Reverse charges Q

Guantánamo Bay

On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 19:24:06 GMT, steve harris wrote:

>Good point. I know their internet access is via satellite only.
>The US trade embargo forbids Cuba to connect via the fibre optic
>cable that runs close to the island.
>
>There's no GPRS there of course.

What about Guantánamo Bay?

Rev Adrian Kennard

steve harris wrote:
> A friend in Cuba telephoned me twice, reversed charges. Fair
> enough, I excepted the calls knowing it would be expensive, but...
>
> £25.27p for 2 minutes ?!
>
> Another call, £32.60 for 7 minutes !
>
> I managed to talk to a 'human being' at BT, an 'advisor' no
> less. She couldn't explain how the pricing works as the
> price is set by the foreign telephone company ! She couldn't
> explain why I was charged these amounts.
>
> Great.
>
> A year or so ago, a friend of mine who also has a friend in
> Cuba, he REFUSED to accept a reverse charge call from Cuba, but
> was STILL charged for it !
>
> WTF ?
>
> Is this just a Cuba thing, or a common problem,(rip off), with
> all foreign phone companies .
>
> BT implied it wasn't up to them, and they're just passing on
> the charge. But if I refuse a call and am still charged by BT,
> Im paying for something Im not receiving.
>
> Surely thats against the 'distance selling' law ?
>
>
> BT must DIE.

What I have never established is the contractual issues with reverse
charge. If someone other than the subscriber answers and says they are
prepared to accept the charges then it is them, and not the subscriber,
who has accepted them - how can BT legally charge the subscriber.

The best I can come up with is that they can assume the person answering
the call is acting on behalf of the subscriber when they accept the
charges - which may be a reasonable assumption in most cases.

I had a long debate with no real answer on this with BT when I set up an
incoming only line for my ageing grandmother. It was at a care home and
the family were concerned that people in the home may use the phone to
call out. Hence incoming only (my grandmother was in no state to make
calls herself). Something in the paperwork from BT mentioned reverse
charge calls.

I wrote to BT advising that there was nobody at the address that was
authorised to act on my behalf (and that I was not their either) so BT
could not "assume" that a person answering the phone had authority to
accept charges on my behalf or otherwise act as my agent.

They said they could not accept that. I pointed out it was not a
question of accepting it, it was a matter of fact of which I had
informed them, and that their reply (saying they would not accept it)
was evidence that they have received the notice and were now aware of
that fact. Being aware of that fact (how they disseminate that to their
operators not being my concern) they could no longer make the
"assumption" if anyone did accept charges.

As it happens there were never any reverse charge calls. Shame, it would
have been a fun argument.

--
Adrian Kennard, on his Mac...
Andrews & Arnold Ltd. Communications spe******ts. www.aaisp.net.uk
New UK Wide 03 phone numbers available now.

Peter Thomas

On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 07:55:39 +0100, Guantánamo Bay < Þ @ Þ > wrote:

>On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 19:24:06 GMT, steve harris wrote:
>
>>Good point. I know their internet access is via satellite only.
>>The US trade embargo forbids Cuba to connect via the fibre optic
>>cable that runs close to the island.
>>
>>There's no GPRS there of course.
>
>What about Guantánamo Bay?

What about it?
--
Cheers

Peter

steve harris

"Steve Hayes" <steve10@red.honeylink.blue.co.uk> wrote in message
news:fegslt$joj$1@energise.enta.net...

> I made several direct-dial calls to Cuba earlier this year. BT's rate was
> about £1.20 per minute. Some indirect access numbers advertised about £0.50
> per minute but I couldn't get any of them to work. Ended up mostly using
> Sipgate at about £0.80 per minute though the connection was very poor (BT
> was not too bad).
>


I had the same problems, plenty of cheaper 09+ suppliers, non of them
worked. The cheapest way to communicate is via sms text. 50p each
from Cuba ( with a UK phone) on Orange.



> These rates were high compared to what we're used to these days but nowhere
> near Inmarsat or those reverse-charge rates. It's just the phone companies
> (Cuba or here - probably both) gouging.
>


Probably. But Cuba *may* be justified , seeing as they're being forced to
use satellite connectivity.


> As I understand it, Cuba does have internet connectivity - they aren't that
> isolated. Even if there aren't fibre optic cables, I don't think bulk data
> connectivity via satellite is that expensive.
>


Well they do have internet connectivity, and it's *more* expensive than
optic cable. Ive not idea how much though. They generally don't allow
Joe Public private access, simply to reduce data flow costs. It's not about
censorship, which many people suggest, they really are skint. Cubans
can access the net for $6 an hour, a fortune for an individual.



> By the way, many years ago I was charged £10 to receive a reverse charge
> call from the USA despite having refused it. I was with NTHell at the time
> and couldn't face spending half an hour waiting for them to answer so that
> I could dispute the charge.


I'm going to try something next time I go to Cuba in January.

I'm going to take with me, about 200 UK telephone numbers, including
local MP phone numbers......and reverse charge ALL of them !

Lets see how many people refuse the call, and *still* get charged.

BT will *inundated* with irate customers.

Minimum charge £35 each !


Yeah !

steve harris

"Rev Adrian Kennard" <a@k.gg> wrote in message
news:470c89ca$0$636$5a6aecb4@news.aaisp.net.uk...
> steve harris wrote:
> > A friend in Cuba telephoned me twice, reversed charges. Fair
> > enough, I excepted the calls knowing it would be expensive, but...
> >
> > £25.27p for 2 minutes ?!
> >
> > Another call, £32.60 for 7 minutes !
> >
> > I managed to talk to a 'human being' at BT, an 'advisor' no
> > less. She couldn't explain how the pricing works as the
> > price is set by the foreign telephone company ! She couldn't
> > explain why I was charged these amounts.
> >
> > Great.
> >
> > A year or so ago, a friend of mine who also has a friend in
> > Cuba, he REFUSED to accept a reverse charge call from Cuba, but
> > was STILL charged for it !
> >
> > WTF ?
> >
> > Is this just a Cuba thing, or a common problem,(rip off), with
> > all foreign phone companies .
> >
> > BT implied it wasn't up to them, and they're just passing on
> > the charge. But if I refuse a call and am still charged by BT,
> > Im paying for something Im not receiving.
> >
> > Surely thats against the 'distance selling' law ?
> >
> >
> > BT must DIE.
>
> What I have never established is the contractual issues with reverse
> charge. If someone other than the subscriber answers and says they are
> prepared to accept the charges then it is them, and not the subscriber,
> who has accepted them - how can BT legally charge the subscriber.
>
> The best I can come up with is that they can assume the person answering
> the call is acting on behalf of the subscriber when they accept the
> charges - which may be a reasonable assumption in most cases.
>
> I had a long debate with no real answer on this with BT when I set up an
> incoming only line for my ageing grandmother. It was at a care home and
> the family were concerned that people in the home may use the phone to
> call out. Hence incoming only (my grandmother was in no state to make
> calls herself). Something in the paperwork from BT mentioned reverse
> charge calls.
>
> I wrote to BT advising that there was nobody at the address that was
> authorised to act on my behalf (and that I was not their either) so BT
> could not "assume" that a person answering the phone had authority to
> accept charges on my behalf or otherwise act as my agent.
>
> They said they could not accept that. I pointed out it was not a
> question of accepting it, it was a matter of fact of which I had
> informed them, and that their reply (saying they would not accept it)
> was evidence that they have received the notice and were now aware of
> that fact. Being aware of that fact (how they disseminate that to their
> operators not being my concern) they could no longer make the
> "assumption" if anyone did accept charges.



I'm not too sure about the line, " There is no charge if the call cannot be
connected."

Surely, you "connect" when you pick the phone up...

http://www.serviceview.bt.com/list/p...0e1.htm#1119-d
0e1


"Call charges are for each minute or part of a minute. There is also a Collect
Call Service Charge, which is a fixed amount for each call. This is added to
the call charge. The minimum charge is for five minutes. There is no charge
if the call cannot be connected. For an explanation of which countries are
covered by each Collect Charge Band, these are shown at the end of this
part of this Section of the BT Price List."

Steve Hayes

steve harris wrote:

>
> "Steve Hayes" <steve10@red.honeylink.blue.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:fegslt$joj$1@energise.enta.net...
>
>> I made several direct-dial calls to Cuba earlier this year. BT's rate was
>> about £1.20 per minute. Some indirect access numbers advertised about
>> £0.50 per minute but I couldn't get any of them to work. Ended up mostly
>> using Sipgate at about £0.80 per minute though the connection was very
>> poor (BT was not too bad).
>>
>
>
> I had the same problems, plenty of cheaper 09+ suppliers, non of them
> worked. The cheapest way to communicate is via sms text. 50p each
> from Cuba ( with a UK phone) on Orange.
>
>
>
>> These rates were high compared to what we're used to these days but
>> nowhere near Inmarsat or those reverse-charge rates. It's just the phone
>> companies (Cuba or here - probably both) gouging.
>>
>
>
> Probably. But Cuba *may* be justified , seeing as they're being forced to
> use satellite connectivity.
>

I was referring to the rates that the OP described for the reverse charge
call as gouging. The direct dial rates are perhaps not unreasonable: in
real terms they're about what any transatlantic call would have cost 15+
years ago. I still remember how impressed I was when First Telecom offered
calls to the USA at 20p a minute!

--
----Steve Hayes, South Wales, UK----
Please remove colours from my e-mail address.

Chris Davies

steve harris <steeee9890@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I'm not too sure about the line, " There is no charge if the call cannot be
> connected."

> Surely, you "connect" when you pick the phone up...

No, it's similar to the old "person to person" style calling, where you
used to be able to call the UK Operator and ask to be put through to a
specific person on a given number.

I used it once for an emergency to contact my parents who were abroad
at the time and contactable only via a holiday rep in the hotel. It took
about 10-15 minutes to find them and charging didn't commence until they
came to the phone. (This was long before the 1p/min type phone costs we
can now enjoy.)

Chris

Ivor Jones

"Chris Davies" <chris-usenet@roaima.co.uk> wrote in message
news:mhj1u4xi97.ln2@news.roaima.co.uk...
> steve harris <steeee9890@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> I'm not too sure about the line, " There is no charge if the call cannot
>> be
>> connected."
>
>> Surely, you "connect" when you pick the phone up...
>
> No, it's similar to the old "person to person" style calling, where you
> used to be able to call the UK Operator and ask to be put through to a
> specific person on a given number.
>
> I used it once for an emergency to contact my parents who were abroad
> at the time and contactable only via a holiday rep in the hotel. It took
> about 10-15 minutes to find them and charging didn't commence until they
> came to the phone. (This was long before the 1p/min type phone costs we
> can now enjoy.)
>
> Chris

The charging for the actual call may not have commenced until you were put
through, but I the hefty fee levied probably negated that somewhat.

Ivor

Chris Davies

Ivor Jones <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote:
> The charging for the actual call may not have commenced until you were put
> through, but I [imagine?] the hefty fee levied probably negated that
> somewhat.

Yes. But when calling from a phone box in a hotel to somewhere abroad
when one didn't even know whether the people you needed could be found
it was a good, and at the time, cost-effective option.

Chris

Guantánamo Bay

On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 18:56:01 +0100, Peter Thomas wrote:

>On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 07:55:39 +0100, Guantánamo Bay < Þ @ Þ > wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 19:24:06 GMT, steve harris wrote:
>>
>>>Good point. I know their internet access is via satellite only.
>>>The US trade embargo forbids Cuba to connect via the fibre optic
>>>cable that runs close to the island.
>>>
>>>There's no GPRS there of course.
>>
>>What about Guantánamo Bay?
>
>What about it?

How does the US trade embargo affect it?