Changes to BT 1280

james_d_3

JustPassingBy wrote: »

A good idea! Unfortunately it is unlikely to work as the UK access code 144 probably translates to 0800 144 144, which is not a chargeable or inclusive call for the purposes of being eligible for free caller display.

Can't claim it as my own really, this gave me the idea http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=868937&page=2

The access number won't be chargeable no, but the calls made using will appear on the BT bill...

Can't for the life of me remember where the card from 15 years ago has ended up though, so just signed up for another. When it comes though I'll give it a go and post back. 72p to save £7 is worth a punt.

JustPassingBy

james_d wrote: »

The access number won't be chargeable no, but the calls made using will appear on the BT bill...
.

True. If BTR regard them as dialled calls from your landline number it might work. Many will be interested in the outcome.

I want to correct what I posted previously. 0800 144 144 wouldn't be seen by BTR as all calls are billable by Sky. Even if BTR provided a 01/02 number for the Calling Card service it would go on your Sky bill so it could never be a chargeable/inclusive call for free BT caller display.

[Deleted User]

I see that interest in the demise of 1280 has diminished however I am still battling on.

An unfortunate salesman rang me today from a BT call centre, despite the fact that I am registered with TPS, and was immediately asked if he was responding to my complaint. Five minutes later he transferred me to another number 'Who would be able to answer my problem'.

This was, I believe, in India and after 20 minutes I was again transferred to another number who would definately be able to sort out my problems.

Back in England this gentleman definately knew his stuff and yes 1280 would not work because I am now with wholesale and it is all Skys fault and they should have asked if I wished to be changed from cps to wholesale!

Having agreed that BT is supposed to give its customers the choice, call by call, to choose another supplier he stated that he was in retail and could not assist me and I replied that the sub divisions within BT were not my concern and that BT were obligated to provide the choice and that was what they were not providing.

I then asked him to chase my e-mail complaints, which he said he would do, and eventually a supervisor took the call again blaiming Sky.

She grudgingly agreed to chase for a written response to my complaints as I said that I would be escallating the matter to the Chairman and Ofcom.

JustPassingBy

davegthomas wrote: »

I

Back in England this gentleman definately knew his stuff and yes 1280 would not work because I am now with wholesale and it is all Skys fault and they should have asked if I wished to be changed from cps to wholesale!

If Sky asked whether you wanted CPS or wholesale calls it would have been a wind up! Having presumably terminated their contract with Thus they had no CPS provider.

. . . . and I replied that the sub divisions within BT were not my concern and that BT were obligated to provide the choice and that was what they were not providing.

You should be concerned otherwise you will find it difficult to make sense of what has happened.

[Deleted User]

You should be concerned otherwise you will find it difficult to make sense of what has happened

I know exactly what has happened but I don't accept that as an excuse for BT to avoid their responsibility to provide access to aternate providers as I pay them rental every month.

JustPassingBy

davegthomas wrote: »

I know exactly what has happened but I don't accept that as an excuse for BT to avoid their responsibility to provide access to aternate providers as I pay them rental every month.

Indirect access codes switch the call to the alternative provider's network (not to the alternative provider). In network terms 1280 doesn't make sense because Sky and BT Retail use the same network.

[Deleted User]

I did say that I knew what was happening but BT has blocked my access to alternative providers which, apparently, it is required to provide. I don't care whether it is 1280, 1234 or any other combination of numbers.

In network terms 1280 doesn't make sense because Sky and BT Retail use the same network.

I think you meant to write BT Wholesale as BT informed me that 1280 still works in BT Retail.

JustPassingBy

davegthomas wrote: »

I did say that I knew what was happening but BT has blocked my access to alternative providers which, apparently, it is required to provide. I don't care whether it is 1280, 1234 or any other combination of numbers.

BT is not blocking access to any alternative provider's network. The last word is important because, as I've said, indirect access codes switch you from one network to another.

Note that the present situation is symmetrical. Assume there is an indirect access code for Sky and next week Sky reduced 0870 calls to 1p per minute at all times. A BT Retail customer with an account with Sky would be unable to take advantage of the offer.

I think you meant to write BT Wholesale as BT informed me that 1280 still works in BT Retail.

I'll stick with what I wrote.

System

Don't indirect access codes tell the exchange to route the call to a specified provider's switch? Then it's up to that provider what network it uses to forward the call. (And, of course, that provider is responsible for billing the caller and paying the network.) For example, Sky once used Thus, but is currently using BT Wholesale's incompetently or malevolently designed WCLI offering. Finarea uses, I guess, whatever network is dumping excess capacity on the market cheapest that week or hour.

The asymmetry is that BT Wholesale, incompetently or malevolently, designed WCLI without including provision for a 'BT' (don't know whether that means BT Wholesale or Openreach) exchange to deal correctly with a call prefixed by 1280, given that there is no 'BT' switch it can route the call to.

There is a further asymmetry that in theory BT Retail can decide to route calls by, for example, Thus, but in practice, I assume, BT Retail always uses BT Wholesale.

JustPassingBy

YoungNick wrote: »

Don't indirect access codes tell the exchange to route the call to a specified provider's switch? Then it's up to that provider what network it uses to forward the call.

This appears no different from saying

JustPassingBy wrote:

Indirect access codes switch the call to the alternative provider's network

so I think I can agree with you. This is how Ofcom views indirect access:

Indirect Access: where a customer establishes a connection with a particular operators network by dialling a short code to switch through the network on which his exchange line terminates. Such calls are usually billed by the Indirect Access operator.

YoungNick wrote: »

The asymmetry is that BT Wholesale, incompetently or malevolently, designed WCLI without including provision for a 'BT' (don't know whether that means BT Wholesale or Openreach) exchange to deal correctly with a call prefixed by 1280, given that there is no 'BT' switch it can route the call to.

You are authenticated at the exchange as a Sky customer entitled to use the BT network and liable for billing by Sky. The signalling carries this information. The network knows nothing about your relationship with BT Retail (you can only have one service provider) or 18185 for that matter. It is intelligent enough to know trying get a call billed to any other provider on the same network is futile as the correct authentication cannot be provided. To be billed by BT Retail you would have to log off and come on with your BT Retail credentials.

1899, 18866 and 18185 ask to switch to Connect Telecom's network. That's ok, it's a different network from the one you are on. Authentication can take place at the gateway.

Incompetence or malevolence on BT's part doesn't seem justified. Is there any type of network anywhere which allows you to change your identity on that network midstream, as it were?