I reccomend you to sign the petition at http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/03numbers/#detail for the public sector to use 03 instead of 0845 numbers.

HEAR HEAR

I am not against this petition but I am not entirely in favour of it either.    It asks for "The Government to issue a directive to public sector bodies to use 03 numbers .........".

I wish it had asked for 01 and 02 numbers to be used with 03 numbers as an alternative.   Many Local Authorities and large hospitals, for example, currently use 01 or 02 numbers perfectly satisfactorily and have all the facilities of menus, call queueing, call forwarding etc.    They DO NOT NEED to use 03 so the use of 03 numbers should be an option rather than them being "directed" to use 03.

I am also concerned that the use of 03 might entail higher costs for the public body rather than the use of normal 01/02 numbers, and I wouldn't want the Government to compel public bodies to use a higher cost service than necessary.

Would it be possible to ask the petition creator to modify his wording?

loddon wrote on Jun 24^th, 2009 at 11:37pm:

I wish it had asked for 01 and 02 numbers to be used with 03 numbers as an alternative. …

The e-petition states:

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Ensure that all public sector bodies use 03 phone numbers in place of 0845 numbers.

So it's 03 "in place of" 0845.

Dave wrote on Jun 25^th, 2009 at 2:10am:

loddon wrote on Jun 24th, 2009 at 11:37pm: I wish it had asked for 01 and 02 numbers to be used with 03 numbers as an alternative. … The e-petition states: We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Ensure that all public sector bodies use 03 phone numbers in place of 0845 numbers. So it's 03 "in place of" 0845.

As I said, I am not against this petition.    The title line is ok as far as it goes, though I wonder why it doesn't mention 0844 and 0870/1/2/3 numbers.    My doubt arises on reading the "more details" on the petition.     For clarification, I wish it made clear that use of 01/02 numbers by public bodies is welcomed, even preferable, but if they feel they must use a non-geo number then only 03 numbers can be used and that 0844, 0845 and 0870/1/2/3 and 09 numbers are banned.

loddon wrote on Jun 25^th, 2009 at 8:20am:

For clarification, I wish it made clear that use of 01/02 numbers by public bodies is welcomed, even preferable, but if they feel they must use a non-geo number then only 03 numbers can be used and that 0844, 0845 and 0870/1/2/3 and 09 numbers are banned.

Fair point, but I fear that listing all of these codes would be testing the comprehension of our poor tired Prime Minister a little too much. He seemed to struggle with which years were in the past and which in the future yesterday.

Except where a service covers a particular locality, so that the vast majority of callers can have the convenience of omitting part of the dialling code, any preference for a geographic number can only be shown by those who share the code chosen, to the relative disadvantage of others. For national services therefore 020 is the obvious code to choose, so as to offer this convenience to the maximum number of callers.

Perhaps the residents of each dialling code area could each start their own e-petition to press their claim. Alternatively it may be that the neutrality offered by non-geographic (03) numbers makes them preferable for all situations where a single geographic area code does not cover all callers. There are cases where a local service covers two or three dialling codes, or a conurbation with some outlying areas where a non-geographic number becomes almost mandatory to avoid perceptions of favouritism.

As the cost to the caller is (generally) the same, it is for the service provider to consider any cost implications of a choice between 01/02 and 03, in balance with the other factors.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Jun 25^th, 2009 at 9:20am:

[Except where a service covers a particular locality, so that the vast majority of callers can have the convenience of omitting part of the dialling code, any preference for a geographic number can only be shown by those who share the code chosen, to the relative disadvantage of others. For national services therefore 020 is the obvious code to choose, so as to offer this convenience to the maximum number of callers.

And if Ofcom had adopted Oftel's long-term plans then we could have had eight digit local numbers with much reduced use of codes. 020 for London, 029 for Wales, 024 (West) Midlands and so on; after all 028 works for Northern Ireland. But Ofcom: long-term? planning? for the good of all? etc. Well, OK, this current mess is now with us for the long term  :'(

Going off topic, I see in today's Daily Telegraph that the proposed 'pay as you drive' proposal has now been kicked into touch as a result of the Downing Street petition on this subject and will not be in the Labour manifesto for the next General Election. 1.8 million signed this petition. [smiley=thumbsup.gif]
See here
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/news/5625034/Road-pricing-killed-off-by-Transport-Secretary-Lord-Adonis.html

Let us hope the one that is being touted on this web site is as equally as successful.  :)