SilentCallsVictim wrote on Nov 18^th, 2013 at 5:09pm:
For those of us outside UK borders, access to alternative / dual numbering is absolutely essential for the reasons that are self-evident and have been previously well-described. We have to be 'obsessed' with this choice as the feckless regulator refuses to do its job. It has shaped a numbering framework that is not fit-for-purpose and refuses to correct it, and I'm fed up with hearing that it just 'doesn't have the necessary powers'. It is the regulator and it should correct its prior mistakes. It will not do so so we have to waste time in seeking alternatives.

loddon wrote on Nov 17^th, 2013 at 9:09am:

This is indeed excellent news.

I've always considered that what the campaign needs is large well-known organisations to come off 084 numbers and to move to 03 numbers. This will set an example to others as well as increasing public awareness of 03 numbers.

Much of the misuse of 084 and 087 numbers has come about "because others do it". When questioned the reason given is often that it is standard industry practice.

The tide is now turning and big organisations such as HMRC, Barclays and RBS have, or will soon, abandon their 084 numbers in favour of 03 ones which don't carry a Service Charge.

These are Skype rates. I have absolutely no idea what 'Premium Customer Support' and 'Premium UK Government Services' refer to in terms of phone numbers, and there appears to be no way of finding out. Each direct and indirect provider (and there are hundreds, if not thousands in this country alone) will have similar, confusing, inconsistent and incorrect tables. The poor consumer, who often will not have access to such lists, may find his/her call cut off after five minutes of holding for Heathrow Airport as the credit has expired.

This is why those of us who live, work or travel overseas will only trust 01 or 02.

United Kingdom

Calling - per minute 1

excl. VAT

United Kingdom2

2.3¢

United Kingdom - London2

2.3¢

United Kingdom - Mobile - Hutchison3G

25.9¢

United Kingdom - Mobile - O2

25.9¢

United Kingdom - Mobile - Orange

25.9¢

United Kingdom - Mobile - Others

25.9¢

United Kingdom - Mobile - T-Mobile

25.9¢

United Kingdom - Mobile - Vodafone

25.9¢

United Kingdom - Premium Airlines

$1.43

United Kingdom - Premium Customer Support

$1.43

United Kingdom - Premium International Consular

$1.74

United Kingdom - Premium UK Government Services

48¢

United Kingdom - Shared Cost - 0844

12¢

United Kingdom - Shared Cost - 0845

13¢

United Kingdom - Shared Cost - 0870

19¢

United Kingdom - Shared Cost - 0871

23.5¢

United Kingdom - Shared Cost-0843

12¢

United Kingdom - Shared cost - 0872

23.2¢

United Kingdom - Toll Free3

0¢

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Nov 20^th, 2013 at 1:36am:
Anything the feckless regulator touches, at least in terms of telecommunications, is a complete disaster and I have no reason to believe that it has fulfilled its obligations in advising the appropriate international bodies that 03 numbers have equivalency to geographic numbers for rate purposes.

I am not the slightest bit interested in debating access charge, service charge or GC. These are artificial creations by the feckless regulator which has decided that 'normal' calls should attract a premium payment which is not in the public interest. This nonsense needs to stop. Any call, other than a genuine premium call (sex lines, horoscopes and telephone voting) should simply attract a payment for the conveyance of the call. That is what the public has stated it expects. It is how it used to be, it is simple, and it is non exploitative.

When I visit the UK, I can call virtually any US landline, cellular or freephone number from virtually any provider without the need to do test calls, look up complex rate tables and all the other nonsense a visitor to these shores avoids having to do for the reverse operation. The UK is a developed economy containing one of the two alpha+ world cities yet it has a numbering system, created by a feckless regulator, that is fit for a tin-pot dictatorship.

idb wrote on Nov 20^th, 2013 at 2:06am:

There are various blocks of non-geographic numbers, each with different charging characteristics: 080, 03, 084, 087, normal 09, SES 09. (0870 is currently in a state of limbo; 0845 is the only other range that has changed its nature during its lifetime; the nature of 080 is due to change.)

I understand the concept of the 084/087 ranges as being to enable a Service Charge of up to 13p per minute to be imposed on the caller by the user of the number. I can see no purpose in having a range designed to allow users to impose charges on themselves! I cannot think why anyone would suggest such a bizarre possibility.

What other concept is there?

idb wrote on Nov 20^th, 2013 at 2:06am:

Indeed. Now that the truth of the "Service Charge" is coming to the surface, those whose charge is unjustified are being pressed, compelled and are agreeing, to remove it. Where the advantages of a non-geographic number are required, they are switching to the 03 range.

Once the shake-out has been completed it may be found that they are very few who wish to impose a Service Charge of less than 13p per minute. For the time being, Ofcom has chosen not to impose a minimum Service Charge, nor forced the expense of a change of number on those who are content with the present arrangements. We wait to see if these modest measures may be put into effect without challenge in the courts, by those who think them unduly radical.

An earlier date has already been set: 12th June 2014.

Any user of a non-geographic number who believes that they derive a benefit from the features they bring and who uses that number for customer services will have to fund those features by swapping to an 03 number where the service fee is borne by the called party.

Additionally, Ofcom's "unbundled tariffs" will force remaining users of 084 and 087 numbers to declare the Service Charge rather than hiding behind a price declaration that quotes only BT's abnormally low call prices. That legislation was meant to come into force at the same time as the CRD rules but stiff opposition from mobile networks has delayed Ofcom by many months.

The problem is not with 084/087 numbers per se. There are legitimate uses for revenue sharing numbers with a Service Charge of less than 13p/min. The problem comes from businesses using these numbers for inappropriate purposes. The CRD legislation fixes that for customer service lines.

Once those principles have been established, many businesses will become reluctant to use 084 or 087 numbers for any purpose, or will be forced by consumer pressure to abandon them.


Quote:

These are provided on the +800 country code, dialled as 00 800 from Europe and 011 800 from North America. The cost to the user is extortionately high, and therefore these numbers are not often used for conversation. The main use often seems to be merely to inform the caller what number to re-dial within their own country to make contact with the business.

idb wrote on Nov 20^th, 2013 at 1:35pm:

This is absurd. The benefit to the user is the Service Charge of up to 13p per minute.

idb wrote on Nov 20^th, 2013 at 1:35pm:


This suggests one of the courses of action that Ofcom has chosen not to follow. It would have compelled the confusion and expense of a change of number (from 084/087 to 09) to maintain the status quo, or perhaps the setting of a minimum Service Charge at greater than 13p per minute to prevent repetition of what happened when the 0870 range was effectively withdrawn.

I believe that either proposal from Ofcom would have attracted far greater criticism and opposition than that which it is currently struggling to overcome.

idb wrote on Nov 20^th, 2013 at 1:35pm:

The only potential benefit to the consumer of any number with a Service Charge is the provision of a service that would not be provided without a charge on the caller being used to fund or subsidise it. Compelling users to declare the existence and level of the Service Charge is an effective means of ensuring that only those cases where the charge can be justified remain.

I believe that there are very few such cases on 084 numbers and few on 087. Measures being taken by those who are properly responsible for preventing citizens and consumers from being exploited by service providers in general (as against telecoms companies specifically) will compel many of those, who do not themselves "do the right thing", to switch to 03 or geographic numbers.

There may be cases where telephone access is withdrawn altogether if the provider cannot have it subsidised at the expense of callers. Such cases, along with those where increased unit cost leads to a reduction in quality of service, will need to be addressed individually.

It is important to understand the distinct roles and duties of the different regulators. I regret that my current level of understanding of international situations is poor, and I would welcome some guidance from those more closely engaged in such matters.

Ian G wrote on Nov 20^th, 2013 at 2:32pm:
My main issue with the CRD, and bear in mind that I have not followed it very closely at all, is that there are some notable exclusions - transport and finance coming immediately to mind. In addition, GPs have been, for some considerable time, prohibited from entering into new contracts which use 0844 numbers yet they still do. Will CRD requirements be enforced and how effective will they be? I guess time will tell. I truly hope CRD works, and if enforced, it will certainly help, but I do not anticipate those in other excluded sectors giving up their numbers.

I would maintain that any nimber that has derives revenue through telephone payment systems needs to be in the appropriate number range, irrespective of whether that revenue share value is relatively low. That range already exists within the 09 regime.

I had no idea about the delay caused by mobile network opposition. NGNs must be a wonderful revenue source for them.