loddon wrote on Jan 4^th, 2014 at 9:45am:

I am shocked to hear of users of 0118 numbers even quoting their numbers without the zero, let alone engaging in extensive and heavy advertising of incomplete numbers. It must surely be a matter for both the ASA and PhonePay Plus to look into what must be deliberate promotion of a DQ service disguised as a local Reading service.

If local businesses in Reading are advertising genuine 0118 numbers "continually omitting the zero", then they must be claiming that people would add the zero in order to connect to them. This practice is clearly deprecated by Ofcom and I have never seen this done in other areas - it must surely be a scam intended to exploit the confusion between 0118 and 118.

Apologies for having missed the point. I had understood that the problem was caused by callers removing the "0" from a published 0118 number.


For further discussion, there are perhaps two different issues raised.

The anomalous 070, 076 and 055 ranges are on the Ofcom agenda for "Simplifying Non-Geographic Numbers", however the scope of the exercise underway was considered to be sufficiently broad for these to be dealt with separately (anyone who has attempted to read any of the documentation would surely agree).

The arrangement for non-UK territories to have numbers within the UK system creates difficulties. These would be brought sharply into focus if Scotland votes for independence. My (only lightly considered) personal view is that Ofcom should consider using its recently acquired powers to intervene in retail pricing so as to simplify charging for calls to geographic (and standard mobile) numbers.

I believe that we are not far from the point where a "basic rate" telephone call could cover all 01, 02, 03 and 07 numbers (excluding the present 070 and 078 ranges). There are many anomalies which would prevent regulation to enforce this principle at present, e.g. the non-UK numbers, the distinct "local rate" which applies in some cases, ISPs with geographic number and most notably the fact that the levelling of the mobile termination rates process is not yet complete. This worthy objective is not wholly utopian, albeit that there are many issues to address and it will take time.

With such an objective in mind, it may be possible to persuade the non-UK telcos to accept calls within the UK network on the same terms as those available to those in the UK. This would transfer a burden of cost to those in the non-UK territories from those who call them.

(Whilst the fair telecoms campaign sees the benefits of a simple "basic rate" being enforced, as outlined above, full consideration of the issues may reveal grounds for objection to any specific proposal - simplicity always has a price! We see this as nothing more than an idea worthy of serious discussion at this stage.)

loddon wrote on Jan 4^th, 2014 at 11:00am:

At that time, 1995, there were no other free codes to use for new seven digit local numbers.

No. They were not available in 1995.

They were just about to stop using codes like 0234, 0252 for geographic areas and move them to 01234, 01252 etc.

You can't move Aldershot from 0252 (plus six digits) to 01252 (plus six digits) and on the very same day move Reading from 0734 (plus six digits) to (025) 2X (plus 6 digits).

The 02 codes started being used 5 years later. Outside London and NI, the new codes should have been 3+7, not 2+8 to avoid that waste.

Note that, after 2000, the code (023) 9X has been used by Portsmouth. Before 1995, 0239 was used by Cardigan - now 01239.

Are you suggesting that Leeds, Sheffield, Nottingham, Leicester and Bristol should have had two code changes, just five years apart? Oftel got enough stick for moving London codes several times in quick succession.

loddon wrote on Jan 4^th, 2014 at 12:16pm:

When you referred to "advertising of 118 numbers continually omitting the zero", I assumed that you were referring to numbers from which a zero had been omitted. I wondering at first, but recognised that there is no (leading) zero to omit from a DQ number and noted that you clearly stated "omitting the zero", and so surely must have been referring to a number from which a zero may be omitted.

I would therefore rather use the word "misled", than "confused", to describe what happened to me, which probably illustrates a quite different point.
(I see that other contributors have had to intervene to point out that many comments are being made here without a necessary awareness of the true history. We do not all have the time to research issues properly and I believe that one should take care not to offer pointed comment based on falsehoods, albeit mistaken assumptions, nor lead others into doing so.)


I can see how "heavy and extensive advertising" of any telephone number, or part thereof, may subliminally cause anyone to repeat those digits when dialling any telephone number. I cannot however see how this could create the rational idea that the leading zero may be omitted from a geographic 0118 number when presenting or dialling it. DQ access codes are not the same as Reading telephone numbers; this difference must surely be highlighted, rather than undermined, on noting the similarity of the leading digits.

If there is evidence from psychological studies to contradict these common sense observations, then it needs to be presented. More importantly however, one needs evidence of the extent of mis-dialling, and perhaps the refusal of requests for refunds, to establish that this is a serious problem.


I fear that the nature and scale of this specific problem is being exaggerated. I personally believe that the vast majority of the telephone-using population are perfectly capable of dialling a 11-digit number accurately, if it is presented to them properly. The whole system relies on this capability. Difficulties can arise if one tries to get clever by analysing the digits. I find it hard to believe that a significant number of people believe that they can present a geographic area code without the leading zero, or that the zero at the front of a "long" geographic number need not be dialled.


The OP offers an example of someone who makes a particular mistake repeatedly - we must accept that this is a genuine case, and note the repetition of the error after it has been recognised. There are indeed many cases reported of those who are unwell and repeatedly dial PRS numbers without having properly decided to purchase the service, perhaps because they see them advertised or are unaware of the cost implications (nothing to do with any confusion over the digits of the number). We must be aware of such cases and press for all appropriate assistance to be provided for those unable to handle the full responsibilities that go with being connected to the telephone network.

The extent to which the National Numbering Plan can protect against the danger of mis-dialling is however limited.

loddon wrote on Jan 4^th, 2014 at 8:31pm:

Or better still removed from existence and replaced with a set charge service provided by the user's telecom provider.. IE: O2/EE/TalkTalk etc.. with a SET maxium call charge such as 60p or £1 PER call.

That would be fairer and encourage competition... you could of course still have the callers being able to call another provider but the call costs SHOULD be advised before the call is connected..

However as we have noticed on here before Ofcom does not appear to work in the favour of the consumer...

Just a thought....

CJT-80 wrote on Jan 4^th, 2014 at 8:55pm:


You may be right in your view but that should absolutely NOT be the case.   If you look at the Ofcom Summary of their current consultation on the Ofcom plan for 2014-15 it is full of references to their obligations to consumers, for example :---


1.3 Ofcom's principal duties are to further the interests of citizens in relation to communications matters and to further the interests of consumers in relevant markets …..

1.5 In 2013, we defined an over-arching strategy, set out below, which we believe best delivers consumer and citizen benefits in the light of these duties

Strategy
We will provide proportionate protection for consumers ...
One of the five Strategic Purposes declared by Ofcom is to “Protect Consumers from Harm”.

Protect consumers in a range of priority areas …. continue to identify areas of consumer harm …..

We will assess the successful delivery of these proposed priorities against the outcomes we are seeking to secure for citizens and consumers.

1.18 We will also remain responsive to new issues, emerging concerns that affect consumers across the UK …..

….... we will aid governments in the UK nations, to ensure that consumer and citizen benefits are available …...

Ofcom also ask :---
What are your views on Ofcom's proposed priorities for 2014/15?
What are your views on Ofcom's proposed major work areas for 2014/15?

I would suggest that it is up to us to bring our concerns relating to consumer and citizen issues with telecom services to the attention of Ofcom and then to hold them to account.

http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/consultations/draft-annual-plan-2014-15/summary