Giffgaff (maybe other networks?) overcharging on texts / calls to new Three numbers

jameswyper

Hi. Just wanted to warn people about this and ask for any advice about how to handle a situation where two phone companies are blaming each other and I'm caught in the middle...

I recently got a new SIM card from Three so I could use "Feel at Home" when travelling abroad - as I'm only away for a few weeks I haven't bothered port my number. My family (and I) usually use Giffgaff.

It turns out that my new Three mobile number isn't being included in any of Giffgaff's inclusive bundles (goodybags), instead they are being charged at 2-3x normal rates, as it's not classified by them as a "mobile" number. Numbers beginning 075378 and 075379 used to be Premium Rate numbers until a couple of years ago, apparently, but Three are now issuing them as regular mobile numbers and for whatever reason Giffgaff doesn't believe that they are. These numbers are listed on Giffgaff's site as excluded from their inclusive minutes and texts.

I don't know if calls from other networks to these numbers are affected.

Giffgaff is blaming Three for not issuing the mobile numbers correctly. Three are blaming Giffgaff, telling me that they have told Giffgaff about the change (but when I asked for proof of this they said "we have no proof"). Three have at least offered to investigate further whereas Giffgaff are adamant that it's not their problem but won't help me with anything that will persuade Three of that.

So, firstly, if you have a new number beginning 075378 or 9 then beware that your contacts might be paying over the odds to reach you, and secondly can anyone offer any tips / contact details for how to get these two companies talking to each other to resolve this rather than going through me?

Ian011

This is all down to termination rates. This is the amount the called network charges the caller's phone provider to accept and handle the call. Only where those rates are very low are calls included in allowances. There is a long history to this subject and there have been some misunderstandings along the way. Ofcom has done some important work in this area that should have eliminated your particular issue more than two years ago.

Apologies for the long read. This post covers two decades of developments and it starts with some related information that builds to give a complete picture. If you can't be bothered to read the whole post, at least read the section in bold.

Landline and mobile numbers allocated in CI and IoM have high termination rates and are therefore non-inclusive in UK allowances and charged to the caller at a higher rate than for calls to UK landline and mobile numbers. The termination rate for these numbers has been decreasing for many years but has continued to be much higher than for calls to UK landline and mobile numbers. If the CI and IoM termination rate continues to fall, it will achieve parity with UK rates perhaps in late 2018. At this point, calls to CI and IoM numbers should become inclusive in allowances when called from mainland UK.

For other 07 numbers, specifically personal numbers starting 070 and pager numbers starting 076, these have very high termination rates (thought to still be around 40p per minute) such that callers pay for the running of these services. This will continue for the foreseeable future. It's part of the design but a shame that these are in the 07 range. When these allocations came into being in the late 1990s the termination rates for 070 and 076 numbers weren't all that much different to those charged for calls to ordinary mobile numbers.

For some time, up until a few years ago, a number of smaller UK mobile providers used to have high termination rates. This additional income earned on incoming calls allowed them to charge lower rates for outgoing calls - a feature that helped them attract new customers. One such provider was Lyca Mobile. However, this came at a price. Calls to those sorts of mobile providers were non-inclusive from all other mobile providers. When callers complained to their provider, some providers simply "made stuff up" to explain the situation, such as "Lyca is not a UK provider". This was baloney, the calls were non-inclusive because of the high termination rates charged by Lyca when their numbers were called from other providers.

There also used to be a number of providers that used supposedly genuine mobile numbers for a variety of interactive and automated services, including some international call-forwarding services. These had high termination rates (up to about 20p per minute) with the charges paying for the provision of the additional service. These numbers were therefore non-inclusive in allowances and expensive to call. Providers refer to these as "non-mobile" numbers. This is an unofficial designation. You will find no such reference in Ofcom's National Numbering Plan.

For ordinary mobile numbers back in the 1990s, the termination rate used to be up to about 40p per minute. Competition gradually reduced this and, as it fell, mobile providers were able to offer ever larger inclusive allowances. From 2003 onwards Ofcom mandated a cap on termination rates charged by the main five mobile providers and reduced this on an annual basis, usually in April. As the termination rate fell, inclusive allowances ballooned in size and retail prices fell. Allowances rightly continued to exclude numbers allocated in CI and IoM, the "non-mobile" numbers, and numbers starting 070 and 076. This was because the termination rate for all of these other numbers remains high.

By 2009 or 2010, termination rates for calls to numbers allocated to the five (now four) main mobile providers were down to around 4p per minute. Ofcom continued to reduce the cap on these rates on an annual basis, usually in April. Other providers were told by Ofcom to "charge fair and reasonable rates" but not all did so. Some were still charging up to 20p per minute.

On 1 April 2014, the cap imposed on the four main mobile providers was reduced to around 0.82p per minute. On 1 April 2015 it was reduced again, this time to 0.68p per minute. Crucially, at this point, specifically from 1 May 2015, the cap was extended to cover all UK providers using mobile numbers starting 071-075 and 077-079. That was a very important move.

The effect of this change is that all services using ordinary UK mobile numbers have to comply with this cap. If additional chargeable services are supplied to callers calling these numbers, the additional charges cannot be loaded on to the caller's phone provider, the caller has to be billed in some other way - i.e. directly by the "premium" service. There is now no reason for there to be a "non-mobile numbers" category in phone provider's tariff sheets.

The specific prefixes you mention used to belong to TTNC and were used for a variety of services with high termination rates - but they relinquished those number ranges some time ago. Some years later they were re-allocated to Three and thereafter used for normal mobile services.

If giffgaff are not including these numbers in call allowances, this is down to either:
- Three's termination charge exceeds the cap set by Ofcom (currently 0.49p per minute from 1 April 2017), or
- giffgaff either have no idea how this is supposed to work, else are profiteering on these calls.

Giffgaff's list of "non-mobile numbers" extends to 120 prefixes (out of the 8000 total available to mobile providers). Other providers have similar prefix lists, but of varying length. Some have just a few entries, others are very much longer.

A complaint to Ofcom is in order. They currently have an investigation into whether UK providers using mobile numbers are complying with the cap set on the allowed level of termination rates. If they are not, action will be taken. If they are, then there is no reason for any retail provider to have a category of calls known as "non-mobile" numbers in their tariff list.

All UK mobile numbers starting 071-075 and 077-079 should be inclusive on an equal basis, irrespective of destination provider. The only exceptions should be mobile numbers allocated in CI and IoM as well as personal numbers starting 070 and pager numbers starting 076.

In the future, calls to numbers allocated in CI and IoM are likely to become inclusive, perhaps in late 2018 or early 2019.

Ofcom has had a long-running project to simplify non-geographic numbers. This has already achieved a lot:
- numbers starting 03 are confirmed as the only range of non-geographic numbers to always have retail price parity with the charges for calls to geographic numbers starting 01 and 02,
- numbers starting 0500 will cease to exist on 3 June 2017 - users have had almost three years to move to the matching 0808 5 number or choose some other new number,
- numbers starting 080 are free-to-caller from landlines and (since 1 July 2015) from mobile phones and this is the only free-to-caller number range,
- numbers starting 084, 087, 090, 091, 098 and 118 have (since 1 July 2015) a unified Access Charge plus Service Charge charging system.

This leaves just 055, 056, 070 and 076 with non-standard charges. Ofcom is expected to review these ranges at some point. Sorting those four out along with harmonisation of termination rates on calls to CI and IoM landline and mobile numbers with equivalent UK rates (the latter point is outside of Ofcom's control) will remove the last of the pricing anomalies and thereby eliminate several things that catch very many people out.

To be clear, steps taken by Ofcom on 1 May 2015 should have led to the elimination of the "non-mobile" numbers category. Inclusiveness in allowances and retail call charges for numbers starting 01, 02, 03, 071-075 and 077-079 are set entirely by the caller's phone provider. The over-riding factor is the termination rate set by the called provider and Ofcom has taken steps to level this when calling any UK number starting 071-075 or 077-079. This was also done for UK numbers starting 01 and 02 and non-geographic numbers starting 03 a very long time ago.

d123

jameswyper wrote: »

So, firstly, if you have a new number beginning 075378 or 9 then beware that your contacts might be paying over the odds to reach you, and secondly can anyone offer any tips / contact details for how to get these two companies talking to each other to resolve this rather than going through me?

This is one of the times that a complaint to OFCOM might be a good thing.

Make a complaint using this form:
https://ofcomforms.secure.force.com/formentry/SitesFormCCTMonitoring

jameswyper

Thanks - I've submitted the Ofcom form

Chino

Ian011 wrote: »

This is all down to termination rates.

No it's not - it's all down to Giffgaff mis-billing the OP and refusing to correct its mistake.

Ian011

Those who choose to read beyond the first seven words of the post may achieve a new level of enlightenment.

jameswyper

Thank you, I certainly learned a lot - the previous post's evidence-free assertion of who is to blame is exactly what I've been putting up with from Giffgaff and Three all day.
There are a couple of threads on the giffgaff community forums about this (judging by the username and content I think you've contributed to them!), I've added a note to those suggesting that anyone experiencing this also files a complaint to Ofcom.

PHK

Chino is correct though. Giffgaff have not updated their systems to recognise that Ofcom allocated those number ranges to Three as normal mobile numbers. You can check the number allocation on the Ofcom website and should point Giffgaff towards that.

Ian's comprehensive post is useful for background information as to how this type of thing happens.

Ian011

All numbers starting 071-075 and 077-079 are allocated by Ofcom as "normal mobile numbers". The whole "non-mobile numbers" category is unofficial. It was invented by callers' providers to explain why some UK mobile numbers (those with high termination rates) were non-inclusive.

The more important point is that on 1 May 2015 Ofcom removed the basis for the whole "non-mobile numbers" category existing by capping termination rates for all UK numbers starting 071-075 and 077-079 and has further reduced the cap each year, usually in April.

Ofcom currently has an investigation into whether providers are complying with that cap. If they are not, Ofcom will take action. If they are, the caller's provider has no reason to exclude any UK mobile prefixes from inclusive allowances.

The only non-inclusive 07 numbers should be the various mobile numbers allocated in CI and IoM, personal numbers starting 070 and pager numbers starting 076.

d123

Ian011 wrote: »

Ofcom currently has an investigation into whether providers are complying with that cap. If they are not, Ofcom will take action. If they are, the caller's provider has no reason to exclude any UK mobile prefixes from inclusive allowances.

That's why I suggested the OFCOM form, it's likely to be taken notice of because of the investigation.

jameswyper

As well as the Ofcorm form I've submitted a formal complaint to Giffgaff (and FWIW tweeted both them and Three).
Interestingly Three's own PAYG price guide dated 21/04/17 (I'm not allowed to post the link as a new user so you'll have to google it) puts 075378 and 9 numbers in the "non-standard" category suggesting that this may not be a case of just one company being confused.