07 number not mobile?

[Mr_Joe]

I rent a house and was given an emergency number that starts 070500, the call went straight through to an answer phone for a mobile number starting 07971. My phone bill came through and I have been charged for ringing the 070 number. This seems a bit devious to me as it looks like a mobile number, i have never seen an 07 number not for a mobile, also as it goes through to a mobile answering machine it seems unfair to charge me.

Any views on this would be appreciated.


Joe

[goodwill]

PhonepayPlus - Number Checker - Result
Number Checker

PhonepayPlus has the following information about the number 07012345678.

070 numbers are used for Personal Numbering Services which are defined as services that enable end-users to be called using a single personal telephone number (the 070 number) and to receive those calls at almost any telephone number, including landlines and mobile numbers.

Service costs vary.

The cost of these calls may vary depending on your phone company so you should speak to them for more information or advice.

Originally Posted by Mr_Joe

This seems a bit devious to me as it looks like a mobile number

yes what on earth were Ofcom and the 'industry' thinking of when they thought that one up?

[buzby]

You got it the wrong way round! The 07 number range STARTED with 'personal numbers', like 07050 and it was nearly 2 years before the mobile codes using 08/09 (0831, 0860 and 0973 etc) were moved to 07 by sticking a '7' after the initial zero. These personal number chareged a rate equivalent to mobile calls, and as such owners of these 070 codes could at last divert calls to any mobile they wished... it was a 'number for life', and was promoted long before mobiles had number portability.

The mobile networks then started playing fast and loose with calls to these PNs ensuring that a lager price differential existed so that they could make more money from the termination fees.

So - the deviousness is in making a Personal Number look like a mobile, NOT the other way around. They were there first!

[Cattolica]

Some years ago I owned a PN, as you say, before it became easy to transfer a mobile number. In those days the prefix was solely 0700 so it was easy to see at first glance what the number was, much the same as 0800 and 0500. Now they have come up with a 'cunning plan' to make a bit of a profit by using a standard mobile look-a-like 0705 prefix. Even more 'cunning' as T-Mobile now use the 0750 prefix.

What will they think up next?

[buzby]

Just a slight clarification, the 070 range was the first to be issued, and codes from within were allocated to these 'numbers for life' firms, 070(00) was allocated to the Personal Number Company which was run by a few ex-Vodafone directors. 070(50) was allocated to Redstone Communications... not the current lot as far as I can remenber, the first incarnation of this firm before it expanded into being a bigger telco). Quite a few other firms cam along and were allocated their own codes, but always within the 070xx grouping. This was done to ensure - since no existing mobile network started its numbering witha double 0 (eh 00860 etc) these personal numbers in the 07-0 range would not cause a problem when mobiles were eventually moved over to 07...

I agree those with visual dyslexia might find no real difference on 0705 and 0750, but as long as you look for 0 as the 3rd digit, it's easy to spot!

[Cattolica]

Originally Posted by buzby

I agree those with visual dyslexia might find no real difference on 0705 and 0750, but as long as you look for 0 as the 3rd digit, it's easy to spot!

Or perhaps 99.99% of adults and 100% of children, not suffering from visual dylslexia, that would not know the difference. I have asked 10 people in my office if they would saw a problem dialling the two prefixes, none saw any problems. It's not that simple.

Vodafone have several mobile numbers to their customer service departments which are charged at national rates.

[buzby]

Define 'problem'? I see no problem with dialling any string of numbers assuming I can remember to enter them correctly. If you mean cost, then why not add those 01xxx codes in the Channel Islands and Isle of Man that USED to be BT that are charged at different rates from the 99.9% other 01 codes? Your complaint concerns competition, and the fact OFTEL/OFCOM allows networks to charge and agree their own termination rates. What the public thinks (or misunderstands) is their problem. If we went back to BT controlling everything then there wouldn't be a problem, but then prices may well be higher.

Vodafone, since 1985 offered their 0836 code (their first) and many services within, including customer enquiries were free or landline national rates. As an operator, they can decide to charge what they like. You overlook the fact that 0800 freefone numbers are charged by all networks as if they were standard calls (except Orange, who still allow them for free on certain contracts). All this proves is you need to know before you dial. Ignorance is no defence, and if that's what you're hoping to prove to allow the justification of a formal complaint, that's not going to work!

[goodwill]

Originally Posted by buzby

Define 'problem'? I see no problem

070 scam
070 scam - Google Search

[Cattolica]

Originally Posted by buzby

Define 'problem'? IAll this proves is you need to know before you dial.

Ignorance is no defence, and if that's what you're hoping to prove to allow the justification of a formal complaint, that's not going to work!

The 'problem' being that both you and me, having an interest in 'things telecoms' are aware of the differences and costs of call to certain prefixes. As I have said kids and a large majority of adults are unaware that certain numbers which are 'almost' identical, 0705 & 0750 for example, and are not part of their call plan but classed by PP+ as premium rate.

There was once a nasty scam where a group of girls were chatting guys up in bars and clubs and they left them their numbers, which were premium rate numbers, and they chatted for hours the next day. Much to the guys cost when their bill arrived, it did the rounds a few years back and made the papers.

I don't know where you are going with 'justification for a formal complaint' it must refer to an earlier post.

[buzby]

Originally Posted by goodwill

070 scam
070 scam - Google Search

Irrelevant - this referred to people using revenue sharing as a way of circumventing premium rate number controls. I think it was as far back as 2004 than no revenue return was available for 070 codes since then, so the matter was addressed.

[buzby]

Originally Posted by Cattolica

I don't know where you are going with 'justification for a formal complaint' it must refer to an earlier post.

I couldn't see any other justification of trying to uphold an 'ignorance' defence. If you get a contractor to retile your roof without asking for a quote, if you order a meal in a restaurant without looking at the menu, if you dial a number without knowing the cost... all are the same problem.

The 'assume' rule applies - and you pay the price accordingly.

[goodwill]

070 scam - Google Search

Originally Posted by buzby

Irrelevant - this referred to people using revenue sharing as a way of circumventing premium rate number controls. I think it was as far back as 2004 than no revenue return was available for 070 codes since then, so the matter was addressed.

That google list of 070 scams go from 2001 to 2008.
The fix line/mobile networks are still passing the scam money on to the companies who lease out the 070 numbers.

Originally Posted by buzby

I couldn't see any other justification of trying to uphold an 'ignorance' defence. If you get a contractor to retile your roof without asking for a quote, if you order a meal in a restaurant without looking at the menu, if you dial a number without knowing the cost... all are the same problem.

The 'assume' rule applies - and you pay the price accordingly.

and where does one find the advertised 'price' for 070 scams ?

[buzby]

'Scam Money' you mean profit for the interconnection fees...? That's called 'commerce' so trying to link the two is somewhat tenuous. If folk dial ANY number without being aware of the potential cost, then that is the risk they run. No scam here - however reverse-SMS, where the user just has to sit and take it, without any control or ability to choose, I'm with you on that.

I don't understand the question being asked. 'Advertised price'? If you mean what is the cost of calling an 070 number, the calling network's price list is a good start (all PTO's networks must publish one) as each network will have their own cost for calling not just 070 numbers, but the whole range of dialable codes - not forgetting all those DQ services. There's no requirement for them to 'advertise' their prices, as they are not expected to promote prices that may show them at a competitive disadvantage (ASA rule) but OFCOM mandates the network price list must be available. Of course, if the callers cannot be bothered to actually look up this information, there's only one person to blame.

[goodwill]

070 scam - Google Search

Making the Most of the Internet: A Nasty Fraud
Thursday, June 21, 2007
A Nasty Fraud

A friend of mine got a phone call that he felt was a nasty little fraud.

If anyone gets a short (1 or 2 ring) call from this number 07061-784335, watch out - Do not call back. I got caught yesterday. All goes silent and a 4 second call cost me £2.00. I would love to get my hands on these scumbags.

My son also got a call that may be part of the same fraud.

[lawbunny]

The "fraud" referred to in the previous post is still just a case of a person not actually bothering to look up the price of calling that number.... No matter your reason for calling the number, if you do not bother to find out the cost (which as Buzby stated all networks must publish) then you cannot blame the network for your charges!

[goodwill]

Originally Posted by lawbunny

The "fraud" referred to in the previous post is still just a case of a person not actually bothering to look up the price of calling that number.... No matter your reason for calling the number, if you do not bother to find out the cost (which as Buzby stated all networks must publish) then you cannot blame the network for your charges!

No one has blamed the network for any charges. go read the thread.

Tricking/misleading/conning somebody into unwittingly call an expensive 'premium rate' number for a no good reason is a SCAM.