Changes to BT 1280

BexTech

pinkcloud wrote: »

The replies following my question about the BT Chargecard were on a different subject leaving my question buried.

I was following steps on a previous occasion when my question was buried and a board guide told me to press the quote button on my question and enquire if there is a reply rather than start again.

I am sorry if I have made a mistake.

I do not know what you mean by bumping.

pinkcloud

Bumping is where you bring the thread topic back to the top either by typing "Bump" or asking the same or extremely similar question again and again even though you've already asked it once.

Bumping wastes resources and this is why people can get banned from posting if they bump posts, also others find it extremely annoying seeing the same question asked repeatedly when people can see it asked the first time.

I was just concerned that you might end up with a ban. That was all.

diamonds

bump ! so sue me LOL

james_d_3

No answer from me yet; managed to mix up when the billing date was and made the calls one day too late.

They're currently viewable online as Chargecard UK, but I'll have to wait till March now to see if they're counted as eligible chargeable calls.

manrow

All this technical chat is losing me completely - sorry guys, function of age!

So, as a Sky package customer, who has recently been told by Sky that they are taking over the 1280 function, can I still use 18185 etc for my international calls?

billsavings

manrow wrote: »

All this technical chat is losing me completely - sorry guys, function of age!

So, as a Sky package customer, who has recently been told by Sky that they are taking over the 1280 function, can I still use 18185 etc for my international calls?

If your line rental is still with BT yes. If its now with Sky possibly although unlike BT they can bar indirect access.

manrow

Thanks billsavings, that is reassuring!

System

Ofcom has finally replied to my complaint. As usual, they have done and will do nothing. Ofcom does implicitly confirm that BT Wholesale, either deliberately or incompetently, designed WCLI so that 1280 does not work as the consumer expects. Customers of BT Retail and a WCLI provider (such as Sky) who want to contest the outcome of this scam could
(a) complain to the European Commission that the BT group is stifling competition by selling WCLI; or
(b) sue BT Wholesale (small claim in the County Court) for inducing a breach of the contract between them and BT Retail, under which BT Retail is contracted to provide (at least) weekend calls, and presentation of CLI.

Firstly, on highlighting the ability/inability to access 1280 from a pre-select service, I can confirm that we will amend our advice to acknowledge that consumers should ask potential suppliers whether access is available. Thank you for drawing this to our attention.

In relation to possible collusion between BT Wholesale (BTW) and BT Retail, I can confirm that at present we do not consider this to be the case, nor have we received a competition complaint on the matter [because, of course, none of BT's competitors have any interest in complaining]. The issue of the design of BTW's WCLI service is between BTW and its customers.

Finally, in response to concerns over whether WCLI is meeting the needs of the citizen-consumer, Ofcom only regulates BT at wholesale level where it has significant market power (SMP). WCLI is an unregulated product offered by BT Wholesale and Ofcom has not determined that BT has SMP in this area. As such, Ofcom does not regulate WCLI.

bunking_off

Interesting response from Ofcom.

I've had it confirmed from BT insiders that the working of WCLI is indeed by design, because in their view 1280 is intended to mean "please route my calls via my defalt network provider" (I think I commented many pages ago that such an interpretation makes no sense).

You're quite right that no-one has any interest in complaining;

- BT Retail has no interest in doing so because they aren't going to rock the boat with BTW and in any case the implication at present is either that they lose an unprofitable customer (1280 customer is largely making one or two low profitability calls to secure access to free CLI) or regain all of the call revenue from Sky.

- BTW are hardly likely to complain about the operation of their own service.

- Sky won't complain because in general they're getting the additional revenue.

- Other providers like 18185 won't complain because they're unaffected. (As an aside, I work in the industry and haven't found a single person outside BT who believes the situation is correct, but it doesn't impact our businesses so why would we dedicate any time to it...if BT e.g. started to similarly misroute 18185, sparks would fly)

There is the possibility for Ofcom to launch an "own-initiative" investigation, but clearly they don't want to and that wouldn't change without media pressure. Our failure to interest Martin demonstrates that this is a niche issue in which such pressure is likely to be exerted.

Personally, I believe their assertion that we're talking about a situation in a non-SMP market is flawed. WCLI is a non-SMP product, true. However, BT must have been found to have market power in the provision of calls to residential lines, otherwise there wouldn't be a regulatory mandate to provide CPS and IDA call over-ride services. If the operation of a non-SMP product is such that interferes with a regulated product, then surely that is something that merits regulatory consideration?

Having said this, the fundamental issue in my view is that CPS and IDA are somewhat "orphan" regulatory mandates. Nowadays, the main regulatory focus is the usage of LLU where possible, and WLR otherwise. Arguably, customers get choice via WLR, and once exercised there's no need for CPS-over-ride because the customer has already had the opportunity to exercise choice. I think that CPS and IDA prevails partially because they've always been there, and partially because customer latency leaves BTRetail with a significant market share - but that's diminishing. Ofcom are currently in the middle of their narrowband market review...be interesting to see what happens at the end of that.

info_addict

Quote:Originally Posted by pinkcloud
Does anyone know please whether making calls on a BT Chargecard does record chargeable calls on the BT account for the purpose of the free Caller Display when calls are being provided by AOL, Talk Talk etc. now that 1280 doesn't work?

pinkcloud

Does anyone know the answer to this please?

pinkcloud

i ordered 3 chargecards so will let you know asap

posted by diamonds 16-12-2008

Followed this thread hoping for an answer, as am now getting charged for Caller Display, due to the non functional 1280 overide.

Anybody found a solution yet?

ncalow

I think I might have found a way to make chargeable calls via BT, and hence avoid the charge for Caller Display and BT Answer 1571.

-Call your home number from another landline, and leave a short message on your own 1571 service.

-Dial 1571 from your home number, and choose the option to return the call via BT. You need to ensure that the number you are calling answers, then put the phone down.

-Do this again to get your second chargable call.

-You should find on your BT bill that you have been charged for each call at 8.5p, which is good deal cheaper than the subscription for Caller Display and 1571. I can't yet confirm but it's possible that you may get charged for the call by your call provider as well - still cheaper though!

Note that you cannot use the same line to leave the message, as when you try to return the call you will get an automated message informing you that the only way to access your messaging service is by dialing 1571! I guess you could use a mobile to leave the message but this would result in higher call charges. I used a VOIP service with a geographic number to do this.

Hope this helps

BTW I use BT for line rental and Sky Freetime as the call provider

UPDATE

I've just had my BT bill and although the calls appear on the bill, I've still been charged for 1571 and Caller Display!! Further investigation required..........