Jump to content

Talk:Non-geographic telephone numbers in the United Kingdom

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Comment

[edit]

See the talk page for saynoto0870.com for the discussion on the inclusion of this link. ~~ [Jam][talk] 22:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed

[edit]

There are quite a few apparent errors, but I'm not sure how best to fix them:

  1. "NGNs which cost more than 50p (UK) to call are classed as premium rate numbers and usually begin '09'."
    So if somebody calls my mobile, and the call lasts long enough to cost more than 50p, my mobile number suddenly becomes a premium rate number? Moreover, Premium-rate telephone number#United Kingdom states that premium rate numbers range in rate from 10p to £1.50 per minute, with no mention of a lower bound on the cost of an individual call.
  2. "The only case where this differs is with 03 numbers and 070 numbers, where revenue sharing is strictly prohibited"...
    How do I go about getting my share of the revenue when people call my mobile then?
  3. "In the simplest case, the NGN is translated into a regular geographic number."
    Mobile phone numbers generally don't. OK, so mobile operators often provide call diversion as an option, but when it goes to a mobile phone normally, is this not an even simpler case?

-- Smjg (talk) 16:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps some clarification might help here:
  1. I think that line should read "more than 50p a minute". Numbers under 50p/min are not normally classed as premium rate (hence they don't need to be an 09 number), but you can get 09 numbers that are technically classed as premium rate but cost less than 10p/min. I think a proper definition for premium rate needs sourcing (probably from PhonepayPlus).
  2. 07 mobile numbers are technically non-geographic (they don't relate to a physical location), but are not technically classed as revenue sharing numbers. 03 numbers are completely non-revenue sharing by Ofcom's rules, and while 070 numbers shouldn't technically have revenue sharing on them, cases do exist where certain companies that run 070 numbers get a rebate from them.
  3. Again, this is related to 03, 070, 08 and 09 numbers, not mobile numbers. Mobile numbers are linked to your mobile account through some "magic" method that I don't understand. However, you could make it divert to a normal landline or other phone number (which would then make it an NGN translated number).
Not sure if that helps, or provides any possible "fixes" to the article. ~~ [Jam][talk] 17:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't there some changes happening with these prefixes in the near future, especially regarding revenue share and changes to 0871/0872? (79.73.157.64 (talk) 19:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]
From 1st August 2009, 0870 numbers should be charged at geographic rate (01/02/03) unless a pre-call announcement is made to inform the caller it is more expensive. Also, 0871/0872/0873 will be regulated by PhonePayPlus as premium rate numbers, subject to (more or less) the same regulations as 09 numbers. ~~ [ジャム][t - c] 19:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have merged 0870 and 0845

[edit]

As per the consensus on the talk pages of Talk:0870 and Talk:0845, I have merged the relevant data from those articles into this one. fr33kman -s- 23:58, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Following the above merge, and after several more years of various edits, the article structure had become quite unwieldy especially within the 'detailed information' sections for 03, 0845 and 0870 numbers.
I have since re-organised and expanded the article, including at least these changes:
  • as it compares all NGN prefixes, I have moved the 'mobile call costs' comparison table from the '03 prefix' section to a new 'mobile call costs' sub-section at the top of page
  • moved various text from the old '03 prefix' sub-section to a new '03 prefix' sub-section under 'history of prefixes' or to a new 'usage' section, both further up the page
  • moved various text from the '0845 prefix' and '0870 prefix' sub-sections to the various new 'costs', 'history of prefixes' or 'usage' sections, as appropriate
  • added a lot more details for 0843, 0844, 0871, 0872 numbers which were previously very much under-represented and are not-at-all like 0845 and 0870 numbers
  • filled in details of the history for all of the NGN prefixes, and their previous allocations
  • added a new section detailing how revenue-share works, with both general details of bandings and more detailed information for each tariff code
  • added general details of price markups for each of BT, other landline providers and mobile operators, as they are different; especially noting that for mobiles the inflated call price is not caused by the revenue-share premium
  • made it clear that BT prices are currently capped by competition regulation, and mentioned this regulation ends soon
  • clarified that "local rate" has never applied to 0843/0844 numbers; the 084 revenue share is set by the Terminating Telco and in comparison most people now ring 01 and 02 numbers at zero cost within inclusive minutes
  • clarified that "national rate" has never applied to 0871/0872 numbers; the 087 revenue share is set by the Terminating Telco and in comparison most people now ring 01 and 02 numbers at zero cost within inclusive minutes
  • clarified the term "local rate" no longer applies to 0845 and "national rate" no longer applies to 0870 numbers for much the same reasons
  • noted that ASA have taken action against several companies inappropriately using the terms "local rate" and "national rate" for non-geographic prefixes
  • hinted at Ofcom's proposals for "unbundled" tariffs which will:
    • force companies to admit that 084 and 087 numbers are revenue-share, not "local rate" [sic] or "national rate" [sic], numbers
    • force companies to show the amount of revenue share premium that applies to their number
    • expose the huge call price markup imposed on callers by mobile operators
    • allow easier comparison of providers as each will state their "mark up" or "access charge" rather than the total call price (the current situation is that the revenue share premium is a fixed amount for each telephone number but varies from number to number, and this will continue; the call price from landlines varies from number to number because the call price is the sum of the revenue-share premium plus a presently unstated fixed markup for all NGNs with same prefix, where the markup differs for each provider; the call price from mobiles is the same for all numbers with the same prefix because the call price is the sum of the revenue-share premium plus the presently unstated and variable markup for each number, where the markup also differs for each provider) and it is proposed that the markup will be the same rate for all NGNs (rather than vary as it does now for mobiles), but still vary by provider to allow competition
    • expose, to users of NGNs, the providers that fail to pass on the collected revenue-share premium to the user.
The article is now no longer divided by prefix, but instead by 'definitions and costs', 'history of prefixes', 'revenue share and pricing', 'current and historical usage', and 'views' - hopefully making it easier to compare and contrast each type of NGN.
There are still several sections that require further attention. The article will also need to be further edited and re-organised once the details of Ofcom's "unbundled tariffs" proposal become clear, once further regulatory changes for 0845 and 0870 numbers are clarified, and once the relevant provisions of the Consumer Rights Directive are enacted. - 212.139.101.29 (talk) 23:06, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article contradicts itself with regard to 0845 numbers

[edit]

In the table of prefix codes, 0845 is given as an example of a 'free' phone number while in the following paragraphs 0845 is described as being more expensive that the new national rate. Something is wrong somewhere - or maybe I misunderstood. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.187.233.172 (talk) 11:49, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on the calling plan – some include free calls to 0845 and 0870 but others don't. I've explained this in the article as it could have been misleading. —Snigbrook 12:39, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
0800 is "free" to call from all landlines. 0845 and/or 0870 numbers are not "free numbers"; they are non-geographic, but if they happen to be inclusive in your call plan then you won't pay for the call. - 212.139.108.56 (talk) 00:08, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tariffs

[edit]

A lot of examples of tariffs are shown in this article. Is this really necessary?

  • Prices change all the time. It would be an enormous task to keep this information up to date.
  • The lists are not comprehensive - and it would be near impossible, given the number of telecoms operating in the UK and the complexities of their price plans to make them so.
  • The superficial nature of these price-breakdowns might make one telecom appear cheaper than another, with a detailed comparison of services being beyond the scope of the article. It runs the risk of 'promoting' a particular telecom, possibly leading to issues of bias.
  • It is potentially unencyclopaedic to list this information, and beyond the purpose of the article.

Perhaps there is an argument for one or two isolated examples, but the scale of these price quotes seems quite over the top from where I am sitting. -- Fursday 02:36, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The NGNs are sort of defined by their cost tiers but we should talk about them in a more generic way rather than list specific prices for specific telecos. The risk is that our listed prices will quickly become out of date. --DanielRigal (talk) 09:31, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Errata

[edit]
Shouldn't this page be called Non-geographic (not geographical) telephone numbers in the United Kingdom?
- (79.73.148.172 (talk) 22:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]


Ofcom usually refer to geographic, mobile, and non-geographic numbers as three separate entities. That is, the term non-geographic specifically refers to landlines, and not to mobile telephones.
- (79.73.148.172 (talk) 22:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Errors

[edit]

I'm the CTO of a UK Telco and came looking at this page because a customer quoted some of the (mis) information on this page at me.

There are many errors. Some because things have changed a lot in the last year or so, a few things things are badly described, a few important facts are omitted and some things are Just Plain Wrong. I notice that many of "facts" given seem unsupported by references. I'm really happy to help clean and tidy this all up - but I don't have huge experience in the ways of Wikipedia. I do know where the key reference documents are to "back up" or "verify" accurate information. Anyone want to suggest where/how I start ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Teledesign (talk • contribs) 03:56, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Either list your proposed changes here in the Talk section for discussion, or just crack on and edit the page. Old versions of the page are automatically archived so it is easy to see what changes have been made.(212.139.97.252 (talk) 12:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]
As you haven't returned, I have since added more details about revenue sharing, general pricing structures, and some history. With changes to the regulations covering 0845 and 0870 expected, the immenent implentation of the Consumer Rights Directive and the forthcoming anticipated "unbundled" tariff in 2013, this article will need further work when those details have been announced. -- 212.139.101.42 (talk) 11:42, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Views on non-geographic numbers

[edit]

It seems that the opposition stresses the revenue sharing - not the fact that they are non-geographic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uzytkownik (talk • contribs) 15:43, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The "opposition", such as it is, objects to many things:
  • when introduced, NGNs did not impose a financial penalty on callers (being charged the same as local or national calls) but since calls to geographic numbers became inclusive more than 10 years ago, NGN call rates now effectively impose a penalty fee on callers.
  • large numbers of businesses jumping on these numbers thinking they are "local rate", perhaps thinking they are saving their customers money, when the reverse is true. Is there really any need for an independant takeaway covering a 5-mile radius to have an 0844 number?
  • businesses that sell 084 and 087 numbers continuing to sell them on the basis they are "cheap to call" often quoting stuff like "your customers can call you for 3 to 5 pence per minute"... ignoring the fact that their customers are currently calling their existing 01 or 02 numbers at no cost using inclusive minutes, and ignoring the fact that mobile users will end up paying up to 45 pence per minute to call 08 numbers instead of using their inclusive minutes or cheap rates to call existing geographic numbers.
  • calls are often advertised as "local rate" when that term (since before 2004) has no meaning in the UK, and gives a false assurance of a low price - a false claim that the ASA can take action on.
  • heavy financial penalty for calling from a mobile, along with poor price advertising that says only "other operators may charge more" is a common reason for bill shock.
  • lack of price transparency. 0844 (and 0843) numbers provide a revenue share of up to 5p/min but mobile operators charge an extra 20 to 35 pence per minute to call them, pocketing huge profits. 0871 and 0872 numbers provide revenue share of up to 10p/min but again, mobile operators add 20 to 30 pence per minute on top.
  • mobile operators charging the caller the same highly inflated price for calling NGNs with 0.8 pence per minute revenue share, 4.3 pence per minute revenue share, 8.5 pence "per minute" revenue share and 3.5 pence "per call" revenue share; with no evidence of the original "call price set by the Terminating telco" mechanism anywhere in sight.
  • Sellers of 084 and 087 numbers forgetting to mention to the businesses adopting them, that callers are paying a "premium" of up to 5p/min (084) or up to 10p/min (087); with the number seller often pocketing this as extra profit.
  • where businesses have a genuine need for revenue share, the total lunacy of a scheme that forces an up to a 45 pence per minute price rise (compared to "inclusive" minutes) on many callers just so the business can suck a couple of pence per minute "premium" or "subsidy" out of the system.
  • complicated pricing using tables with thousands of entries to find the tariff code and then further fiddling about to convert that code to the actual price for a call from a landline is not consumer friendly.
  • some providers put 0842/0843/0844/0871/0872/0873 pricing in a separate document to that for 0845/0870, leading many consumers to incorrectly assume that 0845 pricing covers all 084 numbers and 0870 pricing covers all 087 numbers.
  • price lists showing 0845 and 0870 numbers in one place, 0844 and 0871 in another and completely omitting prices for 0842/0843/0872/0873 numbers shows that the mobile operators themselves don't understand their own offerings.
  • some mobile networks charge users a lot more to call 0500 and 0808 numbers than 0800 numbers, even though all of them are the same type of number.
  • some mobile networks charge users a lot more to call 0871 numbers than 0872 numbers, even though both are the same type of number.
  • the general hiding of the truth from NGN callers (by the users of NGNs) and from NGN users (by the people they obtained their number from).
  • Ofcom and ASA ineffective in policing the abuses. The few problems that have been sorted took very many years to fix. Many problems remain.
  • no easy way to compare landline phone providers as there are thousands of sub-divisions within 084 and 087 numbering, and uncertainty whether an individual provider consistently marks up different NGNs by the same amount.
  • no detailed structure to 084 and 087 numbering allocations, meaning that for each and every call from a landline you must look up the cost in order to avoid a nasty shock.
  • a mix of pence per minute and price per call tariffs all mixed together, not sorted by any prefix structure. Ofcom could have used different prefixes to help the consumer, but seem incapable of making simple decisions such as this.
- 2.31.98.38 (talk) 18:56, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Warner

[edit]

The link to Lord Warner goes to the wrong "Warner"92.6.104.17 (talk) 11:45, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the other day. - 212.139.96.203 (talk) 16:16, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article like company cost leaflets?

[edit]

Not being in UK, I'm unsure of article value to readers. Is this detail, hard to keep updated, better than available from mobile suppliers themselves? AnEyeSpy (talk) 01:54, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The costs part will need to be rewritten once new regulation is announced in the next few months. There are big changes coming to the way that these call prices will be advertised. For the present, the article links to current pricing details for networks. -- 212.139.101.42 (talk) 10:21, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A Round Tuit

[edit]

After a long period of looking at a very incomplete article:

  • no details of the 0845/0870 revenue share mechanism
  • no details of 0843/0844 and 0871/0872 numbers and prices
  • no details of the 0843/0844/0871/0872 revenue share mechanism
  • no mention of the price caps for 08 numbers that apply only to BT
  • no mention that the price differential for local/national 01/02 landline calls stopped before 2004
  • no comparison of 01/02 "inclusive" and 084/087 "chargeable" calls, with the latter seen as imposing a "penalty" on callers
  • no details of the various 084 and 087 revenue-share bandings
  • nothing about the regulations covering how NGN prices are displayed
  • little detail of how the various NGN prefixes have changed over time
  • no mention of free freephone charity numbers from mobiles
  • no details of the original rationale for NGNs, and how the new 03 number range restores it
  • no mention of the Ofcom proposal for "unbundled" tariffs for non-geographic calls
  • little mention of how the Consumer Rights Directive will affect usage of 084 and 087 numbers by business
  • several of the "in the future" items had already happened

I finally found some time over the last month to re-organise and update parts of the article.

There is more to do, but some of it will have to wait until after Ofcom's next round of consultations on both non-geographic numbering and unbundled tariffs as well as the expected announcements about the final details of the BIS implementation of the Consumer Rights Directive. - 212.139.105.69 (talk) 14:15, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally,
  • No mention of the 2005 ban on NHS using 0870 and 09 numbers
  • No mention of the 2010 ban on GPs using 0843 and 0844 numbers
Added those details and several references. - 109.176.249.92 (talk) 16:18, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Non-geographic telephone numbers in the United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:05, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Non-geographic_telephone_numbers_in_the_United_Kingdom&oldid=1204318403"