rao wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2012 at 11:00am:

I believe that you underestimate the selling capabilities of telephone service providers and the degree of confusion about call charges amongst non-specialists.


rao wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2012 at 11:00am:

There will be some who resent paying (through product costs) for services which they never use. Many would prefer to conduct their relationship with a provider online. The problem for them and others is in the recognition that use of a 084 telephone number probably provides only a 1% subsidy towards the costs of running a call centre. Its only serious effect is in making the charge for the network telephone service appear cheaper than alternative bids.


if I may anticipate the forthcoming comments from catj - I see the distinction as being between those who actually make a living by soliciting calls to published numbers and those whose telephone companies are able to offer reduced price service by virtue of a subsidy at the expense of callers.

With a few exceptions, this division falls between the 09 ranges and the 084/087 ranges. Ofcom muddied the waters three years ago by bringing the 087 range within the definition of being used for "Premium Rate Services".

Ordinary geographic (01 and 02) landline calls had continued to be charged at local or national rate throughout these changes, but in 2005 "local rate" was scrapped by BT, and by other providers shortly after. Now there was only one rate: "geographic rate". At the same time, or shortly after, BT and other providers started offering "packages" covering "weekend", "evening and weekend" and "anytime" time periods. These packages didn't include 084 and 087 numbers.

Suddenly the users of 084 and 087 numbers were at a disadvantage - people had to pay extra to call these numbers. To fix that, 03 numbers were introduced in 2006. 03 numbers are non-geographic, but are charged at the same rate as 01 and 02 numbers (and revenue share isn't allowed). 03 numbers are inclusive in call packages. Businesses were told to "swap to these or we'll pass a law to make you swap".

GPs and the NHS in general were told to stop using numbers that cost more than 01, 02 and 03 numbers in 2006 (and almost annually after that) and it was written into their contacts in 2010.


The word that "local rate" had been scrapped didn't seem to register with many people. Most providers selling 084 and 087 numbers still promote them as "get a local rate/national rate number for your business". Vast numbers of websites using 084 and 087 numbers still claim their calls are charged at "local rates". They also conveniently forget to mention that these calls are not inclusive in packages. They often say "they may be inclusive". They also often forget to mention they cost a fortune from mobiles.

They either have no idea that "local rate" has been consigned to history or simply cannot admit their numbers are "premium rate with revenue-share" (small p). Many simply have no idea what callers are paying and most have never bothered to look or think.

When users of 084 and 087 revenue-share numbers state "we don't receive a payment for your call" they are ignoring the fact that whether or not they receive it, the caller still pays it (as well as paying an inflated access charge to their own provider) and that someone else in the chain pockets it as extra profit.

When businesses take up the offer of a "free 08 number for your business" or "discounted phone equipment for your surgery" they also ignore the fact that someone else (the caller!) is funding it.

Many businesses find themselves in a contract that was likely sold to them as "get a memorable number for your business where your customers can call you at local rates" but now find that they have a "memorable number charged at premium rates" (small p) or using SCVs words... "a number where call prices include an out-of-bundle penalty fee".

In addition, you can't ignore the rise of the mobile phone. Hardly anyone had a mobile phone when the original 0345/0645 and 0541/0990 numbers were invented. Nowadays many people have only a mobile phone.

Rules governing 084 and 087 call prices have applied only to BT, so mobile phone companies have cashed in by adding access charges of up to 35 pence per minute on top of the "premium" or "service charge" they have to pass on. Mobiles give "free" (contract) or "cheap" (pay as you go) calls to 01, 02 03 and 07 numbers but always charge for 084 and 087 calls (there have been a few rare exceptions where 0870 has been inclusive and more rarely 0845 - but 0844, 0843, 0871, 0872, etc are never inclusive).

If mobile and other operators gave revenue-share 084 and 087 calls away for free, they would have to find the money to pay the onwards "premium" from somewhere else.

We've reached the situation where instead of the original idea of "local rate" and "national rate" numbers being provided to either "save you money" or ensure that you "don't pay any more", the reverse is now true: you are nearly always penalised for calling 084 and 087 numbers.

Most landline users now have an "anytime" inclusive package for 01, 02 and 03 numbers.

With a pricing system that makes comparing gas (or electric) providers child's play, the time has come to do things a different way.


Companies that really do need a national contact number can use an 03 number. The pricing for these meets the same aims (well, at least "similar" aims) as those when 0345/0645 and 0541/0990 numbers were first invented: to cost no more than local or national geographic numbers. Indeed, for most callers (most landlines and all contract mobiles), calls to 03 numbers are effectively "free".

The 030 and 033 ranges are for new users (with only specific organisations able to use 030 numbers). The 034 and 037 ranges are reserved for users to migrate their 084 and 087 numbers to the equivalent new number merely by changing the "8" to a "3". Users can do that within existing phone service contracts; they don't have to wait to the end of their contract.

As an example of the level of ineptitude out there, read this gem...

http://www.nhs.uk/Services/hospitals/PatientFeedback/DefaultView.aspx?tag=Teleph...

Quote:


This demonstrates a shocking lack of knowledge about phone systems:

Quote:

No it is not. "Local Rate" does not exist. There is only "geographic rate" and "premium rate" (small "p").

Quote:

Local call discounts haven't existed since 2006. No-one pays for their landline calls by distance covered any more.

Quote:

WOW! The hospital is now a phone services operator and sets prices! What absolute garbage.

and, finally, a shocking disregard for "the arrangement as a whole" part of Department of Health regulation on the use of phone numbers in the NHS:
Quote:


or try:
Quote:

Complete garbage written by the terminally clueless.


Or try this one:

http://www.nhs.uk/Services/GP/PatientFeedback/DefaultView.aspx?id=36479&nacs=364...

Quote:

So, you're saying that if I ring BT, Sky or Virgin and ask them to make a particular 0844 number "free", they'll do that. Really? Of course not.

That is typical of the gargabe that has to be overcome.

Starting afresh with a simpler system, one that reveals things that are currently hidden, is the way forward. There are many benefits for the consumer.

The excellent preceding exposition enlightens all of us. We must be most grateful as we offer wishes for a Happy Christmas to all who contribute to and read this forum.

In a spirit of goodwill to all (people), we may ask ourselves whether the rightly criticised idiots are simply repeating lies that have been told to them by those who they rightly expect to understand more about these issues than they do.

I cannot believe that the authors of the recent quotes were deliberately and knowingly providing false information, whereas this is what has been alleged earlier in this thread. I strongly believe that, as always, those in command of the industry will steer it to suit their own interests in response to individual consumer pressure.

As we look forward to 2013, we place great hope on the Ofcom announcements which will (we are told) be made in January. I hope that we will all be able to contribute to ensuring that (whatever weaknesses there may be, and they will be very many points worthy of criticism) the essential message is conveyed and understood as widely as possible.

Of course, this doesn't explain why the idiots who spout the garbage absolutely refuse to believe any of us when we explain the truth!!!!!!!!!!!!   I get sick & tired of these people disbelieving with me when they have no idea what they're talking about, they never even have the courtesy to go away & seek confirmation!!!

Anyway, happy Christmas to all.

An interesting summary of the history of revenue sharing numbers, catj.   You seem to have a good deal of knowledge of the subject and it leads one to wonder if perhaps you work, or have worked, in the telephone service industry in some capacity?

catj wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2012 at 4:36pm:


Could you expand on this information and say which types of business lines, (or is it businesses?) will be barred from imposing a service charge on a caller?   Or are you referring to the new EU directive?

Quote:

Well, I originally thought "businesses", but it now seems obvious that a business might have some phone lines that can continue with revenue share while others cannot.

Quote:

Me neither, but they do have several guides: http://consumers.ofcom.org.uk/guides/
including this one: http://consumers.ofcom.org.uk/files/2010/01/numbering.pdf
which cover some of the salient points in a fairly easy to understand manner.

Quote:

When I originally saw SCV say "banning revenue share on 0870 was a mistake" I did a doubletake. I was going to heartily disagree. Surely a ban on revenue share is a good thing? However, I have since changed my mind on this one.

So, yes. A mistake. There was always the complication that 0845 was previously tied to "local" rate and 0844/0843 has never been so; likewise, 0870 was previously tied to "national" rate, but 0871/0872 has never been so. Now, none of them is tied to anything. Additionally, 084 has a revenue share of up to 5 pence per minute and 087 (except 0870) has a revenue share of up to 10 pence per minute. There's four types of numbers in there: 0842/0843/0844 - 0845 - 0870 - 0871/0872/0873.

Public perception of how these numbers work is heavily tainted: "08 is rip-off", "09 is double rip-off". Originally, I wanted to see revenue-share scrapped entirely, but there are certain businesses where this payment model is entirely appropriate, but they aren't the norm. Scrapping revenue share on 0870 has made calls from landlines cheaper but not from mobiles. Scrapping it on other 08 numbers would also not help mobile users.

Ofcom have come up with a far better (in the long run) scheme: 034 and 037 guarantee a low call rate from both landlines and mobiles. Shifting 087 users that are no longer allowed to have revenue-share to 037 (and 084 to 034) seems like a far better plan. That's what CRD will do.

Quote:

Yes and no. At present, companies use 084 and 087 phone numbers that cost up to 20p/min from landlines and up to 41p/min from mobiles and yet can promote them with "calls cost 5p/min from BT landlines, other providers and mobile operators may charge more" although many use the completely illegal "calls are charged at the local rate". In future they will have to say "this number has a service charge of 5 pence per minute" (but for the most part they will have been forced to use an 03 number so talk of service charges will be largely irrelevant). That's what the "unbundled tariff" will do.

Presently, companies cannot tell you exactly what you are going to pay to call them on their 084 and 087 numbers, because they don't know which provider you are with (different providers have a different access charge and the access charge varies depending on the number called - as does the premium) and they want to hide the fact there's a premium.

Your provider can show you the total call price but it's complicated to look it up using two tables: one to find the tariff code, and the other to convert that to a price. Additionally, there seems to be a trend to show 0845 and 0870 prices in a standard price list along with prices for calling 01, 02 and mobile numbers, and to put 0843/0844/0871/0872 numbers in a different document, because of the long look-up tables. I guess that a lot of people look at the 0845 price and simply assume it also applies to 0843 and 0844 (likewise for 0870 vs. 0871/0872). The new way will be single "0844 numbers have 7p/min access charge".

Companies that had an 0345(+6 digits) number back in the 1990s could be called at "local rate". Now they could find themselves back on an 0345(+7 digits) number with the majority of their customers able to call for "free". That's certainly a "win" for the consumer. And, if the business use of the number can justify revenue share then they'll stick with 0845(+7 digits) and have to declare that charge.

Quote:

Many of them will have no need to look up an alternative for 084 and 087 numbers as the companies will have swapped to an 01, 02 or 03 number for one of several reasons:
- they are forced by CRD to do it, or
- they aren't forced by CRD, but the sheer act of having to declare the previously hidden service charge means they move anyway.

Consumers and consumer perception will have influence. Faced with two companies asking customers to call, one having a number with an advertised premium and the other number being effectively "free" will give consumers a real choice.

There will still be occasions where people will be looking for alternatives so this site will still be useful, but there will be many more occasions where the forced or voluntary use of an 03 number means the customer is already served.

Thank you for the clarification of when the separate local rate charges disappeared. As expected, the reality is somewhat more complicated than my simplified timeline.

Someone else informed me that BT started selling price plans that charged the same amount for local and national calls in 1999/2000. There's also Nynex, Cable and Wireless, NTL, Telewest, and others.

So, price plans with no differentiation started in 1999/2000 and price plans with separate charges stopped in 2004/2005. At some point between those dates, the current situation became the norm for the majority.

We were all around at the time, but everyone seems to have a slightly different recollection of what happened. Additionally, it's only a decade ago but there's not all that much about it on the web.


As for the date for 03 numbers, there's a mixture of dates: Ofcom announcements, newspaper articles about the new numbers, and Ofcom's table of allocations. They all seem to differ by a number of months. I guess they started being used at some point after all of those. I can't remember which one I picked. History is damn tricky to pin down.


Please feel free to fill in any other gaps you find. Thanks again!


Quote:

Indeed. I'm sure that service providers are extatic at the extra windfall from all such customers. It must run to billions of pounds per year. This point also came up recently when it was revealed that HMRC chose a phone number that is not cheap to call, one that carries a revenue-share "premium" in the call price, and then let their provider keep the tens of millions of pounds per year "premium" that is generated.


Quote:

Let's hope it's all fixed before we have to send it a tenth birthday card.