loddon wrote on Jun 5^th, 2013 at 8:16am:

The fair telecoms campaign opposes the imposition of unjustified Service Charges.

Most of the cases one has in mind should not be on 084/7 numbers anyway. I feel that it could be dangerous to dilute this message by perhaps implying that it is call queueing, which is often an essential element of the service, that should be removed, rather than the Service Charge.

The tricky cases are those where a Service Charge may represent a justifiable way of charging for a service currently offer on a 084/7 number. For example, there are technical advice services supplementary to dealing with issues related to the product or service provided, such as an ISP offering assistance with use of computer applications. I cannot see a general case for arguing that one of the following must apply:

• The Service Charge must be greater than 13p per minute, so as to fall within the scope of the Phonepay Plus regulations.

• Callers must receive the engaged tone if they cannot be immediately connected to an agent competent to deal with their business.

• Those with business that can be resolved simply and quickly must pay the same as those who have many different questions or a complex issue, and therefore keep an agent necessarily engaged for a long time.

There are other ways of charging for such services, however I cannot say that these would inevitably be fairer.


I believe that our campaigning focus must be on removing all unjustifiable cases of imposition of the Service Charge from the 084/7 ranges. This will include a significant proportion of those cases where callers express concern about the cost incurred as a result of the duration of the call.

Even if we are successful, this will leave many other issues remaining. These will include the duration of calls where a Service Charge is accepted and the cost incurred by those who pay for calls to geographic rate numbers. There is also the general issue of the inconvenience suffered by those who endure long waits to be connected to a call centre, in response to which we urge consideration of "virtual queueing" call-back facilities, although we must take care not to be seen to be promoting particular products.

These, along with many other matters, all need attention. The unjustified imposition of Service Charges must however be a priority and efforts on this issue must not be diluted.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on May 31^st, 2013 at 6:56pm:

For the avoidance of doubt, my reference to the widely understood national ‘inclinations’ of a particular EU partner was general and timeless, not on account of a specific period in its history.


loddon wrote on Jun 5^th, 2013 at 5:38pm:

As the "Access Charge" is defined as being the amount retained by the call originating telephone company when a Service Charge is imposed, removing the Service Charge from a particular call also removes the Access Charge.

Unlike the Service Charge, the nature of the Access Charge will be changed significantly from what it is at present. As it will be recognised as being to simply cover the cost of originating and placing a call, it will be hard to justify it being any different from the cost of a geographic call. The question of what calls are covered by a package subscription is however separate, as providers will be free to keep package subscription costs down by only covering calls to actual geographic rate numbers, if they so wish.


loddon wrote on Jun 5^th, 2013 at 5:38pm:

That is not true. The regulations referred to do not apply to calls to geographic or mobile numbers. One assumes that phone companies charge for these calls, as freephone numbers are also mentioned.

A special range of numbers has been allocated for the purpose of "free queuing", which presumably terminate on special equipment with the capability to suspend and apply the charging process at particular points during a call. It is not made clear whether it is the caller who makes the determination that they have been connected to someone capable of dealing with their business, or if charging is commenced at the instigation of the party called.

I am not aware of there being sufficient demand for this facility to warrant the UK networks investing in this technology, assuming that there are no fundamental technical issues to preclude its use. Decisions about where and how to deploy it would then have to be made by users, possibly compelled by regulation.

I would be happy to be briefed on the realities of this proposal by anyone who wished to advance it seriously, rather than simply chat about it in a discussion forum.


loddon wrote on Jun 5^th, 2013 at 5:38pm:

It is interesting to read this proposal being introduced to the discussion, as it is not confined to the issue of non-geographic numbers and Service Charges. Although thereby outside the scope of this thread, it would be interesting to read of how such a proposal could be fair.


loddon wrote on Jun 5^th, 2013 at 5:38pm:

There is no question that imposition of an unjustified Service Charge is compounded when call queuing is involved and one can see that we do not miss this point when it is relevant.

We do not however wish to be seen to be opposed to a fair way of handling situations where there are more callers than there are agents available. We believe that call queuing is a perfectly legitimate approach, and do not wish to offer any comfort or support to those who falsely claim that it is only possible when a Service Charge is imposed.

Whilst Ofcom has clearly not been misled, we believe that many people fail to appreciate that the features available with non-geographic (and enhanced 01/02) numbers are not restricted to those ranges on which a Service Charge is applied.


As for Ofcom, its relevant resources will be committed to the implementation of the unbundled tariff and making freephone free for two years and beyond. I see no prospect of it taking a significant turn or adding a load of additional provisions. This could change, if legal action by those who stand to lose as a result of the transparency being introduced forces it to abandon its present plans and return to the drawing board.

If all goes to plan, the whole position will have to be reassessed in something over two years time, when we will know for certain about the demand for the 084/087 ranges.


loddon wrote on Jun 5^th, 2013 at 5:38pm:

As I understand it, Ofcom has not rejected the fixed price option for 084/7 calls. As we devote our energies to campaigning for Service Charges to be removed, there is no reason why others may not campaign for users to switch to fixed price (per call) Service Charges.

loddon wrote on Jun 7^th, 2013 at 8:16am:

The EU-imposed regulatory structure for financial services, and also transport is separate to that for other businesses. All of the provisions of the CRD therefore do not apply, including areas where stricter regulations for financial services are already in force. It also does not cover services provided by the state, e.g. those of the Department for Work and Pensions.

I understand that BIS has secured the support of the Department for Transport to extend the provisions to its sector. The possibility of extending the provision covering telephone numbers to Financial Services would have to be addressed as a separate issue by the Treasury.

The campaign to remove unjustified Service Charges, where not made invalid by the CRD, will be greatly helped by the tone set by the CRD provisions. The Treasury and the DWP will have to argue, respectively, that something which is prohibited for other businesses is acceptable for the financial services sector and for itself. Similarly every individual financial services company will have to advance the same argument in attempting to justify its Service Charge to its customers.


The level of the Access Charge could indeed remain as being a concern in cases where the Service Charge is retained. The degree of actual concern will not be known until we see how telcos choose to set this. Ofcom is waiting to see if intervention will be necessary. The present variable and undeclared levels of Access Charge do however provide a very strong additional reason for the immediate abandonment of unjustifiable Service Charges.

Dave wrote on Jun 7^th, 2013 at 10:36am:

There is an excellent example of this from a recent news item.

Quote:

This argument is put forward to confuse the issue and I do not wish to be seen to be supporting it. The Service Charge is not truly a secondary issue, but the basis to which the Access Charge may be added.

Ofcom has now published some responses to its consultation here :---
http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/consultations/simplifying-non-geo-no/?showRespo...

There appear to be less than 30 responses of which most are from corporations within the industry and a mere 8 are from individuals.

Some of the corporate responses  provide an insight into the way these companies think and also reveal interesting information about the industry.   For example EE says this on page 5 of its response :---

"It is beyond argument that the non-geographic calls market, including the market for 08x calls, is a naturally dwindling one. Service Providers (“SPs”) of all descriptions including banks, utilities and government departments are increasingly utilising more cost effective but equally, if not more, customer friendly service models such as online ordering and service provision and real time web chat / VoIP services, as well as mobile alternatives like SMS, premium SMS and mobile voice short codes."

So this major company has declared that 084/7 market is dwindling.       Our joy at this good news must be tempered by the Ofcom objective which is to "reinvigorate" the market by implementing its proposals.

EE also says this :---
" ...... Ofcom‟s confirmation that it will not require ... for the 084/087 ... ranges that the Access Charge (“AC”) is separately split out on customer bills from the Service Charge (“SC”), which EE welcomes."

So EE doesn't want to show the Access charge separately on its customer bills!   I wonder why not?   Could it be that if the Access charge is printed separately on bills its customers would get to understand what it is and how much is being charged by EE?   

If it is combined with the Service charge then customers will be that much lacking in knowledge of the charges being made.    And Ofcom appear to be backing this attitude --- how does that square with the Ofcom promise of greater transparency, being clear to consumers about charges and eliminating opportunities to mislead consumers and to reduce customer harm?   

Magrathea Telecom still broadly agree with my views on the Ofcom proposals.   They say :---

"Magrathea remains opposed to the introduction of the unbundled tariff regime as we do not believe
it is the right way to solve the problems associated with non-geographic call services.

0844
We do not believe that Ofcom has demonstrated that the benefits to consumers (callers) of
unbundling 0844 tariffs will outweigh the costs, in financial terms. It is true that callers, both fixed
and mobile, already pay more than the 5ppm designated in the Numbering Plan. This is because the
lack of regulation at the retail price level has enabled OCPs to introduce call set-up charges that,
when added to the pence per minute rate, have the effect of increasing the per-minute cost of a call.
It is therefore no surprise that this “tariff creep” has led consumers to be confused about what they
are actually paying."

It is interesting that a major company within the telecoms services industry highlights the menace of "tariff creep" and draws attention to "call set-up charges".


They also say :---
"Ofcom notes that it would like to maintain pricing flexibility for OCPs, but
we do not believe that this degree of flexibility is necessary, since consumers are unlikely to make
buying decisions on the basis of the cost of calling numbers which they rarely call. Mobile
consumers tend to focus on the overall bundle of calls, texts and data and the handset on offer.
Fixed line customers may also be considering broadband and/or pay TV services. Non-geographic
numbers would come a long way down the list of decision factors."

Exactly.   This confirms what I say about the fact that there is and will be in the proposed regime no real competitive pressure which would help control prices.

loddon wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 9:14pm:

I'm not sure where you sourced this list from, but the parentheses around the 0844 prefix indicates that it can be omitted for callers dialling from a phone line with the same code. Not since 1995 has this applied to 0844, when those within the Thame STD area could get through without it.