nicholas43 wrote on Dec 26^th, 2013 at 6:10pm:

There is indeed no prohibition on use of premium rate telephone numbers (including the 084 range) as a means of securing a "micro-payment". There is a well-argued position against this as a point of principle, which I respect. This argument has not however been accepted by Ofcom, which has moved to validate this system, by making it clearer and more transparent. The Service Charge imposed by the Service Provider will have to be clearly declared and separated from the Access Charge imposed by the caller's telephone company.

This move is obviously seen as a defeat for those who oppose the concept in principle, albeit a success for those who objected to it on the basis of the lack of clarity. I see the exposure of the existence, and level, of the Service Charge as having made a significant contribution. This has made it easy to set the definition of "basic rate" (which is now contained in Guidance that may be amended to reflect the forthcoming new position) at the point where no Service Charge applies.


The outcome of legal actions can be one factor affecting decisions made by businesses in choosing their telephone numbers, as can the precise terms of relevant regulations. The move away from 084/087 numbers will however happen long before any case for recovery of additional cost reaches a court - indeed it has started even for banks and insurance companies before the legislation, from which they were known to be exempted, was announced.

Whilst some companies may retain telephone booking fees - for first contact only - and charges for (added value) technical support lines, it is my belief that the overwhelming majority will, over a period of time, cease using 084/087  numbers for customer contact altogether. The recent series of announcements (including that made today) have set a clear tone, which undermines that previously set by the telcos (the real villains of the piece)./

The common message, from three sources, showing 084/087 numbers to contain a charge to the benefit of the person called, and thereby unacceptable in many situations, is the extent of the victory worthy of celebration. It will however require much repetition and further effort to ensure that it is heard and followed by all. I hope that those who played a major part in bringing this about, albeit wanting for much more, will have the grace to acknowledge their contribution to an outcome that they must surely welcome.

In time we may be able to work out which organisations are the participants in an alleged conspiracy and which are those who were simply performing their duty of maximising the return to shareholders or minimising the cost to taxpayers. That duty has, in many cases, been performed unfairly, stupidly and deceitfully. A failure to correct such errors will expose cases where it was no error, but a deliberate rip-off.

It's been a long time since I've posted here, but today I discover this:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10538449/Government-must-stop-using-pre...

Well isn't that something.

Rather a long time coming, I should think. But I think the campaign deserves a welcome note of congratulation. I thank all those who have toiled so long and hard and am only sorry I wasn't more involved in it myself. Shouldn't have been so pessimistic.

I'm only too aware that the government has not yet been seen to do what it says it will, and it ain't over till the fat lady sings, as it were, but I really think this is surely quite a landmark in the process of change we desired. "First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, and then you win".

I wonder what it was that really swung things in the campaign's favour?

I wrote the above before reading the forum's latest. Now that I have I realize it is probably this "EU directive" whatever that is. Now I wonder whether the campaign made any difference at all, although there is still the question of what influence lay behind the EU Directive. Perhaps we'll never know.

BTW: Lately I've been using an app on my smartphone that effectively makes these 0845 numbers free, or at least part of my bundle, as far as I can see. Perhaps the industry felt that with revenues falling as a result of apps like this the writing was on the wall for 084 and 087 numbers anyway?

longusername wrote on Dec 27^th, 2013 at 5:04am:

Its good to hear from you again "longusername" and pleased you are still taking an interest in this subject.    In response to your point I have to say I wouldn't dream of claiming any credit for bringing this scam to the attention of the EU but I do remember writing to all the MEPs representing Southern England in July 2010.  Part of my letter said :---

"Thursday 1 July 2010
 
  Dear James Elles MEP, Sharon Bowles MEP, Nigel Farage MEP, Catherine BearderMEP, Peter SkinnerMEP and Marta Andreasen MEP,
 
  EU limits Mobile Phone Roaming Charges.
  1st July 2010
 
I see the EU has today introduced limits on phone tariffs for calls while abroad within the EU. As the EU is concerned about excessive phone charges I raise another case of excessive call charges which affects us in the UK apparently more than other countries but is a growing problem all over Europe.
 
  I ask you if the EU should look at placing limits on the use of so called "revenue sharing" numbers also known as NTS (Number Translation Services) and "non-geographic calls services". Ofcom, the UK regulator, held a public consultation "Review of non-geographic calls services" :--

  http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/ngnservices/
 
for one month only in May 2010, and received a mere 42 responses most of these being from companies in the telephone services industry and very few from citizens/consumers. In my response I raised the fundamental issue that "revenue sharing" is a flawed concept and is unfair and even harmful to consumers ....."

" ........  To add insult to injury callers also must pay a premium to call these numbers, part of which pays the "revenue share" and part pays extra to the phone companies. In effect this is a massive scam upon the citizens/consumers. This scam, frequently referred to in Parliament as a "rip-off", is perpetrated by the phone service industry, taken advantage of by many user companies/organisations and is entirely presided over and encouraged by Ofcom. It is particularly inappropriate that public bodies make use of such numbers. It should be stopped. ......."

" ........ this does affect other European countries and not only the UK.   I am aware that it is a growing issue in Germany, Spain and Ireland for example, so it is not primarily a national issue. ..... "

I expect many others wrote similarly to their MEPs and other EU entities which has happily resulted in the EU CRD.
 

NGMsGhost wrote on Dec 27^th, 2013 at 12:10pm:


Each Police Service is required to offer a geographic rate number as an alternative to 101, for those who object to participating in a cost sharing scheme with other callers. The 15p flat rate per call charge for all was adopted when the Home Office refused to fund the cost of network connection to the 101 service. All revenue from 1111 calls is retained by the telcos - there is no revenue sharing. The DH requires CCGS to pay for all calls to 111.

Calls to the Police are outside the scope of the CRD, although not that of the Cabinet Office Guidance.

This OT comment re-posted at http://www.saynoto0870.com/cgi-bin/forum/YaBB.cgi?num=1388600971/10#10

mountainbiker1 wrote on Mar 15^th, 2014 at 10:07am:


Yes as mentioned by Silent Calls Victim on 28/12/13 in this thread.
" Each Police Service is required to offer a geographic rate number as an alternative to 101, for those who object to participating in a cost sharing scheme with other callers. "