This question came through to the website some time ago, questioning why we were so much against 1890 numbers, and what a business could use instead.
I was on Google looking for info regarding 1890 numbers and stumbled across your website. Never one to go with the flow like a dead fish, I’ve decided to see what you can suggest other than an 1890 number.
The response, and our point with SayNoTo1890.com is there there’s no benefit any more in so called “lo call” or “call save” numbers so businesses should just provide their normal geographical telephone number for their customers to use.
Though 1890 and 1850 numbers could be viewed as marketing tools, we try to highlight to businesses that it could cost their customers more to actually get in touch.
Tags: 1890 Numbers, SayNoTo1890 News
I’d take issue with you here, but only a little bit
1890 numbers are still useful to a certain proportion of the population, who for some reason or another do not have free or reduced rate calls to geographical numbers. I would say that if a company wishes to get a 1890 (or other non-geographic) number, let them go ahead, as it may be a good marketing tool and may be helpful and useful to some customers. As long as they advertise their geographic number just as prominently, all is well!
Aside from just a marketing tool, some providers actually use the numbers as a way to hook in to application platforms – like call recording – to protect the consumer & comply with legal requirements.
By publishing a none publically available number, you are advising the callers to dial a geo number, which means you are actually advising them around such protection.
The above said, I do believe that the price some carriers are charging is to high, but this is a dispute with the carrier and not the Number Translation part of the industry as the carriers are the ones producing the bills to the public.
The answer to the question is that there should be a type of non-geographical number charged to callers the same as geographical numbers. A neutral solution if you like.
In the UK we now have such an alternative in the form of 03 numbers. All landline and mobile telephone providers must charge them no more than geographical calls and they must come from inclusive minutes where they otherwise apply.
It must be understood that callers to revenue sharing number types provide subsidy to the receiving parties, regardless of whether they are given cash by their telephone provider. There are those who operate 0845 numbers and proclaim that they do not receive revenue from calls. So what services do they receive in lieu of this?
Many public sector services are receiving subsidy from callers. Any such process should be openly declared.
Dave, interesting point, but the take up of 03 in the UK isn’t exactly great & in reality to tell company that’s spent millions of pound on building a brand based around a number to change it, doesn’t go down to well…. The biggest advert for UK 03 numbers has been the BBC with children in need – with out that there wouldn’t have been any traction at all….
Also if you read the Comreg advise on the 0818 numbers these are meant to be charged at the standard national call rate to the consumer, but some companies just choose not to do it.
To be honest here – it just needs some one to clamp down on the over charging by some companies for these number types & we’ll all be happy.
I agree that the take-up of 03 numbers within the private sector is poor but there are quite a few public sector examples which are helping drive up awareness. Private companies will change when they see fit.
There is now a free market in the origination of all calls. Competing retailers set their own prices as they see fit and some include some or all geographical calls for a flat monthly fee.
The retailers themselves incur charges for connecting calls. These are in effect like “wholesale” charges. It is to be expected that they are reflected in the retail prices.
With 0870 and likewise, I believe, with 1890 in Ireland these inter-operator charges are far higher than with geographical calls. This represents a premium or subsidy from caller to receiver. It also exerts pressure on the telcos with which subscribers make their calls.
This is the process that is designed to facilitate revenue sharing between receiving parties and their telephone providers. It happens regardless of whether receiving parties are paid or not.
So if 1890 is declared “national rate” and 1850 “local rate”, then they must be the same price as national or local geographical calls for all subscribers. There cannot be two “local rates” just to suit.
I note your comment about 1890 calls being charged at “standard national call rate”. In the UK, 0845 and 0870 are local and national rate with BT on its “non-discounted” tariffs. These tariffs also charge different local and national call rates and I think of them as “pre-competition” rates.
Over about the last 10 years providers have entered the market. BT responded to this increased competition by creating its “discounted” tariffs, on which the local/national rate linkages didn’t apply.
In 2004 it scrapped its residential non-discounted BT Standard tariff, forcing all on it to its basic discounted tariff. Only a tiny minority of BT customers are on non-discounted tariffs, such as those low users on special schemes. The UK regulator, Ofcom, continues to maintain that 0845 and 0870 are “BT standard local/national rate” despite the fact that “standard” rates are now not the norm!
So is this similar to the situation in Ireland? Who is to say that the current prices that telephone call providers charge for 1890 aren’t their “standard” national call rates? Either there is a free market in call origination or there isn’t.
Ok, just one correction it is 0818 numbers, not 1890 numbers where possible rev sharing can take place.
So fundamentally from what you are saying above the “free market” is to blame for the price setting & the only things the consumer can do is:
1) move operator & be
charged less
2) don’t dial the
18xx/0818 number dial
a number SayNoToxxxx
provides
3) put up with it
the only problem I see with 2 is that by dialling a none published number that saynoto1890 / 0870 have given out, you are effectively advising the consumer around the safety net of any Network Call Recording solution etc & if it all went legal, you may well be included in any proceedings. Especially in Litigation Ireland!
Thanks for correcting me on the 1890 number not being revenue sharing. I thought that they were roughly equivalent to 0818.
What I’m saying is that there is a premium attached to these sorts of numbers. Many would describe this as “premium rate”.
Why is it that organisations must charge their callers? Do they declare this process in Ireland? They don’t in the UK.
Providing alternatives is in no way the solution. The network call recording based on the non-geographical numbers is not something I’ve heard of in the UK. Companies that use such a facility are passing the cost of this service back to their calling customers without making this fact clear.
The operational benefits enjoyed by users of non-geographical numbers (call routing, statistics etc) should be available without the cost of those extra services being offset onto callers.
This is where the UK 03 numbers come in; they are neutrality. A equivalent non-geographical number type should be available in other countries.
Hi Dave,
To put it simply, it all comes down to cash & the customer all ways pays one way or the other – be it on the phone or in the cost of the product. Most companies in both the UK & IRL do declare that the calls are charged at “the description”, but to list out the exact charge for each operator is impractical as there are so many & technically there is no way of knowing conclusively which operator has originated the call or what pricing package there on, so that’s out the window to.
For Network call recording in the UK, just take a look at Opal, Kingston, Thus & any of the major NTS resellers, its very well known in the market place & lots of the big organisations have turned to it to fulfil there regulatory requirements & keep the same level of staffing as there is little CAPEX to fine to deploy it. There are a couple of companies supplying it over here, with the take up starting to grow due to the financial clement.
I know what you are saying about the 03 concept, but the pricing isn’t neutral, it costs the company to receive the calls, which intern means that cutbacks else where will have to take place, be that staff / service etc or simply the product costs will rise. So it’s a no win situation.
The only thing that can be done is pressure be applied to the high charging networks to bring there pricing inline with the normal retail environment.
Personally after spending 14years in the industry (both UK & IRL), I do get really annoyed with the blame being put on the NTS operators, when we comply with industry set pricing & it’s the some originating operators that are excessively charging!
Anyway I think it’s safe to say that we sit on different sides of the fence on this one in the main, but I would like to see some control put in place on the mobile operators to bring both there retail & network pricing inline with normal calls – we’ll see!
Mark
Mark said: “To put it simply, it all comes down to cash & the customer all ways pays one way or the other – be it on the phone or in the cost of the product. …”
I have made no suggestion that anything should be free. Primarily the “Say no” campaign is a matter of transparency of charging. The reason we are in the current position is because of the nonsense about these numbers being supposedly linked to “local rate” and “national rate”. I understand that the same or similar tags have been attributed to 1890/0818 in Ireland.
Mark said: “… Most companies in both the UK & IRL do declare that the calls are charged at “the description”, but to list out the exact charge for each operator is impractical as there are so many & technically there is no way of knowing conclusively which operator has originated the call or what pricing package there on, so that’s out the window to.”
So here you justify confusing consumers with “the description” simply because it is too complex to enact a solution to clear and honest pricing information!
I have heard these arguments so many times before from providers of these numbers! The issue isn’t the complexity or irregularity of charges across providers.
Mark said: “For Network call recording in the UK, just take a look at Opal, Kingston, Thus & any of the major NTS resellers, its very well known in the market place & lots of the big organisations have turned to it to fulfil there regulatory requirements & keep the same level of staffing as there is little CAPEX to fine to deploy it. There are a couple of companies supplying it over here, with the take up starting to grow due to the financial clement.”
There are two issues:
1. The way the numbers work technically or to put it another way, the “advanced” features they provide.
2. The high level of the retail call charges.
You appear to be using the first as justification for the second.
Mark said: “I know what you are saying about the 03 concept, but the pricing isn’t neutral, it costs the company to receive the calls, which intern means that cutbacks else where will have to take place, be that staff / service etc or simply the product costs will rise. So it’s a no win situation.”
Neutral does not mean “no cost”! “Neutral” means that there is no subsidy or premium from the caller to the receiver. The cost should be the same as the caller pays for a “local” call (in the case of 1890) on his or her chosen tariff. If this is zero fee (inclusive), then any so-called “local rate” non-geographical number should be as well.
The fact that there are charges to receivers of 03 numbers shows the level of subsidy provided with 0845 numbers. In some cases, there is an excess and this results in the recipient being paid a revenue share or cashback by their telco.
This process should be declared! Simple. That is why I am a member of the “Say no” campaign.
What’s happening at the moment is that telcos provide these “advanced features” to their customers (the companies/organisations operating these numbers) and get others (the callers) to pay for them.
A free market works best for consumers when those making the choice of service and service provider are the ones paying for it. If another party were to provide subsidy for to shoppers at supermarkets, the result will be that they will stop their offers, buy one get one frees etc and raise prices. This is because higher prices don’t put people of as they’re not the ones paying the bill.
Providers of these numbers work in this way and their resistance to the introduction of an 03-style number range in Ireland is brought because they know that there will be far far more pressure on their revenues.
Mark said: “The only thing that can be done is pressure be applied to the high charging networks to bring there pricing inline with the normal retail environment.”
I was most interested when I came across this document Comreg’s website:
http://www.comreg.ie/_fileupload/publications/odtr0183.pdf
It dates back to 2001, so may have been superceded. Perhaps you can advise what the current position is on this.
This document I have linked to is a Decision Notice of the then regulator and it is entitled “Treatment of Discounts in the Calculation of Settlement Rates for Number Translation Codes”.
It states: “Director’s Position: The Director considers that eircom’s retail discounts should not affect the charges for conveyance of calls to internet and other NTCs without appropriate consent and scrutiny. She will consider individual proposals on a case by case basis.”
I understand that this means that if eircom wishes to discount (lower) its retail charges (below its “non-discounted” local rate) for 1890, that this should not affect the payment it makes to respective providers of such numbers.
So what it’s saying is that if eircom (or another telephone call retailer) wishes to reduce the amount it charges its customers for calling these numbers, that this must come from any profit margin available and that the termination payments (or outpayments) made to providers of these numbers cannot be lowered. Only if the Director consents can the termination charge be lowered.
You are saying that the only thing that can be done is that “pressure be applied” to bring down retail charges. Is your company applying any “pressure” or is it just sitting idley by? Has your company requested consent from the Director that the termination charges your company imposes be reduced?
Or has legislation changed since then?
Mark said: “Personally after spending 14years in the industry (both UK & IRL), I do get really annoyed with the blame being put on the NTS operators, when we comply with industry set pricing & it’s the some originating operators that are excessively charging!
Anyway I think it’s safe to say that we sit on different sides of the fence on this one in the main, but I would like to see some control put in place on the mobile operators to bring both there retail & network pricing inline with normal calls – we’ll see!”
I agree, I think that its generally mobile providers that excessively overcharge. I say this having studied the prices charged by UK providers only. I note that the Call Costs chart on SayNoTo1890.com does say that Vodafone pay monthly tariffs are the only ones to take 0818 calls from inclusive minutes.
So how do termination charges for 1890 and 0818 shape up at the side of geographical ones?
Hi Dave,
Thanks for that, the discussion points have just become quotes, and used for further means.
I have offered constructive information – which is being twisted for your means.
We still sit on the different side of the fence & I respect your views – please respect mine
Last input enjoy & good luck with your campaign
Mark
Mark, thanks for your insight and opinions.
Sorry if I took my response a bit too far. We will have to agree to disagree.