Bob Eager

On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 20:26:53 UTC, "Ivor Jones" <ivor@despammed.invalid>
wrote:

> It misleads people by *not* telling them of the true location of the
> destination.

But what if the destination varies from say London to Edinburgh,
depending of traffic load or time of day? If people have to call a
different number, it'll actually cost them more.

> > > 03 is just another excuse to rip people off in a
> > > different way.
> >
> > Why is it a rip-off, when it's charged at the same rate
> > as geographic?
>
> If it *is* charged at that rate.

It has to be charged at national rate. That's what is going to happen.
Ergo, saying it's a rip-off (especially when there is no evidence to the
contrary) is merely inflammatory, emotive puff.

> > I disagree. See abive. If you have a non-geographic
> > number, you have it because you often want routing to
> > different destinations (time or traffic based).
>
> More likely because you get a revenue cut.

At present, but not with 03. There will be no room for revenue.

> > To use a geographic number could be positively misleading.
>
> Why..?

Because if it was a number routed to different places at different
times/traffic levels, it would mislead as to the true destination. An 03
number will TELL people that they can't be sure.

--
Bob Eager
begin 123 a new life...take up Extreme Ironing!

ACDeag

Jim Alexander expressed precisely :
> "Steve Terry" <g4wwk@tesco.net> wrote in message
> news:ybIBh.19821$3a3.1553@newsfe6-win.ntli.net...
>>
>> "Paul Cupis" <paul@cupis.co.uk> wrote in message news:45d73df2.0@entanet...
>>> BBC are running a news story on the Ofcom "clampdown" on 0870 numbers
>>> every hour or so on News 24 today.
>>>
>> Ofcom couldn't clamp down on hemroid cream
>> It's all talk, which is all Ofcom are good for.
>>
> normally would agree with you but I think this time its actually a positive
> proposal (03) numbers which has triggered the BBC coverage.
>
> Jim A

Be interesting to see how many companies move from 0870 to 03. I
suspect we will see many companies move to 0871 where they can charge
10p/min or so. They will not wish to give up the income stream.

J.Clavox@btinternet.com

On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 18:54:22 GMT, "Steve Terry" <g4wwk@tesco.net>
wrote:

>
>"Paul Cupis" <paul@cupis.co.uk> wrote in message news:45d73df2.0@entanet...
>> BBC are running a news story on the Ofcom "clampdown" on 0870 numbers
>> every hour or so on News 24 today.
>>
>Ofcom couldn't clamp down on hemroid cream
>It's all talk, which is all Ofcom are good for.
>
>Steve Terry
>
You are quite right Steve I have had cause to contact Ofcom a couple
of times just lately and all they do is take the side of the offending
company/person .

J.Clavox@btinternet.com

On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 19:16:53 +0000, Paul Cupis <paul@cupis.co.uk>
wrote:

>Steve Terry wrote:
>> "Paul Cupis" <paul@cupis.co.uk> wrote in message news:45d73df2.0@entanet...
>>> BBC are running a news story on the Ofcom "clampdown" on 0870 numbers
>>> every hour or so on News 24 today.
>>
>> Ofcom couldn't clamp down on hemroid cream
>> It's all talk, which is all Ofcom are good for.
>
>You've not read http://www.ofcom.org.uk/media/news/2006/04/nr_20060419
>or the linked documents, then?

Ofcom should be imposing a total ban on the use of all numbers other
than 0800/0808/01/02 numbers in the uk numbers other than those I
mentioned are all making money for some person/company .

J.Clavox@btinternet.com

On 17 Feb 2007 20:09:14 GMT, "Bob Eager" <rde42@spamcop.net> wrote:


>Why is it a rip-off, when it's charged at the same rate as geographic?
And I have been told quite a few times by stupid women in company
call centers that 0870 numbers are charged at normal rates , I wonder
just how much these companies are making out of unsuspecting
customers with their use of 0870's .

Paul Cupis

J.Clavox@btinternet.com wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 19:16:53 +0000, Paul Cupis <paul@cupis.co.uk>
> wrote:
>> Steve Terry wrote:
>>> "Paul Cupis" <paul@cupis.co.uk> wrote in message news:45d73df2.0@entanet...
>>>> BBC are running a news story on the Ofcom "clampdown" on 0870 numbers
>>>> every hour or so on News 24 today.
>>> Ofcom couldn't clamp down on hemroid cream
>>> It's all talk, which is all Ofcom are good for.
>> You've not read http://www.ofcom.org.uk/media/news/2006/04/nr_20060419
>> or the linked documents, then?
>
> Ofcom should be imposing a total ban on the use of all numbers other
> than 0800/0808/01/02 numbers in the uk numbers other than those I
> mentioned are all making money for some person/company .

Thank you for your contribution.

Paul Cupis

Ivor Jones wrote:
> "Jim Alexander" <nospam@nospam.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:ZGIBh.327919$Kh7.105048@fe2.news.blueyonder.c o.uk
>> normally would agree with you but I think this time its
>> actually a positive proposal (03) numbers which has
>> triggered the BBC coverage.
>
> Why 03 numbers..? What's wrong with using normal geographic 01/02 numbers
> which everybody understands..?
>
> 03 is just another excuse to rip people off in a different way. There is
> *no need* to ever use anything else except normal numbers, with the
> exception of freephone numbers.

They are non-geographic numbers which are charged at exactly the same
rate as 01 and 02 geographic numbers, and will be included in call
packages if they include 01/02 geographic numbers.

But don't let the facts get in the way of a good rant, Ivor.

Paul Cupis

Ivor Jones wrote:
> "Anti Spam Bloke" <dnsblfeeder@emailssl.com> wrote in
> message news:er7obl$jac$1@posting.glorb.com
>
> [snip]
>
>> Ofcom are going to FORCE 03 numbers to be charged at
>> geographic rates from wherever the originating UK point
>> is (mobile or landline), by changing terms in the General
>> Conditions.
>
> I'll believe it when I see it.

Read:

http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/numbering03/
http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/cond...ing03/summary/

which includes:

"1.5 We have, however, decided to provide a new range of numbers -
beginning with ‘03’ – which we think many customers will trust more than
many current 08 numbers. Consumers will pay the same amount for calls to
03 numbers as they would for calling a geographic number (beginning with
‘01’ or ‘02’). We think that many businesses, public services and
voluntary services will want to enable their customers to call them on
03 numbers rather than 08 numbers."

> Will these 03 numbers be included in mobile phone packages and so on I
> wonder..? I'm not holding my breath.

Yes they will.

Paul Cupis

ACDeag wrote:
> I suspect we will see many companies move to 0871 where they can charge 10p/min or
> so. They will not wish to give up the income stream.

....and/or have to pay for incoming calls/call routing/additional
features currently provided by their suppliers and paid for by the caller.

R. Mark Clayton

"Steve Terry" <g4wwk@tesco.net> wrote in message
news:1FIBh.12687$mn2.3235@newsfe7-win.ntli.net...
>
> "Paul Cupis" <paul@cupis.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:45d75b10.0@entanet...
>> Steve Terry wrote:
>>> "Paul Cupis" <paul@cupis.co.uk> wrote in message
>>> news:45d73df2.0@entanet...
>>>> BBC are running a news story on the Ofcom "clampdown" on 0870 numbers
>>>> every hour or so on News 24 today.
>>>
>>> Ofcom couldn't clamp down on hemroid cream
>>> It's all talk, which is all Ofcom are good for.
>>
>> You've not read http://www.ofcom.org.uk/media/news/2006/04/nr_20060419 or
>> the linked documents, then?
>>
> More toilet paper from Ofcom

They are not even that much use. A watchdog with no eyes, no ears, no nose
and bites those it is supposed to protect - about as much use as <insert
favourite cliche here>...

>
> Steve Terry
>