I texted an 07 mobile number today and got charged £1.75

Em3bbs said:
I know a lot of people are just rallying around against the OP because he normally posts a lot of bobbins, but as someone who previously worked in this field he does have a point here. Telcos need to be made to make it a lot clearer when dialing these numbers, it is not a reasonable expectation for a customer to know that an 078391 number will cost them a lot more. My own UK mobile number starts with 0783 (the old Vodafone prefix for those who remember). By the time people are 5 digits in they should not be easily routed to numbers that are charged differently in my humble opinion and it's something Ofcom need to look at if the experience is as fast as the OP suggests.
Click to expand...

I suppose the question is, what do they do other than force the networks to make the calls/texts part of inclusive allowances? They could have a message when you call one of these numbers warning you it is an international number, but I don’t know how they’d warn you if you were trying to send a text message.
 
mrochester said:
I suppose the question is, what do they do other than force the networks to make the calls/texts part of inclusive allowances? They could have a message when you call one of these numbers warning you it is an international number, but I don’t know how they’d warn you if you were trying to send a text message.
Click to expand...

Again it's principal, it's their system, their problem. You shouldn't be able to "hide" things
 
mrochester said:
Whose problem?
Click to expand...

The networks, the regulators, the people who create the system.

Another good example is things like the scandal over people being charged for entering competitions by text that were closed.. this sector, as with any other utility is heavily regulated and expects fair practice.

If there's no intervention, ie you don't have to do anything extra or different to using a phone where you'd not expect to be charged then there's generally no expectation that it's on the customer to educate themselves. Especially when the information to conduct the education doesn't exists.. ie a telephone directory of all Guernsey mobile numbers you can cross reference against before you text someone.

In that situation summarily charging someone could easily be seen as predatory. I'm still not entirely convinced it's exactly as presented in this thread purely because the networks and telecoms providers are so heavily regulated.
 
matt100 said:
The networks, the regulators, the people who create the system.

Another good example is things like the scandal over people being charged for entering competitions by text that were closed.. this sector, as with any other utility is heavily regulated and expects fair practice.

If there's no intervention, ie you don't have to do anything extra or different to using a phone where you'd not expect to be charged then there's generally no expectation that it's on the customer to educate themselves. Especially when the information to conduct the education doesn't exists.. ie a telephone directory of all Guernsey mobile numbers you can cross reference against before you text someone.

In that situation summarily charging someone could easily be seen as predatory. I'm still not entirely convinced it's exactly as presented in this thread purely because the networks and telecoms providers are so heavily regulated.
Click to expand...

So how do you propose this issue is sorted?
 
mrochester said:
So how do you propose this issue is sorted?
Click to expand...

Super easy. No charge. It's opportunistic, the networks in general are falling over themselves to give free international usage within certain terms.

Expand them.

Alternatively, put a bar on comms to those numbers that would attract a surcharge until you've agreed to the charge, like for example Vodafone prompted me every time I tried to answer their own bloody customer service questionnaire.

Either way, again, their problem..

If its that big of a deal to them they need to be working out how Guernsey has its own dialling code.
 
matt100 said:
Super easy. No charge. It's opportunistic, the networks in general are falling over themselves to give free international usage within certain terms.

Expand them.

Alternatively, put a bar on comms to those numbers that would attract a surcharge until you've agreed to the charge, like for example Vodafone prompted me every time I tried to answer their own bloody customer service questionnaire.

Either way, again, their problem..

If its that big of a deal to them they need to be working out how Guernsey has its own dialling code.
Click to expand...

No charge is the easy option but then it sets the precedent that international calling should be free/inclusive. Is it the networks fault that the regulator allocated ‘normal’ UK looking numbers to international jurisdictions?

Who pays for the additional cost the networks would have to shoulder to make these calls/texts free? Would it impact the monthly cost of sims or would it just eat into network profits?

I have no horse in this race, I’m just trying to understand who would pay for this international calling/texting.
 
It's not their fault but it's certainly not their customers problem either.

The principal is simple and already exists.. if I call a number with a dialling code then I know what I'm getting myself into and I pay.

If I go abroad and you call me you don't know I'm abroad so I pay.

So in this instance whilst it's unusual, you don't automatically know you're doing anything out of the ordinary so you don't pay. Whether that falls to the network or the recipient of the call is up for debate.

My instinct is that this is likely some opportunism by the networks. Either way the charge is grossly disproportionate.
 
matt100 said:
It's not their fault but it's certainly not their customers problem either.

The principal is simple and already exists.. if I call a number with a dialling code then I know what I'm getting myself into and I pay.

If I go abroad and you call me you don't know I'm abroad so I pay.

So in this instance whilst it's unusual, you don't automatically know you're doing anything out of the ordinary so you don't pay. Whether that falls to the network or the recipient of the call is up for debate.

My instinct is that this is likely some opportunism by the networks. Either way the charge is grossly disproportionate.
Click to expand...

Well none of the countries in question are in the EU so I believe their network’s call termination charges are not regulated in the same way as they are in the EU. Therefore they can charge whatever the like for a UK number to call them. I could understand UK networks including these countries in call packages if the termination rates at the other end were regulated, but I don’t believe they are.

UK networks could potentially open themselves up to a huge liability by making these international calls invlusive if Isle of Man or Channel island mobile networks can charge anything they like.
 
mrochester said:
Well none of the countries in question are in the EU so I believe their network’s call termination charges are not regulated in the same way as they are in the EU. Therefore they can charge whatever the like for a UK number to call them. I could understand UK networks including these countries in call packages if the termination rates at the other end were regulated, but I don’t believe they are.

UK networks could potentially open themselves up to a huge liability by making these international calls invlusive if Isle of Man or Channel island mobile networks can charge anything they like.
Click to expand...

For someone who has no dog in the fight you're making it hard going to explain a principal.

Again, the termination rates etc aren't my problem, they're not your problem. If it causes these multi billion pound companies some pain then you'll find pretty rapidly they'll start lobbying to do something about it.

Incidentally the networks have also said that in the event of brexit I believe they'll maintain their roaming deals.

Anyway, we're in the weeds.. the principal is the principal, if I can't reasonably know I'm calling outside the UK then I can't be charged for it. End of story.
 
matt100 said:
For someone who has no dog in the fight you're making it hard going to explain a principal.

Again, the termination rates etc aren't my problem, they're not your problem. If it causes these multi billion pound companies some pain then you'll find pretty rapidly they'll start lobbying to do something about it.

Incidentally the networks have also said that in the event of brexit I believe they'll maintain their roaming deals.

Anyway, we're in the weeds.. the principal is the principal, if I can't reasonably know I'm calling outside the UK then I can't be charged for it. End of story.
Click to expand...

Well knowing the details is important because it determines whether you pay for the call or not! I think the regulator would be in for a legal challenge if on one hand they deemed a certain set of numbers as international numbers but then on the other hand regulated the operators to say they can’t charge international rates for those international numbers.

It’s up to the regulator to sort it out.
 
mrochester said:
Well knowing the details is important because it determines whether you pay for the call or not! I think the regulator would be in for a legal challenge if on one hand they deemed a certain set of numbers as international numbers but then on the other hand regulated the operators to say they can’t charge international rates for those international numbers.

It’s up to the regulator to sort it out.
Click to expand...

Absolutely and in the meantime consumers don't foot the bill or there's no incentive for anyone with any power to do anything.
 
matt100 said:
Absolutely and in the meantime consumers don't foot the bill or there's no incentive for anyone with any power to do anything.
Click to expand...

Well it’s the regulator that should foot the bill, not the customer or the network. But in the absence of the regulator footing the bill (which is the UK tax payer anyway), it’s the customer who is.

The customer needs to contact the regulator to ask them to look into the issue.
 
mrochester said:
Well it’s the regulator that should foot the bill, not the customer or the network. But in the absence of the regulator footing the bill (which is the UK tax payer anyway), it’s the customer who is.

The customer needs to contact the regulator to ask them to look into the issue.
Click to expand...

You have a weird (in my opinion) view of the power balance here.
 
Sorry, misread your previous post and thought you meant contact the network.

Yes I guess the customer needs to contact the regulator, they also need to lose their **** with the network and threaten to report them to ofcom for misleading or opaque pricing practices.
 
matt100 said:
Sorry, misread your previous post and thought you meant contact the network.

Yes I guess the customer needs to contact the regulator, they also need to lose their **** with the network and threaten to report them to ofcom for misleading or opaque pricing practices.
Click to expand...

You do know Ofcom IS the regulator that has determined these are international numbers?
 
I can't imagine it would be the first time they were wrong and had a rethink.

And again, there can be seperation between whether they're international and who pays. There's still the networks being able to do the right thing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom