MJ Ray wrote:
Paul Tansom paul@aptanet.com wrote:
Interesting, I thought 0844 was just an extension of 0845, i.e. charged at local rate.
As I recall, 0845 was too inflexible, and it didn't allow ISPs to do things like charge 1p/min for Internet access. I'm not sure what the highest charge that can be applied to an 0844 number is, although from mobiles it is probably some silly cost.
Note that 0844/0845 numbers are not affected by the upcoming changes.
0844 is not usually included in telco "all calls" packages, so is a worse deal than an 01, 02 or 03 number for callers.
I think this is the main problem with them, particularly on mobiles (where the cost of non-inclusive minutes is often very high). But then an 0800 call will likely cost at least 10p/min from a mobile.
As always, there are some laudible uses for 0844/0845/0870, as well as placed where they are just a rip-off. Where a "service" is offered off the back of a telephone number the service provider ought to be able to charge more-or-less anything they like, but it should (a) be transparent (which I think should mean different prefixes for different charges, maybe something like 0844-xx-yyyyyy where xx is the pence/min the call costs), (b) not be massively surcharged from non-BT lines (I think for mobiles the maximum surcharge should be the cost for that user on their current tariff to call a landline), and (c) should not be used for anything which is not a "service", ie where something of tangible value is received in return for the call. Charging 10p/min for indirect access telephone calls to some far off country is fair enough, charging 10p/min to sit on hold to speak to your bank is not, and paying 35p/min to make the same call from your mobile is even worse.
All of which is completely off-topic, albeit interestingly so.
Mark Rogers