And another strange thing, does anyone know why the directory enquiry range is so closely allied to the Reading Area Code (118 and 0118) so as to cause confusion to certain people and serious financial harm.   This is not a trivial point as I know of at least one dear elderly person who tried frequently to call certain Reading numbers and somehow mistakenly got connected to various expensive DQ destinations and thereby running up large costs that they could ill afford.

Why haven't Ofcom done something about stupidities in the structure of the national numbering scheme such as this??? :( >:(      And how come it was ever allowed to exist in the first place???  >:(

Numbers beginning 118 are used for DQ in many (most?) European countries.

It's a European-wide scheme, like 112, 116 and others.

If you mis-dial 0800 and 0808 numbers as 0900 or 0908 there's a similar financial impact.

Ian G wrote on Jan 1^st, 2014 at 9:47pm:

Numbers beginning 118 are used for DQ in many (most?) European countries. It's a European-wide scheme, like 112, 116 and others.

Given that situation the regulator should have ruled that 0118 could never be used as an area code so as to ensure that risk of confusion with dangerously expensive numbers was minimised.

Remember that 118 numbers are pushed at the public constantly and some elderly and others might come to think that it doesn't matter whether you dial the zero or not without realising the danger.

Ian, this European-wide scheme is a good point.   Wouldn't common sense indicate that the 011x range be better totally avoided?   Instead we have Leeds 0113 and other potential confusion points.   Begins to look like negligence?

Area codes beginning 011x and 01x1 have seven digit local numbers.

This was planned in the early 1990s and actioned in 1995, long before the decision to use 118 for DQ.

At the point this was done, there were no other codes free to implement new seven digit local numbering. At the time, it was a good decision to use 011x for the new areas.

The solution now would be to move the Reading area code from 0118 to 0119. However, imagine the outcry that would cause.

Well Reading has already gone through 0734, 01734 to 0118.   People didn't like these changes but they were given no choice  Better would be to go to 022 or 025 in a similar structure to Portsmouth and Coventry well away from possible confusion with 11x numbers.


Ian G wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2014 at 8:45am:

This was planned in the early 1990s and actioned in 1995, long before the decision to use 118 for DQ.

As 0118 had already been decided for Reading and the decision about DQ came later then surely it was DQ that should have gone to 119?

DQ could have been 119 if other countries had agreed to it.

Apart from London and Northern Ireland, the introduction of 02 codes was a big mistake. Coventry doesn't need 79 million numbers.

Number plans are constantly evolving and can never be perfect. Perhaps people should be a bit more careful in what they dial. I think Ofcom have got much bigger issues to tackle than this.

I am not quite sure why this discussion has been allowed to drift off to address a wholly OT subject from more than ten years ago.

If there is a need for Ofcom to dedicate significant resource to reminding people that they do need to dial a leading zero when it is part of a telephone number, then some significant evidence of what is alleged to be a common misconception will need to be produced.

There are three misconceptions, which I allege to be far more common, that we are pressing Ofcom to address in 2014.

[list bull-redsq]

The failure to recognise that "local rate" and "national rate" are now the same (in general).
 

The mistaken assumption that landline callers need to make "a lot" of daytime calls to justify choice of an "Anytime" calling plan.
 

Doubt about the 03 range, as invariably offering calls on the same terms as those to 01/02 numbers.
We believe that anyone who accesses a Premium Rate Service in error and incurs a significant cost is entitled to a refund, either from their own OCP or from the PRS provider. This should provide sufficient disincentive for choosing a 118 number that coincides with a valid 0118 xxx range, if the problem identified here occurs to any meaningful degree.

If necessary, a perfectly adequate remedy would be blocking such 118 numbers and 0118 ranges. It is also worth noting that those who listen on the line whilst dialling may be protected by hearing ring tone whilst dialling the last four digits of the 0118 number. Premature ring tone, or the absence of ring tone, commonly provides an indication of misdialling as a result of dialling the wrong number of digits.

Ian G wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2014 at 9:55am:

Apart from London and Northern Ireland, the introduction of 02 codes was a big mistake. Coventry doesn't need 79 million numbers.

That's a contentious issue, IMHO the big mistake was not rolling out 02 (and probably 03  - after all 04 could have been used for the subsequently introduced non-geographic prefix) codes to the whole UK, as was clearly the intention but they bottled it. Because of this we now have the ridiculous situation in Bournemouth and the like where local numbers starting zero and one are being used and everyone is forced to dial the code.


Ian G wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2014 at 9:55am:

Number plans are constantly evolving and can never be perfect. Perhaps people should be a bit more careful in what they dial. I think Ofcom have got much bigger issues to tackle than this.

Agree with you there.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2014 at 11:02am:

If necessary, a perfectly adequate remedy would be blocking such 118 numbers and 0118 ranges. It is also worth noting that those who listen on the line whilst dialling may be protected by hearing ring tone whilst dialling the last four digits of the 0118 number. Premature ring tone, or the absence of ring tone, commonly provides an indication of misdialling as a result of dialling the wrong number of digits.

Do you think the aged, infirm or unwell, or even 99% of all phone users, would have a clue what is meant by all this?   The problem is that there has been a totally inappropriate selection of codes.

If there's a ringing tone before you finished dialling the number, it should be pretty obvious you dialled the wrong number. Hang up.

So, should all the 019 codes be scrapped in case someone accidentally dials an 09 premium number?

Likewise, all the 017 codes in case some accidentally dials a mobile number?

Heck, if you accidentally dial a double zero at the start, you make an international call.

Or is this just another excuse to have a go at Ofcom yet again?

loddon wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2014 at 11:17pm:

Do you think the aged, infirm or unwell, or even 99% of all phone users, would have a clue what is meant by all this?

I confess that I am struggling to understand what relevance a questionable decision by Oftel some 20 years ago has to the topic "Re:Legislation banning the use of 084/087/09 numbers". It may be that the aged, inform or unwell, or 99% of all phone users would understand.

I also fail to understand just how many actual 0118 numbers would connect with a live 118 number if the leading zero was omitted, as nobody has provided this crucial information. I am also unaware of the percentage of telephone callers who would deliberately omit the leading zero of a telephone number, thinking it to be unnecessary. I suspect that many callers, including the aged infirm or unwell, would recognise that they had mis-dialled if they heard the ringing tone before they had finished dialling.


As for this response to a proposed remedy for a situation, I also fail to understand the point being made. If the possibility of connecting to a 118 number by omitting the leading zero of a 0118 number were to be eliminated, then surely that would stand as a remedy to the problem as presented. There would no need for anyone, other than those proposing and implementing the solution, and those directly affected, to understand exactly how the effect was achieved.

Maybe we are not interested in discussing remedies to real problems.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2014 at 12:35am:

I also fail to understand just how many actual 0118 numbers would connect with a live 118 number if the leading zero was omitted, as nobody has provided this crucial information.

I did actually start this process but it became rather tedious as there is an incredible number of 118 DQ services to check, e.g. see here.

kasg wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2014 at 5:51pm:

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Jan 3rd, 2014 at 12:35am: I also fail to understand just how many actual 0118 numbers would connect with a live 118 number if the leading zero was omitted, as nobody has provided this crucial information. I did actually start this process but it became rather tedious as there is an incredible number of 118 DQ services to check, e.g. see here.

OK, I will do the job myself. (The tedium is in presenting the information through this grossly out-dated means of communication. The source information is readily available from a proper source.)
A little bit of cross-referencing, using the Ofcom lists - 118 and 0118 - reveals the following information.

Of the 539 allocated 118xxx numbers, 402 do not coincide with 0118 xxx ranges that are allocated.

The 137 that do coincide are found in the following groups of 0118 x ranges:

Range	Potential	118xxx	Possible	Overcharge
	subscribers	in use	coinciding	risk
0118 0xx xxxx	40,000	4	40,000	100%
0118 1xx xxxx	170,000	15	150,000	88%
0118 3xx xxxx	960,000	50	500,000	52%
0118 4xx xxxx	570,000	31	310,000	54%
0118 9xx xxxx	990,000	37	370,000	37%
Total	2,730,000	137	1,370,000	50%

This shows that nothing has been done to address the risk of callers incurring premium rate charges as a consequence of omitting the leading zero when dialling a 0118 number and failing to recognise the error on hearing ring tone before completing the dialling.


I must repeat the suggestion that anyone who finds themselves connected to a Premium Rate Service in error should request a refund of the call charge. I have no reason to believe that such a request would be refused. Those who followed the arguments about Access Charges in the process that led to the newly announced Ofcom regulations will be aware that OCPs make extensive provision for what they (misleadingly) call "bad debt".


A numbering plan which separates codes based on the leading digits of the number requires callers to take particular care with the first few digits. One hopes that limitations to the numbering plan to accommodate the danger of mis-dialling is based on a realistic assessment of the competence of callers in dialling correctly. If there is evidence to show that current assessments are wrong, then this must be presented to Ofcom to inform future decisions.

As billing commences when a call is answered, any wrong number accessed by mis-dialling may incur an unwanted charge. The example given is clear to see, however it is thereby less likely to occur. One could construct many potential examples of single digit error, omission, inclusion or transposition that may result in unintended access to a Premium Rate Service, or the wrong Premium Rate Service - the impact of which is no different. The only remedy which occurs to me is the inclusion of one or more check digits in every published telephone number.


If, as suggested, there is a serious specific problem with callers to 0118 numbers believing that the leading zero is not required, then there may be a case for a public information exercise to correct this false assumption. Those inviting calls to 0118 numbers may need to make it clear that their number must be dialling as presented, and ensure that it is presented correctly.

I would need some evidence to convince me that this issue in general has a place alongside other important public information exercises on Ofcom's agenda for 2014. Ofcom is currently consulting on its Annual Plan for 2014/5 - see http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/consultations/draft-annual-plan-2014-15/. If relevant proposals were not submitted in response to the earlier "invitation to comment", then a response to the consultation is an obvious way to raise the issue.

(I must assume that the issue was raised as a point for serious discussion in the forum, rather than simply as a tardy and unconsidered criticism of a decision made by Oftel many years ago. To facilitate proper discussion, the OP (in this constructed thread) could have searched for, quoted and commented on any relevant remarks, or the absence thereof, made by Oftel, or respondents, in the public consultations undertaken at the time.)

There is some evidence that Ofcom has in the past selected some number ranges based on their potential for mis-dialling. This can never be perfect. Every telephone number has hundreds of ways it can be misdialled; adding digits, omitting digits, transposing digits and any combination of those.

Check the final comment on page 9 here: http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/telecoms/numbering/slides.pdf where the new London 020 X range was chosen to avoid mis-dialling an in-use 0120X area code. The new range is 020 3.

The next one, probably less than a decade away, will have to be one of 020 2, 020 4, 020 5, or 020 6. Should Ofcom avoid issuing those?  Adding a "1" after the leading zero leads to a valid 0120X code. Of course, there's not the same cost implications for mis-dialling these.

Thank you SCV for your helpful and thoughtful post #12.

Thanks also for drawing our attention to this Ofcom consultation which I note closes on 14 February:---


SilentCallsVictim wrote on Jan 4^th, 2014 at 8:01am:

Ofcom is currently consulting on its Annual Plan for 2014/5 - see http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/consultations/draft-annual-plan-2014-15/. If relevant proposals were not submitted in response to the earlier "invitation to comment", then a response to the consultation is an obvious way to raise the issue.

If I have time to respond to this consultation I would also endeavour to raise other points about anomalies and misleading number ranges and number organisation in the national numbering System.   I am thinking of the fundamental matter that now the industry has decided to sell its services principally in packaged form it is important that Ofcom give attention to the matter of packages and what they include and what they exclude so as to ensure that the public are not deceived.   At present we are being deceived by bold claims that all your calls are included whereas they clearly are NOT.  I guess that most callers are aware that most 084/7 numbers are excluded, but what about those 01 numbers that are excluded (Channel Islands) and whole ranges of 07 numbers that are excluded from mobile packages as well as the 070 range.   It would be helpful if members contribute here with their knowledge of other anomalies such as these.   Perhaps we should starta new thread for this?


SilentCallsVictim wrote on Jan 4^th, 2014 at 8:01am:

(I must assume that the issue was raised as a point for serious discussion in the forum, rather than simply as a tardy and unconsidered criticism of a decision made by Oftel many years ago. To facilitate proper discussion, the OP (in this constructed thread) could have searched for, quoted and commented on any relevant remarks, or the absence thereof, made by Oftel, or respondents, in the public consultations undertaken at the time.)

Yes it is indeed intended as a serious point.   Although reference has been made in other posts about the possibility of misdialling numbers my point is that the potential confusion between 118 and 0118 stands out as, in my view, the one with most potential of occurring (mainly due to very extensive and heavy advertising of 118 numbers continually omitting the zero, and as having the worst cost penalties associated with a misdial due to 118 being among the most expensive premium rate numbers.   I am glad to see that others have seen this matter as serious enough to warrant discussion on this thread.

Ian G wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2014 at 9:55am:

Coventry doesn't need 79 million numbers.

I agree.   How profligate, wasteful, inefficient and incompetent to allocate 79 million to one area.

Would 7.9 million be enough for a single area code?   If so, 0247 could have been, and could be, allocated to Coventry and 024x, 024y and 024z etc could be allocated to Portsmouth, Leeds, Sheffield, Bristol .....

There never was any need to use 011 numbers at all.

loddon wrote on Jan 4^th, 2014 at 9:45am:

… potential confusion between 118 and 0118 stands out as, in my view, the one with most potential of occurring (mainly due to very extensive and heavy advertising of 118 numbers continually omitting the zero …

I am shocked to hear of users of 0118 numbers even quoting their numbers without the zero, let alone engaging in extensive and heavy advertising of incomplete numbers. It must surely be a matter for both the ASA and PhonePay Plus to look into what must be deliberate promotion of a DQ service disguised as a local Reading service.

If local businesses in Reading are advertising genuine 0118 numbers "continually omitting the zero", then they must be claiming that people would add the zero in order to connect to them. This practice is clearly deprecated by Ofcom and I have never seen this done in other areas - it must surely be a scam intended to exploit the confusion between 0118 and 118.

Apologies for having missed the point. I had understood that the problem was caused by callers removing the "0" from a published 0118 number.


For further discussion, there are perhaps two different issues raised.

The anomalous 070, 076 and 055 ranges are on the Ofcom agenda for "Simplifying Non-Geographic Numbers", however the scope of the exercise underway was considered to be sufficiently broad for these to be dealt with separately (anyone who has attempted to read any of the documentation would surely agree).

The arrangement for non-UK territories to have numbers within the UK system creates difficulties. These would be brought sharply into focus if Scotland votes for independence. My (only lightly considered) personal view is that Ofcom should consider using its recently acquired powers to intervene in retail pricing so as to simplify charging for calls to geographic (and standard mobile) numbers.

I believe that we are not far from the point where a "basic rate" telephone call could cover all 01, 02, 03 and 07 numbers (excluding the present 070 and 078 ranges). There are many anomalies which would prevent regulation to enforce this principle at present, e.g. the non-UK numbers, the distinct "local rate" which applies in some cases, ISPs with geographic number and most notably the fact that the levelling of the mobile termination rates process is not yet complete. This worthy objective is not wholly utopian, albeit that there are many issues to address and it will take time.

With such an objective in mind, it may be possible to persuade the non-UK telcos to accept calls within the UK network on the same terms as those available to those in the UK. This would transfer a burden of cost to those in the non-UK territories from those who call them.

(Whilst the fair telecoms campaign sees the benefits of a simple "basic rate" being enforced, as outlined above, full consideration of the issues may reveal grounds for objection to any specific proposal - simplicity always has a price! We see this as nothing more than an idea worthy of serious discussion at this stage.)

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Jan 4^th, 2014 at 11:14am:

[quote author=loddon link=1388600971/14#14 date=1388828704] I am shocked to hear of users of 0118 numbers even quoting their numbers without the zero,

Now even you are getting confused, thereby illustrating my point poetically.   I was referring to 118 numbers and trying, perhaps vainly, to emphasise that 118 is constantly thrust in front of us, usually in inane, demented cringeworthy adverts, possibly creating a subliminal impression which may induce those with only limited awareness or understanding to be duped into omitting the zero when attempting to call a Reading, Wokingham or Bracknell number.   Those of us blessed with a complete lack of ignorance, or even a lack of complete ignorance, together with minimal analytic and deductive skills can probably circumvent this trap for the unsuspecting, except for the occasional finger trouble.

Now you suggest bringing in the ASA and PPP; ...... wow, this problem is even greater than I thought it was!   :o

loddon wrote on Jan 4^th, 2014 at 11:00am:

There never was any need to use 011 numbers at all.

At that time, 1995, there were no other free codes to use for new seven digit local numbers.

Ian G wrote on Jan 4^th, 2014 at 1:28pm:

loddon wrote on Jan 4th, 2014 at 11:00am: There never was any need to use 011 numbers at all. At that time, 1995, there were no other free codes to use for new seven digit local numbers.

Because they had allocated 79 million numbers to Coventry (024), 79 million to Cardiff (029) and 79 million to Portsmouth/Southampton (023)?   What about 021, 025, 026 and 027?   Weren't they available?

No. They were not available in 1995.

They were just about to stop using codes like 0234, 0252 for geographic areas and move them to 01234, 01252 etc.

You can't move Aldershot from 0252 (plus six digits) to 01252 (plus six digits) and on the very same day move Reading from 0734 (plus six digits) to (025) 2X (plus 6 digits).

The 02 codes started being used 5 years later. Outside London and NI, the new codes should have been 3+7, not 2+8 to avoid that waste.

Note that, after 2000, the code (023) 9X has been used by Portsmouth. Before 1995, 0239 was used by Cardigan - now 01239.

Are you suggesting that Leeds, Sheffield, Nottingham, Leicester and Bristol should have had two code changes, just five years apart? Oftel got enough stick for moving London codes several times in quick succession.

loddon wrote on Jan 4^th, 2014 at 1:57pm:

Ian G wrote on Jan 4th, 2014 at 1:28pm: loddon wrote on Jan 4th, 2014 at 11:00am: There never was any need to use 011 numbers at all. At that time, 1995, there were no other free codes to use for new seven digit local numbers. Because they had allocated 79 million numbers to Coventry (024), 79 million to Cardiff (029) and 79 million to Portsmouth/Southampton (023)?   What about 021, 025, 026 and 027?   Weren't they available?

Of course they weren't available because, as Ian G says, the original 011x codes were introduced at the same time as the "1" was inserted after the national trunk dialling prefix 0. This happened on 16th April 1995 — aka "PhONEday".

Thus, unless it is being suggested that 02xx codes should have been introduced immediately after PhONEday, without any period of cleansing to prevent mis-connections due to misdialling, then they simply weren't available. As we're discussing misdialling here, I can't think that this is what was being suggested.

The introduction of 023 for Southampton/Portsmouth, 024 for Coventry etc was in preparation for "wide" area codes. Northern Ireland is a good example of this, where previously smaller STD code areas have been absorbed into one large "wide" one.


The move to 118xxx directory enquiry numbering was part of a pan-European plan. Was this a directive or did we have any say in whether it be adopted?

In any case it took place years after Reading's code became 0118, so I can't see how it could have been forseen.

If the UK was forced to use 118xxx for directory enquiries then the only way to avoid possible confusion with 0118 numbers would have been for Reading to change its code again — this could have been the only action Ofcom could have taken if its hands were tied with respect to 118 for directory enquiries.


I think that there are those who dial incorrectly, omitting the leading zero, and not realising the significance of, or being aware of, the ringing tone before finishing dialling what they thought to be the correct number. In any case, how many directory enquiries services have a period of ringing and how long is this before it trips?

loddon wrote on Jan 4^th, 2014 at 12:16pm:

Now even you are getting confused, thereby illustrating my point poetically.

When you referred to "advertising of 118 numbers continually omitting the zero", I assumed that you were referring to numbers from which a zero had been omitted. I wondering at first, but recognised that there is no (leading) zero to omit from a DQ number and noted that you clearly stated "omitting the zero", and so surely must have been referring to a number from which a zero may be omitted.

I would therefore rather use the word "misled", than "confused", to describe what happened to me, which probably illustrates a quite different point.
(I see that other contributors have had to intervene to point out that many comments are being made here without a necessary awareness of the true history. We do not all have the time to research issues properly and I believe that one should take care not to offer pointed comment based on falsehoods, albeit mistaken assumptions, nor lead others into doing so.)


I can see how "heavy and extensive advertising" of any telephone number, or part thereof, may subliminally cause anyone to repeat those digits when dialling any telephone number. I cannot however see how this could create the rational idea that the leading zero may be omitted from a geographic 0118 number when presenting or dialling it. DQ access codes are not the same as Reading telephone numbers; this difference must surely be highlighted, rather than undermined, on noting the similarity of the leading digits.

If there is evidence from psychological studies to contradict these common sense observations, then it needs to be presented. More importantly however, one needs evidence of the extent of mis-dialling, and perhaps the refusal of requests for refunds, to establish that this is a serious problem.


I fear that the nature and scale of this specific problem is being exaggerated. I personally believe that the vast majority of the telephone-using population are perfectly capable of dialling a 11-digit number accurately, if it is presented to them properly. The whole system relies on this capability. Difficulties can arise if one tries to get clever by analysing the digits. I find it hard to believe that a significant number of people believe that they can present a geographic area code without the leading zero, or that the zero at the front of a "long" geographic number need not be dialled.


The OP offers an example of someone who makes a particular mistake repeatedly - we must accept that this is a genuine case, and note the repetition of the error after it has been recognised. There are indeed many cases reported of those who are unwell and repeatedly dial PRS numbers without having properly decided to purchase the service, perhaps because they see them advertised or are unaware of the cost implications (nothing to do with any confusion over the digits of the number). We must be aware of such cases and press for all appropriate assistance to be provided for those unable to handle the full responsibilities that go with being connected to the telephone network.

The extent to which the National Numbering Plan can protect against the danger of mis-dialling is however limited.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Jan 4^th, 2014 at 5:18pm:

[quote author=loddon link=1388600971/17#17 date=1388837774] I can see how "heavy and extensive advertising" of any telephone number, or part thereof, may subliminally cause anyone to repeat those digits when dialling .....

I appreciate all the thoughtful comments made on this topic.   My point is that we are not talking about the ability of the majority to carefully avoid the trap, but a vulnerable minority that I have seen actually suffer some harm.   What are the thought processes or trembling frailties which could lead to such a mistake we will probably never know.   How many are being affected?   How could we find out?    The point is that this is prima facie a disastrous juxtaposition of very similar codes, one of which most people would expect to use and not incur any cost for dialling while the other is a very high priced premium number which can be mistakenly dialled.

The fact is, whatever the EU might say, DQ numbers belong in the 09 range and to put them so perilously close to an important area code has been a big mistake.    My objective is to bring this to Ofcom's attention.

loddon wrote on Jan 4^th, 2014 at 8:31pm:

The fact is, whatever the EU might say, DQ numbers belong in the 09 range and to put them so perilously close to an important area code has been a big mistake.    My objective is to bring this to Ofcom's attention.

Or better still removed from existence and replaced with a set charge service provided by the user's telecom provider.. IE: O2/EE/TalkTalk etc.. with a SET maxium call charge such as 60p or £1 PER call.

That would be fairer and encourage competition... you could of course still have the callers being able to call another provider but the call costs SHOULD be advised before the call is connected..

However as we have noticed on here before Ofcom does not appear to work in the favour of the consumer...

Just a thought....

loddon wrote on Jan 4^th, 2014 at 8:31pm:

DQ numbers belong in the 09 range and to put them so perilously close to an important area code has been a big mistake. My objective is to bring this to Ofcom's attention.

The opportunity to make this point was offered in a consultation that concluded on 22 February 2001.

Just for the record, the final cutover to 0118 numbers for Reading (on 9 January 1998) was advised in this Numbering Bulletin.


loddon wrote on Jan 4^th, 2014 at 8:31pm:

What are the thought processes or trembling frailties which could lead to such a mistake we will probably never know.

To suggest a change to a decision made nearly 12 years ago and to justify the consequent enormous cost and disruption, I would think it necessary to offer highly convincing evidence of the alleged damage that has been done over this period. If this has been seen to be "disastrous", as alleged, then surely some evidence would have come to light.

As I stated previously, there are many who are unable to cope with the responsibility that goes with being connected to the telephone network. I believe that everything possible should be done to accommodate the particular needs and limited capabilities of some users, however this should be done by special measures, so as to avoid limiting the features available to all.

In particular, I think it reasonable to assume that geographic numbers of up to 11 digits (in the standard national number format) may be presented and dialled correctly. The fact that all national numbers begin with a zero (which cannot be omitted) is surely sufficiently simple and clear.

If anything, I would see the danger of omitting the leading zero from a geographic number as being less than that of omitting the "1" from a 0184, 0187 or 019 number. The danger of incurring a charge for an unwanted service is even greater as a result of misdialling a PRS number - this is being deliberately exploited by those who offer high priced services on numbers similar to those used for voting in relation to popular TV shows.


My personal view is that any review of number allocation for PRS should await the fall-out from the mass migration from 084 and 087 - which I predict will leave these ranges largely de-populated. There is also whatever emerges from Ofcom's forthcoming review of the 070 range to consider. Furthermore, there are many PRS mobile shortcodes already in use and there is a wish to extend the option for charitable giving through the phone bill to landline users.

The OP may have already decided that all of these "belong in the 09 range", effectively prohibiting the use of shortcodes for chargeable services and leaving the 08 range with nothing more than a dwindling number of "freephone" services. I am not yet sufficiently acquainted with all the relevant issues, and the impact of future changes that has yet to be seen, in order to offer a clear opinion on the future of the 09 ranges. Furthermore, I see other issues as being of far higher priority for Ofcom in 2014/5. Background work and thinking about issues that will feature in the work plan in future years is important, but I believe that decisions must wait a while.

It is fair enough to make uninformed and ill-considered casual comments, but serious criticism of the National Numbering Plan, and serious proposals for change, do require serious consideration.

CJT-80 wrote on Jan 4^th, 2014 at 8:55pm:

However as we have noticed on here before Ofcom does not appear to work in the favour of the consumer...

You may be right in your view but that should absolutely NOT be the case.   If you look at the Ofcom Summary of their current consultation on the Ofcom plan for 2014-15 it is full of references to their obligations to consumers, for example :---


1.3 Ofcom's principal duties are to further the interests of citizens in relation to communications matters and to further the interests of consumers in relevant markets …..

1.5 In 2013, we defined an over-arching strategy, set out below, which we believe best delivers consumer and citizen benefits in the light of these duties

Strategy
We will provide proportionate protection for consumers ...
One of the five Strategic Purposes declared by Ofcom is to “Protect Consumers from Harm”.

Protect consumers in a range of priority areas …. continue to identify areas of consumer harm …..

We will assess the successful delivery of these proposed priorities against the outcomes we are seeking to secure for citizens and consumers.

1.18 We will also remain responsive to new issues, emerging concerns that affect consumers across the UK …..

….... we will aid governments in the UK nations, to ensure that consumer and citizen benefits are available …...

Ofcom also ask :---
What are your views on Ofcom's proposed priorities for 2014/15?
What are your views on Ofcom's proposed major work areas for 2014/15?

I would suggest that it is up to us to bring our concerns relating to consumer and citizen issues with telecom services to the attention of Ofcom and then to hold them to account.

http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/consultations/draft-annual-plan-2014-15/summary