July 2015 Higher costs to 08 numbers

System

zagfles wrote: »

The main rip-off with 084/087 numbers isn't the service charge. It's the access charge. No longer will adverts warn that "...calls from mobiles will cost considerably more". People will be misled.

Indeed. The huge access charges set by the big mobile operators are indefensible, and probably lots of their customers haven't taken note. As you say, the cost of connecting a call to a service number, including transferring a (possibly, large) payment to the terminating provider, can't be much different from the cost of connecting to 03 and transferring a small payment to the terminating provider. You could be right that some callers of service numbers won't pay their eventual shock bills, but that seems unlikely to justify the huge differential.
Presumably Ofcom is hoping that market forces will prevail and bring down prices, if lots of users switch to less rapacious operators, such as Asda.

Ian011

Rather than praying for lower Access Charges, complain to the businesses still using 084 and 087 numbers about their unjustified imposition of a Service Charge. Once they change their number, presumably to the matching 034 or 037 number, the Service Charge and the Access Charge both go away and the call becomes inclusive on landlines and on mobiles.

thewinelake

So you keep saying! ;-)

In the meantime, quite a few ignorant and vulnerable will pay about £100 - £200 teaching the service providers a lesson while funding another nice lunch for Ofcom from the mobile telcos...

There is a kind of logic in what you say, but I'd be curious to know how many people would consider it fair.

Perhaps Ofcom should just slap a 50p/min tax on 08 calls that could go to some more deserving cause than the mobile telcos?

thewinelake

By the way, we should probably also look at this from the POV of the companies who use 08 numbers.

My guess is that they do it for 2 reasons:
1) Save money on the costs of providing the telecoms/service staff or maybe even turn it into a profit centre.
2) To gently dissuade customers/potential customers from contacting them by phone when there's an alternative means that fits their business model better.

I suspect case 2 is the most significant (as the human cost will always dwarf pence-per-minute telecoms revenues on non 09 services).

In this case, I suspect that the most likely response from these companies will NOT be to move to 03, but to simply not have a telephone number at all. They'll offer webchat and email (or, worse, that kind of semi-email involving filling in forms and typing in impossible-to-read codes!).

Case 1 I have no sympathy for!

Ian011

Users of these numbers need to realise that all 084, 087, 09 and 118 numbers incur a premium charge - now declared as the Service Charge.

For the last 15 years or more, both service providers and telecoms companies alike have tried to pretend otherwise, but now the game is up.

System

thewinelake wrote: »

By the way, we should probably also look at this from the POV of the companies who use 08 numbers.

Yes. For example, Traveline (who provide public transport journey planning, and an excellent database of bus timetables and route maps) say

You can also plan your journey with the help of our telephone service by calling 0871 200 22 33. We charge 12 pence per minute from landlines and mobiles; this helps to cover the cost of providing this service. Your phone company may [Eh? Definitely will, with the single exception of BT Basic?] add its own access charge but it will tell you [no, has told you, in a text or email you may have overlooked and now can't find!] about this.

Using traveline's excellent website is "free" (ie absorbed into bus and train fares). So the effect of all this is that poorer, or less technically-savvy people will be paying a lot to telephone for a bus time. And, presumably, use of Traveline's telephone service will decline until it is no longer viable.

System

thewinelake wrote: »

Perhaps Ofcom should just slap a 50p/min tax on 08 calls that could go to some more deserving cause than the mobile telcos?

Users of EE (for example) don't have to pay EE's absurd 44p. They can stay on the same network and pay Asda 8p.

thewinelake

That is interesting! Does that include 4G etc? I'm currently with EE on a 5GB/month package. I'll have to investigate if Asda might help.

[Edit: Looks like it's not for me. Their top package, at £20 only has 4GB (And I really need 5!) with extra data being extortionate]

Unlike Ian, I think that there IS a place for soft-premium rates (eg. 5p/min). Simply jacking them up to 20p..60p/min might help eliminate their use, but it's a very blinkered view of the world in my opinion.

zagfles

YoungNick wrote: »

Yes. For example, Traveline (who provide public transport journey planning, and an excellent database of bus timetables and route maps) say

Using traveline's excellent website is "free" (ie absorbed into bus and train fares). So the effect of all this is that poorer, or less technically-savvy people will be paying a lot to telephone for a bus time. And, presumably, use of Traveline's telephone service will decline until it is no longer viable.

Yes, the idea that users of these numbers will suddenly feel embarrased now that they have to declare a service charge is laughable. Take National Express who even charge £2 phone booking fee, over and above their "13p/min plus access charge" 0871 number!

And of course no warning that the access charge could be as much as 45p/min. There'll be a few bill shocks as a result of this. Try asking a few random people if they know what their phone company's access charge is. Even a lot of phone companies don't know it!!