BT to introduce free pre-call announcements on 070 numbers

Richard M Willis

Ivor Jones wrote:

> A telco is to blame for charging more than the cost of geographic
> numbers. Nobody is forcing them to.

There is no particular reason to peg geographic calls as being "the
normal". I agree that the costs and numbering ranges are stupid, but
certain things inherently cost more than other.

If a telephone company is going to provide access to a certain numbering
range, it still has to satisfy its shareholders and that means not
making a loss per call. The "forcing" is done by the operator of that
numbering range; the telephone company allowing access to that range has
no option but to pass that cost onto the caller.

Richard

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Richard M Willis

Paul Cupis wrote:
> Ivor Jones wrote:
>> As for not being forced to call a given number, if you aren't given
>> any alternative and you need to make contact with that person, then
>> you *are* forced to use that number.
>
> In your opinion, is this the fault of "the suppliers", i.e. telcos?
[picking a post at random]

I sort of agree with Ivor on this (but only "sort of"). It would perhaps
be an idea if a telephone company came along and stated that they WON'T
CONNECT to anything other than geographic/mobile and the various
operator/emergency numbers.

Richard [in PE12]

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Paul Cupis

Richard M Willis wrote:
> I sort of agree with Ivor on this (but only "sort of"). It would perhaps
> be an idea if a telephone company came along and stated that they WON'T
> CONNECT to anything other than geographic/mobile and the various
> operator/emergency numbers.

There is nothing stopping a company doing this. The fact that there
isn't one (happy to be proved wrong) suggests there is minimal/no demand
for such a telephone company.

Graham.

"Spin Dryer" <me2@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:l5hjd35hrr75g58poedts382j04vmt0blb@4ax.com...
> [Ivor Jones], on Sat, 1 Sep 2007 02:14:04 +0100, said :-
>
>>
>>
>>"Graham." <me@privacy.com> wrote in message
>>news:fba19d$bin$1@registered.motzarella.org
>>
>>[snip]
>>
>>: : : Ivor - you are making yourself look more and more
>>: : : like a buffoon with your ridiculous comments about
>>: : : premium numbers.
>>
>>They are not ridiculous. You may not like them, that doesn't make them
>>untrue. And I could care less what you think of me.
>>
>>: : : Get it into your thick head that you are wrong Slick.
>>
>>Who is Slick..? As for the thickness of my head, as you have never met me
>>or given me a head X-ray you have no idea how thick my skull is. Nor is it
>>relevant. Chucking insults about does nothing for *your* credibility, let
>>alone mine.
>>
>>: : : Let me put it this way, if someone has premium rate
>>: : : barring, then they will still be able to call mobile
>>: : : numbers, international numbers, directory enquiry
>>: : : numbers and others.
>>: : :
>>: : : I hope you don't tell any of your gullible contacts
>>: : : that all numbers apart from 'normal' numbers are
>>: : : premium rate numbers, because they will be in for a
>>: : : nasty shock if they arrange for premium rate barring.
>>: : :
>>: : : I await your debate sonny.
>>
>>You are not my father, please do not call me sonny.
>>
>>The fact that the "official" definition of premium rate is different from
>>mine doesn't automatically make it right. By definition of the word
>>"premium" (the OED says "a sum added to an ordinary price or other
>>payment") any price above that of a normal call is premium.
>>
>>
>>Ivor
>
> Ivor, you are wrong in the context of calling telephone numbers. You
> are the _only_ person who is saying otherwise.

FFS, Ivor just acknowledged that the "official" telecoms definition
of primium is different from the standard dictionary definition, which
he prefers to use in *any* context.
Why don't you vent your anger at people who say 0870 is National
Rate, the ones that are so upset that they actually *will* be soon.
What goes around, comes around.

--
Graham.
%Profound_observation%

Ivor Jones

"Richard M Willis" <mythreeinitials@mydomain.co.uuk> wrote
in message news:46defc80$0$2379$88260bb3@free.teranews.com
: : Ivor Jones wrote:
: :
: : : A telco is to blame for charging more than the cost
: : : of geographic numbers. Nobody is forcing them to.
: :
: : There is no particular reason to peg geographic calls
: : as being "the normal". I agree that the costs and
: : numbering ranges are stupid, but certain things
: : inherently cost more than other.

Actually there is. All other forms of number are for spe******t purposes.
The norm has to be the type of number that the majority use. I suspect
this is getting close to being the mobile, but I don't think we're quite
there yet. Even so, it is perfectly possible to operate this kind of
service at "normal" rates. Telcos don't do it because it's more profitable
to rip people off.

: : If a telephone company is going to provide access to a
: : certain numbering range, it still has to satisfy its
: : shareholders and that means not making a loss per call.

I couldn't give a fig about shareholders. The people you should be looking
after are your customers.

: : The "forcing" is done by the operator of that numbering
: : range; the telephone company allowing access to that
: : range has no option but to pass that cost onto the
: : caller.

The whole concept of premium rate numbering ranges is wrong. The problem
is convincing people such as yourself (no disrespect intended).

Ivor

Ivor Jones

"Paul Cupis" <paul@cupis.co.uk> wrote in message
news:fbn32g$1p4p$1@energise.enta.net
: : Richard M Willis wrote:
: : : I sort of agree with Ivor on this (but only "sort
: : : of"). It would perhaps be an idea if a telephone
: : : company came along and stated that they WON'T CONNECT
: : : to anything other than geographic/mobile and the
: : : various operator/emergency numbers.
: :
: : There is nothing stopping a company doing this. The
: : fact that there isn't one (happy to be proved wrong)
: : suggests there is minimal/no demand for such a
: : telephone company.

I'm demanding it.

Ivor

Lemmo

> "If you call an 070 number thinking it's a mobile, you may be in
> for a nasty shock when you receive your phone bill. The pre-call
> announcement warns you of the potential cost up front, and allows
> you to make an informed choice as to whether or not you wish to
> make that call."


Are all other 07 numbers which do not have the third digit as "zero" for
mobiles?

Mortimer

"Lemmo" <mail@mail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns99A3A663DC03D5E712@127.0.0.1...
>> "If you call an 070 number thinking it's a mobile, you may be in
>> for a nasty shock when you receive your phone bill. The pre-call
>> announcement warns you of the potential cost up front, and allows
>> you to make an informed choice as to whether or not you wish to
>> make that call."

So what else will 070 numbers now be used for in addition to mobiles? And
how much will the charge be?

Ivor Jones

"Mortimer" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:13duhldn5ad4f0@corp.supernews.com
: : "Lemmo" <mail@mail.com> wrote in message
: : news:Xns99A3A663DC03D5E712@127.0.0.1...
: : : : "If you call an 070 number thinking it's a mobile,
: : : : you may be in for a nasty shock when you receive
: : : : your phone bill. The pre-call announcement warns
: : : : you of the potential cost up front, and allows you
: : : : to make an informed choice as to whether or not you
: : : : wish to make that call."
: :
: : So what else will 070 numbers now be used for in
: : addition to mobiles? And how much will the charge be?

070 isn't used for mobiles. All UK mobiles start 077, 078 or 079 although
076 is also used.

Ivor

Paul Cupis

Ivor Jones wrote:
>
>
> "Paul Cupis" <paul@cupis.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:fbn32g$1p4p$1@energise.enta.net : : Richard M Willis wrote:
> : : : I sort of agree with Ivor on this (but only "sort
> : : : of"). It would perhaps be an idea if a telephone
> : : : company came along and stated that they WON'T CONNECT
> : : : to anything other than geographic/mobile and the
> : : : various operator/emergency numbers. : : : : There is nothing
> stopping a company doing this. The
> : : fact that there isn't one (happy to be proved wrong)
> : : suggests there is minimal/no demand for such a
> : : telephone company.
> I'm demanding it.

Okay, so are have ruled out "no demand" and are currently at "minimal
demand".