken with that
particular Group, and interestingly their main motivation for choosing 03
was "lowest cost option to the Group".  They have the basic BT package,
which they found to be the cheapest on the market, but they are stuck with
calls going to one fixed number - which they don't find a problem in their
circumstances."

In a previous email, this group had advised that their current telecoms consultant had initially put them off the idea of 03x for a couple of specific reasons:

- Cost & inflexibility. See further down.
- Public awarenesss. See above.
- "Also, 03 numbers are not universally accessible from mobile phone
networks, which would defeat the whole object of having the number." I challenged them to substantiate this, and they were not able to.

Interestingly, a bit of detective work on my part - the telco who currently provides the groups existing number does not, as best I can tell, offer 03x numbers.

On the cost issue, the group has pointed out the basics of the package they have for 070 - and it involves a monthly rental with redirection and web-control services provided FOC. I assume this is covered by the incoming revenue-share.

"I have spoken to several providers who offer 03, showing an interest in
buying a number and service for the Group.  All of them aim the service
initially at "Business Telemarketing" for concerns with a nationwide
presence and receiving high volumes of calls - which can be controlled
automatically and pointed at various phones.  The add-on routing and
analysis services quickly add up to £hundreds or even £thousands per month
(note, not per quarter).  Number ranges are available for public
services/not for profit orgns, but there does not seem to be a different fee
scale - purchasers seem to have to rely on public recognition of the number.

The Internet-publicised low charges do not carry through when you ask for an
actual quote for service"

Just some food for thought really - the public awareness thing is probably not news to most of us regulars but worrying all the same. It probably needs a Watchdog or other-national-press article do draw particular attention to it.

Dave wrote on Apr 26^th, 2011 at 9:49am:


Funny you should say that. In an earlier email ping-pong, the group said something along the lines of... most people think nothing of dialling an 07 number, we have no record of anyone objecting to 070 and if it's going to be a long call we offer the underlying landline number at the time.

I did point out the silent majority theory when it came to people not objecting, and that of "bill shock" with calls to 070, but this was somehow lost because they're used to the 070 number and there's minimal cost to the group. I wonder why.....

EDIT: Before starting the email exchange, I had researched the charges for the exact 070x number in question, from landlines and mobiles. They were in the order of 60p/minute.

japitts wrote on Apr 26^th, 2011 at 10:15am:

Minimal cost to the group? 

They should be making a fortune from it.

If they're not, someone is.

As a wild guess I would say that the group to which you refer is the Association of British Drivers, which I also belong to but am not an active participant in.  They have a long and bad history of using 070 numbers for most forms of telephone contact by the public or by the press.  Although I see they have finally brought in an 0870 number instead of an 070 number for the press.

See www.abd.org.uk

Quote:


I dread to think how much it would cost to call their 070 number from overseas on a mobile as they appear to recommend as the cost is already exorbitant even from a UK landline.

I have previously taken up this issue with them by email but certain characters there are extremely cussed and totally refuse to see the light.  I suspect a complaint to the ASA about them and their failure to disclose the extra cost of their 070 numbers in newsletters and on their website etc might well be productive.

Ofcom is currently running a consultation with the public about "Unexpectedly high bills" and wants member of the public with unexpectedly high bills to give them examples of how they have come about and what they contained and this consultation does not  close until 14th June 2011.

See http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/consultations/unexpectedly-high-bills/?utm_sour...

My recommendation would be that anyone who objects to the continued misuse of 070 numbers (which almost certainly are being misused and misrepresented in terms of call cost by the ABD) and/or the refusal of all the main UK Pay As You Go operators to provide either itemised billing or properly disclose their full price list responds to this consultation.  So far as I am aware these "unexpectedly high bills" can be only putative imaginary examples of calls you could have made without being aware of the full call cost before making certain calls on them and whilst Ofcom allows you to submit copies of an actual bill with your response to the consultation it is not compulsory for you to do so.

This consultation therefore provides a particularly good opportunity to complain about the public being constantly misled over the cost of 084, 087 and 070 numbers.  Another bad behaver in this rehard at present is the London 2012 authority which has trained its main switchboard staff to lie to customers that the 0844 numbers it has used for its ticket enquiry lines (where the "International" geographic alternative number is blocked to all UK numbers even if you withhold your CLI)  numbers are "local rate"

I suspect Dave should also put a sticky in the appropriate place(s) on the forum encouraging members to respond to this Ofcom consultation about unexpectedly high bills.  Indeed it might even be worth emailing all registered forum members about this particular Ofcom consultation as it seems to show some level of willingness by Ofcom to finally begin to take serious action to address this long running issue of inadequate call price disclosure.

japitts wrote on May 18^th, 2011 at 9:53am:


This is even more shocking and disappointing than I thought then as the IAM has always been perceived as a respectable body promoting good driving standards by responsible drivers whereas many ABD senior characters originally wished to protect their identities when the organisation was seen as an almost guerilla like protest movement against speed cameras.  Obviously since speed cameras got way out of hand under New Labour the ABD has become respectable and is often interviewed by the press.

The IAM may well be in violation of Ofcom's Guidance on the acceptable use of 070 numbers to be found at http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/telecoms/numbering/guidance-tele-no/070-guidanc... by continuing to use them as the only point of contact for an organisation rather than a point of contact for private individuals who wished to have a "follow me" number as they were originally intended.

I would suggest that you give consideration to either altering yourself or having Dave (our moderator) alter the subject of this topic (if you can't still alter it) to "IAM's Misuse of 070 Personal Numbers" if you wish to cause their unacceptable continued use of these numbers to become subject to public scrutiny that might help to persuade them to change their ways.

There is a common theme to all 084/7 and 070 number abusers and that is that they perceive they are getting something for nothing and they don't give a damn about the additional calling costs that they are imposing on the caller because the people responsible are both either stupid and/or just completely selfish.

The other point that emerges from this thread is the abysmal failure of Ofcom to ensure that public perception and understanding of 03 grows at a proper rate.

The "Simplifying Non-Geographic Numbers" consultation clearly indicated the important role that 03 has, and will retain. When further announcements are made about what will be suffered by those who retain expensive numbers, there will be further opportunity to indicate that migration to 03 is the obvious way of avoiding this, for those who have some genuine need for non-geographic (as distinct from money-saving or revenue raising) numbers.

That is probably all that will happen - but it is not enough. Positive engagement with public bodies and those who will be unwilling to declare a "service charge" must be undertaken now. Public perception will be led by recognisable examples, e.g. major public bodies. The BBC is probably the most significant example, but its call cost information is blurred into meaninglessness and it still retains 0845 numbers. One is reluctant to hold up the Met Police as a shining example of anything, but this is one small thing that it got right.

Ofcom is limited in what it can do, but it could and should certainly take a much stronger role on the 03 issue.