Ofcom has, today, set out how telephone charges will be made clearer, as well as starting a consultation on the finer points.

This represents a major landmark in the campaign. The fairtelecoms news release is here (PDF).

The consultation is called Simplifying non-geographic numbers - Policy position on the introduction of the unbundled tariff and changes to 080 and 116 ranges and runs until 28^th May.

loddon wrote on Apr 30^th, 2013 at 7:57am:

Here we are.

We are therefore addressing a problem that is far less "fundamental" than that which I suggested. Loddon is suggesting that using the telephone bill as a way of collecting money to be passed on to a third party is unacceptable in certain circumstances. The principle which applies in the case of 084 / 087 numbers is exactly the same as in other cases, and at last Ofcom recognises this and will be treating all cases in the same way.

It is true that the limited level of the Service Charge on 084 / 087 numbers is almost always used to offset costs that would otherwise be incurred by users rather than to deliver revenue. Except in the case of 0845 numbers however, this generally extends well beyond that of the technical benefits derived from use of non-geographic numbers.

Many, notably BT, expected that Ofcom would be proceeding to prohibit revenue sharing on 0845 numbers, as it had on 0870, although more effectively. Ofcom has however acknowledged what it believes to be a demand to impose a Service Charge as low as 2p per minute, which does little more than offset the cost of the features of a non-geographic number. I believe that this demand will be seen to be considerably reduced when the imposition of this charge has to be declared.

The argument that the recovery of system costs (as in the case of 0844/3 numbers) and some call centre operational costs (as in the case of 0871/2/3 numbers) should be prohibited is not considered by Ofcom. Ofcom takes the view that Service Charges as low as 2p per minute should be allowed, so long as they are declared, and it takes little interest in how this benefit is applied - i.e. with reference to which particular costs it is used to offset.

From the perspective of the caller it matters little as to how the Service Charge is used. The person called is free to attempt to justify its imposition in whatever way they wish (within the bounds of honesty). I believe that this is where the argument has to rest, not with Ofcom attempting to determine what level of Service Charge may be appropriate in any particular case.

Likewise with the Access Charge. This is where the present "bundled" nature of the charging is most wickedly exploited. Simplicity and clarity must be applied to ensure that the present rip-offs are brought to an end. Furthermore, I do not believe that the same simplicity should be imposed on charges for calls to geographic numbers, where customers benefit from a more complex approach.

I fear that by addressing only certain ranges, we may be moving away from what is truly "fundamental". The distinction between cost offsetting and revenue is also hard to address when covering the whole extent of the ways in which 084 and 087 numbers are used. It would be very difficult to apply regulation in a way which respects this fundamental principle. This is especially difficult where the latter seems to be regarded as acceptable, but the former is not, as regulation would normally be applied the other way around. It would however be interesting to hear suggestions of how this could be achieved.

loddon, I agree 100% with every word you say.   I don't care how transparently I am being "ripped off", the point is I object to being ripped off at all by organisations using these numbers or any number not included in my call plan. As for the idea that it pays for the telephone system, well, when I enter a shop or any other business premises to buy items or obtain a service, I don't expect to have to contribute towards their business rates or building maintenance costs!   Any customer contribution to those is, rightly, included in the costs of the items/direct services provided and this should be the case with phone contact.   The whole idea of having to pay more to call one sort of number than another is morally wrong, particularly as one often has no choice of an alternative.

One further point, much has been made of the Consumer Rights Directive but how will this impact upon public sector organisations and their outsource companies/contractors?   They are terrible abusers of NGNs yet do not "sell" goods etc as such and if they are not covered by this it will be useless as one cannot choose, for example, to use a neighbouring council which has a geo number if your local council has only NGNs.

Barbara wrote on Apr 30^th, 2013 at 1:29pm:

The argument that no number should include a premium charge must be based on the principle that the telephone bill canNOT be used as a way of collecting money to be passed on to a third party (the person called). It is possible that the cost of all calls be increased to allow for the fact that some include an amount to be passed on (as BT does with its inclusive packages in respect of 0845 calls) - however I do not believe that this is what was being suggested.

I had understood that this was not the position being taken by Loddon, who had only opposed the inclusion of transferred costs on calls to 084 / 087 numbers. The suggestion of 100% agreement leaves one confused.

As for alternatives, I see very few cases where it is appropriate to offer a multi-tiered cost approach to telephone access. One would normally expect the same quality of access to be provided to all callers. Offering a premium option for improved access, in return for a Service Charge, is surely not something that should be welcomed by the majority. If a wholly different service is being offered, then we are talking about alternative services, rather than alternative numbers. I would be interested to hear an argument in favour of alternative numbers being offered.


Barbara wrote on Apr 30^th, 2013 at 1:29pm:

It is also recognised that if you have a complaint against one company you cannot direct it to another because the second does not impose a Service Charge on complaint calls! If the need to declare the Service Charge is not sufficient to demonstrate its impropriety in cases not covered by the provisions of the CRD, then the fact that businesses are prohibited from imposing a charge for customer telephone access to certain services may bear on public service providers who are not seen to require regulation by other public bodies.

One hopes that the underlying principle behind the CRD regulations will be recognised and mirrored both in practice and, where necessary, by parallel regulation to cover all cases where the principle may be seen to apply.

It is encouraging that replies #4 and #7, if taken in isolation from other comments, represent a fairly clear position -

Quote:

It may be that some would wish to permit the provision of Directory Enquiries services, and perhaps some others, under this otherwise prohibited arrangement. I fear that the possibility of contention would swiftly arise if one did not limit a list of exceptions to some very clearly defined types of service. Purists would allow no exceptions.

It must also be remembered that this principle, as stated, also covers premium text messages. Again it may be thought appropriate to allow an exception so as to permit this means of charitable giving.

There is no question that if the various measures being brought forward, and those additional measures which should flow from them, do not remove the "rip-offs" on 084 numbers in particular, then they, and we, should be seen to have failed. If a "robbery" can be seen to be carried out in the clear light of day, then something is very wrong with society.

Ofcom believes that Service Providers may be to justify the imposition of a Service Charge as low as less than 7p per minute, or as high as more than £1.50 per minute. If this happens, then it is for those who press the position quoted above to convince them and their willing customers that their right to conduct this transaction should be withdrawn.


I am inclined to disagree with Ofcom, as I believe that there will be seen to be very few who are able to justify use of 084 numbers (with a Service Charge of up to 7p per minute). I cannot however claim to have conducted exhaustive research into this point and look to "The Big Question" to help provide some answers.

The fair telecoms campaign finds it hard to argue that if someone wishes to impose a charge for a legitimate service, advises the charge fully and honestly and that someone is properly aware of the charge and happy to pay it, then this must be prohibited because previously the charge was not clear. We accept the principle that, in our present liberal society, the telephone bill may be used as a way of collecting money to be passed on to a third party (the person called). It is however good to engage in open discussion with those who disagree.

It may be helpful to understand that is perhaps because we do not oppose the imposition of a Service Charge in principle that we fight so passionately against cases where it is applied improperly.

idb wrote on May 1^st, 2013 at 1:03am:


Absolutlely agree with all of this with only one minor exception. In the 1980s and early 1990s an 0845 (was 0345 at the time) number was a benefit to customers since they would only pay for a local rate call to ring a company that might otherwise have to contacted using a national rate call at several times the cost. The predecessor to 0870 was 0990 which was rarely seen and offered no benefit to customers. Now that the usual marginal cost of a national call is zero all of this history is irrelevant.

idb wrote on May 1^st, 2013 at 1:03am:


Agreed, that is precisely my view and of course it is the view of all the users of this site which is set up to provide ways of avoiding 08 numbers, but it does not seek to avoid 09 or 118 numbers.

Unfortunately, Ofcom are swimming in their own little pond of murky water with the phone companies.   In its current consultation which seems to contain over a million pages (I have been trying to read some of it) it goes on and on and on and on about consumer demand for 084 and 087 numbers.  It doesn't seem to realise, or perhaps admit, that there is no consumer demand for 084/7.   Consumers only call 084/7 numbers at all because there is no visible alternative.   They do not want to call such numbers.   The demand only comes from the phone companies themselves and the rip-off merchants who want to exploit the citizen-consumer;  Ofcom. the epitome of self-delusion.

Over the years of my campaigning on this matter I have never once come across a single person who said or wrote "I wish my doctor would get an 0844 number" or "I wish more government departments would follow the lead of the DVLA when they used 0870 numbers."   I have seen plenty of people complaining about 084/7 numbers and seeking to avoid them by using this site, and even Which? and others publishing advice on how to avoid such numbers.   Ofcom just don't get it !!!

Isn't the DWP levying a charge now with its use of 0845 numbers?