Just noticed on teletext that helpline number is 08454 242424.  Is this not a golden oportunity lost to introduce the public to the "new" 03 numbers?  Or perhaps as 0845 is now free on BT landlines is there no longer a need?  

redant wrote on Apr 30^th, 2009 at 7:55am:

Just noticed on teletext that helpline number is 08454 242424.  Is this not a golden oportunity lost to introduce the public to the "new" 03 numbers?  Or perhaps as 0845 is now free on BT landlines is there no longer a need?

A comon misconception I'm afraid.  For those with a BT residential landline, 0845 calls are only included within their calls plan (i.e. weekends only for those on the Unlimited Weekend Plan, evenings and weekends only for those on the Unlimited Evenings & Weekend Plan and at any time those on the Unlimited Anytime Plan).

I any case, 0845 4 24 24 24 is the number for NHS 24 which appears to be the Scottish equivalent of the NHS Direct number, 0845 46 47, rather than a specific swine flu information number.

However, the TV advert shows a freephone number - 0800 1 513 513.

Heinz wrote on Apr 30^th, 2009 at 8:07am:

However, the TV advert shows a freephone number - 0800 1 513 513.

Brilliant, so the UK "authorities", knowing that many people will use their mobiles, use a chargeing number. Grrr.

I suspect that the government may have words with the operators to ensure this is one of the 0800 numbers that isn't charged.

jgxenite wrote on Apr 30^th, 2009 at 6:38pm:

I suspect that the government may have words with the operators to ensure this is one of the 0800 numbers that isn't charged.

To get such an arrangement, the govenment would have probably needed to offer cash. The mobile companies offer free 080 calls for certain registered charities, there is no reason why they should do the same for taxation-funded public services, as this would simply amount to voluntary taxation. The idea behind 080 calls is that the receipient pays. There is presently no option for receipients to cover the costs of calls from mobiles.

On this specific case, neither the Department of Health nor intensive research by a helpful Orange customer service agent have found any evidence of such an arrangement.

It is important to distinuish between the charge on 0800 calls from mobiles and the revenue sharing premium on 084 and 087 calls. The latter is to the benefit of the call receipient. The recipient pays a part of the cost of a 0800 call from a mobile, but not enough to make it free to the caller.

Pending further development in the arrangements, 080 numbers such as this should be accompanied by a 03 number to ensure the lowest possible rates for calls from mobiles. Those with unlimited free calls to 03 numbers could use the 03 alternative to save money for the taxpayer.

It seems to me that, these days, there isn't really any incentive to offer an 0800 number - 03 is either free or a normal geographic call cost to the caller, and to the receiver, it is a lot less to pay per call than an 0800 number. However, I suspect that is veering into OT territory...

As it stands, it seems odd that the NHS (which seems to *finally* be transferring to 03 numbers) has opted for an 0800 number in this case.

Just heard a radio advert regarding the Flu.  Quoted the helpline number 0800 1 513 513.  "Free from UK landlines and most mobiles."

The 0800 1 513513 number is free from mobiles, similar to charities (and indeed the NHS stop smoking helpline).  I imagine the government came to some kind of special arrangement with the networks.  When the number is called from an Orange mobile, there isn't the usual message informing you that your account will be charged (as is the case for other 0800 numbers), so the number does indeed appear to be free...

I can confirm that the Swine Flu helpline was indeed added to the Telephone Helplines Association scheme swiftly after its launch. Furthermore, ALL of the mobile operators who participate in the scheme are waiving charges on calls to the number.

It must be noted that this scheme relies on the goodwill of the participating companies in respect of what are clearly defined as being "helplines". Its value relies on its integrity and so it must not be abused. This prevents it from representing a general solution for those who wish to offer numbers that are truly "free to caller".

gazchaps wrote on May 4^th, 2009 at 5:56pm:

The 0800 1 513513 number is free from mobiles ...........

This may be the case and as SCV has reported special arrangements have been hastily made to waive charges for calls from (most) mobiles ............ but I say all this is utterly useless.

I know several people who would not call that number from a mobile because 0800s are normally so expensive.    Therefore these arrangements will only be of any value if people are told, and assured, that such calls will not be charged for.    I have searched high and low for any document or website giving this number which tells people that this number is free from mobiles.   I have NOT found one.  Even if I had found one, would it have made clear on which mobile networks it is free and on which it is charged?   I very much doubt it.

Who is to blame for this pathetic incompetent shambles?    DH, Ofcon, phone companies?   I reckon it is primarily OFcon for presiding over an unnecessarily complicated and confusing numbering regime in this country and doing nothing to clarify it.

loddon wrote on Jun 24^th, 2009 at 3:04pm:

I say all this is utterly useless. I know several people who would not call that number from a mobile because 0800s are normally so expensive. ... Who is to blame for this pathetic incompetent shambles?    DH, Ofcon, phone companies?   I reckon it is primarily OFcon for presiding over an unnecessarily complicated and confusing numbering regime in this country and doing nothing to clarify it.

"Utterly useless" is perhaps going too far - some mobile users would ring the number anyway and some would be guided by the absence of a warning message.

My own brief researches failed to find any reference to call cost in DH publications. As it is the DH which is promoting the number, it carries the responsibility for offering reassurance (or warning) about the costs involved if this is likely to influence callers' decisions about whether to use the service.

The DH could have helped the situation a little by registering for the THA scheme before selecting the number so that a number from its dedicated 0808 80 range could have been used. This would have provided a great opportunity to give publicity to the scheme which ensures that calls to such numbers are free from all the major mobile providers. Neither the THA nor Ofcom can compel the few cut-price mobile providers who do not participate to join the scheme.

It is a little unfair to suggest that Ofcom has done "nothing" in the way of clarifying the numbering regime. Some of its efforts have been misguided and others have failed totally, as the situation remains "unnecessarily complicated". Life would be so much less confusing if we were to leave the EU so that the BT monopoly could be restored. Some would however argue that competition brings benefits which outweigh the difficulties that arise whenever there is a number of competing providers of a service.

loddon wrote on Jun 24^th, 2009 at 3:04pm:

gazchaps wrote on May 4th, 2009 at 5:56pm: The 0800 1 513513 number is free from mobiles ...........  This may be the case and as SCV has reported special arrangements have been hastily made to waive charges for calls from (most) mobiles ............ but I say all this is utterly useless. I know several people who would not call that number from a mobile because 0800s are normally so expensive.    Therefore these arrangements will only be of any value if people are told, and assured, that such calls will not be charged for. …

loddon, I agree with you totally on this one.

I feel that there is distrust in telephone charging, particularly with different numbers. Organisations persistantly mislead consumers on the cost of calling 084/087 numbers with "local rate" and so on. It's like the boy who cried wolf too many times.

So why should they believe the DH now, when it says that this helpline is free from most mobiles?

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Jun 24^th, 2009 at 10:15pm:

The DH could have helped the situation a little by registering for the THA scheme before selecting the number so that a number from its dedicated 0808 80 range could have been used......... Neither the THA nor Ofcom can compel the few cut-price mobile providers who do not participate to join the scheme. It is a little unfair to suggest that Ofcom has done "nothing" in the way of clarifying the numbering regime. Some of its efforts have been misguided and others have failed totally, as the situation remains "unnecessarily complicated". Life would be so much less confusing if we were to leave the EU so that the BT monopoly could be restored. Some would however argue that competition brings benefits which outweigh the difficulties that arise whenever there is a number of competing providers of a service.

What proportion of phone users have any knowledge at all of 0808 80 numbers and would be aware that these are not charged from mobiles?   I would guess less than 0.01%.   I was totally unaware until quite recently when I read about it on this Forum.    So that would not have helped.    

Regarding Ofcon and their actions I suppose I could have said that they have done "nothing effective", but that would probably be too generous.    It seems to me they have only made things worse.

I would agree that the removal of the BT monopoly and introduction of competition seem largely to have been beneficial to phone service users.    However I would not accept that therefore we should tolerate the illogicality of Ofcon's numbering regime which seems to foster the opportunity for rip-offs and scammers to operate and thrive.    Surely it is Ofcon's responsibity to "regulate" and ensure a fair deal for consumers, and some would say that Ofcon are failing miserably to discharge their responsibility.    This incompetent shambles is another example.

loddon wrote on Jun 25^th, 2009 at 12:11am:

What proportion of phone users have any knowledge at all of 0808 80 numbers and would be aware that these are not charged from mobiles?   I would guess less than 0.01%.

My point was that if the DH had taken the initiative, then launch of a 0808 80 swine flu helpline number, free from landlines and mobiles (a few exceptions to be mentioned in the small print), could have been used to draw public attention to the THA scheme.


loddon wrote on Jun 25^th, 2009 at 12:11am:

Surely it is Ofcon's responsibity to "regulate" and ensure a fair deal for consumers, and some would say that Ofcon are failing miserably to discharge their responsibility.

I agree that Ofcom misrepresents its role and the extent of its powers, fails to discharge its two distinct statutory duties and makes many mistakes, even when well-intentioned. Because one of its duties is to further the interests of consumers in a competitive market served by businesses that must first serve the interests of their shareholders, it is bound to "fail". There can be no perfect point of balance between these conflicting sets of interests.

On this specific issue, and other issues of numbering, it is easy to criticise by saying that one would not have chosen to start from where we are. Every revision to the numbering scheme has to be layered on top of what already exists. For those who campaign seeking change for the better, we have to accept the realities of the world as it is. If we see Ofcon (an independent public sector regulator) as incapable of helping, then we must propose some alternative means of securing our objectives.

A government-owned monopoly provider would seem to be the only way of providing the desired simplicity and assurance of a fair deal for consumers. Taxpayers are the only type of shareholder that can be expected to sacrifice their interests to those of consumers.

This would however be a highly Political move. Given the intolerance of state intervention shown by the EU it is hard to find a political party that would propose such an approach. Any suggestions?

One has a similar problem looking for someone calling for the tighter regulation on business that is being sought.

Just to take the heat out of a rather too serious discussion, I note that most other message boards have benefited from a rather amusing posting when discussing this topic -


Quote:

I tried to phone the swine flu helpline this morning - but all I got was crackling

I don't see why we should be left out!

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Jun 25^th, 2009 at 7:13am:

Just to take the heat out of a rather too serious discussion,

Hmm, they all have their snouts in the trough!!

The temporary helpline referred to here will shortly be replaced as the National Pandemic Flu Service starts up.

I have started a new thread - http://www.saynoto0870.com/cgi-bin/forum/YaBB.cgi?num=1248183682/0#0.