Does anyone know the call charges to 0345 numbers? Are they included in the mobile phone mins?

clarissa wrote on Aug 18^th, 2011 at 12:10pm:


It depends on your network, if it's a landline, or mobile. Also if it's PAYG or Contract.

They are charged at standard geogaphic rates the same as 01/02 numbers.

I have a bad keyboard, it needs replacing!

NGMsGhost wrote on Jan 11^th, 2012 at 4:18pm:

This point, as with the rest of the comment, is absolutely spot on.

If Ofcom offered a simple form of words for people to use - most of them would use it, without question.

NGMsGhost wrote on Jan 11^th, 2012 at 5:22pm:

No I do not. It may be helpful to restore my quoted comment to its context, as follows:

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Jan 11^th, 2012 at 4:39pm:


My comment was with exclusive reference to unhelpful descriptions of the cost of calling 03 numbers. There is however a wider point to be drawn, regarding the powers of a regulator.


Most of what Ofcom (or indeed any regulator) achieves is expected to come through persuasion, albeit supported by powers of enforcement when necessary. Most of those who operate in the public domain will wish to be seen to be compliant with all relevant standards and regulations, regardless of the scale of the risks they may run as a result of stepping over the edge of regulatory requirements. That is the environment in which Ofcom primarily operates, and indeed this is the role that is defined for it in the Communications Act.

From time to time it must be seen to flex its regulatory muscle, but the reality is that it simply does not have the resources to ensure complete and total compliance with every regulatory requirement that it "imposes". It is also very ready for any enforcement action that it takes to be challenged in law, placing further demands on its resources.

Please understand that I do not seek to justify or support this approach. I had no part in drafting the Communications Act 2003 and I believe that much of it was ill conceived. I simply comment on the world as I see it.

That is the world in which we have to seek to achieve our objectives.


I believe that the "unbundled" approach, of which we will hear more very shortly, offers a new and much better basis for an understanding of how "revenue sharing" (including PRS) numbers operate. This should also make the position of 03 clearer.

The first hope must be that this will be accepted, in principle, by the telcos and the PRS users. I understand that the present signs are more positive than we may have expected, certainly from the mobile operators. The new form of words to be used by service providers in declaring their service charge will undoubtedly be set more firmly than the present PP+ requirements. The issue of the "Access Charges" and how that will be both set and presented is much more difficult, as each telco will be watching its competitors and may therefore be reluctant to take the lead.

The biggest problem, as I see it, will be with the 084 users, notwithstanding possible alterations to the regulation of 087 users. I have my doubts that Ofcom's alleged assessment of their needs and wishes is sound. In particular, I doubt that there are many 0845 users who are so attached to the benefit of the modest revenue subsidy which they enjoy, that they would be genuinely ready to declare a petty service charge in order to retain it.

There are also serious questions about how the costs incurred in funding enforcement of a requirement to make such a declaration could be met. The economics of a proportionate levy, following the present PP+ model, would surely not add up. If one is to deviate from the general principle that regulation is paid for by the regulated, then this raises the question of who it is who should pay.

Without addressing the rag-bag of 0844/3 users, my view is that Ofcom should consider very carefully whether there is any true demand for low-rate revenue sharing numbers in a world of transparency. The fact that the 0871 range has remained in use despite light, but not non-existent, transparency requirements may not provide any assistance, as the general profile of 0871 users is somewhat different to that of 084 users.

It must also be noted that all PRS regulations are imposed and enforced by a "self-regulator", representing the interests of the industry to whom it belongs. The suggestion that this industry includes 0871 users, let alone 0844, or even 0845, users is quite absurd. The comparison with the (quite separate) broadcasting arm of Ofcom enforcing "decency" standards may be matched by the apposite question of whether E-buyer is truly part of the same industry as the providers of SES on 098 numbers. Whilst PP+ consults on whether it should consider taking on the role of enforcing regulation of 084 users, we note that it was never the right body to deal with 0871 users.

We await the forthcoming Ofcom consultation with interest.

CJT-80 wrote on Jan 11^th, 2012 at 9:31pm:


But call costs will always vary according to whether you use a landline or mobile or have a call package or the time of day or who your telecoms provider is.  That is true of every single telephone number in the system that you might call.

But when trying to simplify the public's understanding of 03 numbers and that they are not an expensive or premium or abnormal class of numbers to call it is an exceedingly dangerous point to make because it once again makes them sound like something special or different.  All the points you make about costs varying with who you call with and when you call are also true of 01/02 numbers so why do you need to make them specially only for 03 numbers?

For the public to have a straightforward understanding of 03 numbers they need to be told only that they will be charged at the same rates they pay with their telecoms provider for calling a normal 01/02 number and that they will also benefit from any inclusive minutes packages they have with their call provider that already covers 01 and 02 numbers.

To start making all these other various equivocations about the price to call 03 varying between landline and mobile or your call provider is irrelevant and unhelpful when the points you make are also true of every single POTS phone number that somebody might call with their landline or mobile phone.

Dave wrote on Jan 12^th, 2012 at 12:58pm:


Dave,

I completely agree with your observations in this regard.

The trouble is that far too many people writing descriptions about the calling costs of 03 numbers (inlcuding the BBC on some of their programs) are far too concerned only with covering the backs and not missing anything and so throw in everything they can possibly think of about the call charges to these numbers.

But by doing this in an out of context manner (where the position of 01/02 numbers is not mentioned at the same time) they actually cause the public to misunderstand the cost of calling these numbers and still leave them with the impression that they may be more expensive to call than the ordinary 01/02 geographic number for their brother, mother, aunt or uncle.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Jan 12^th, 2012 at 2:36pm:


So Ofcom proposes that callers should not know what a revenue earning call will cost before a caller makes it unless they search for quite deliberately made hard to find tariff lists from their own telecoms provider? Several of these telecoms providers even remain in flagrant breach of the requirement to publish such tariffs on their own website.

And Ofcom also proposes consumers cannot even be informed of the call cost on their own phone line (leaving aside the issue of quoting a meaningful price for phone calls to NTS numbers in general advertising) in specific announcements when they make their call as Will Goodall at Flextel and other chums of his in the telecoms industry managed to use the wheeze of telling Ofcom it would stop burglar alarms or OAP panic alarms from working to stop such announcements from being made.

Surely the EU commission must have some concerns about such a completely price opaque industry.  Ryanair seems to have got in to significant trouble with the EU over precisely the lack of such transparancy in its own fees and charges to passengers.