| Author |
Cost of Calls to Mobiles - 5p/min
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Sparks 2006-03-27, 7:46 am |
| "ras" <ron@nospam.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ct1f22dgkms540jvtvpba0ptpji8is98f0@
4ax.com...
> www.call18185.co.uk
>
> -- ras
Is there any way to use this service with VoIP?
I have tried a few combinations with settings from 1899 18866 etc. but cat
seem to get it going yet!
Sparks...
| |
| John Geddes 2006-03-30, 11:56 pm |
| ras wrote:
> www.call18185.co.uk
>
> -- ras
But beware - the access code 18185 is dangerous for anyone intending to
dial the prefix themselves (rather than set it up on a LCR box)
Make an error by dialling an extra 1 at the beginning (ie 118185) and
you may find yourself paying for a fixed-fee Directory Enquiry call.
From bitter experience, I can tell you that dialling 118866 (instead of
the indirect operator 18866) costs you GBP1.50 each time, even if you
cut off after a couple of seconds. Not sure current rate to 118185, but
there does appear to be an operator registered for this code.
And you don't even need to hit the "1" by mistake. Accidentally hit the
Recall button (handily next to the 1 on my BT phone) and that will
achieve the same.
Ofcom, who set up this crazy situation by allocating "118" prefixes to
DQ and "18" access codes to indirect operators, sees no problem. But
they are curiously unwilling to publish the proportion of calls to these
fixed-fee DQ numbers which last long enough to make it clear that they
were deliberate (rather than accidental) calls!
John Geddes
| |
| Paul Cupis 2006-03-30, 11:56 pm |
| John Geddes wrote:
> Not sure current rate to 118185
70ppm from BT landlines.
> Ofcom, who set up this crazy situation by allocating "118" prefixes to
> DQ and "18" access codes to indirect operators, sees no problem. But
> they are curiously unwilling to publish the proportion of calls to these
> fixed-fee DQ numbers which last long enough to make it clear that they
> were deliberate (rather than accidental) calls!
AFAIK they have not asked DQ operators (or terminating telcos) to
provide this information, so perhaps they don't have it to publish?
|
|
|
|