The following petition has been submitted on the Downing St. site:

"We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to re-introduce the use of geographical phone numbers alongside non-geographical for all government and local government departments.

Increasingly, home and mobile phone tariffs include free calls to geographic numbers but all non-geographic numbers remain chargeable. People contacting government departments are therefore forced to pay for the call even if they could call a geographic number for free. This can seriously impact those most likely to call a government number - for example, benefits claimants - and who are least likely to be able to afford the call."

It's at  http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/phonegovernment/

Hope you'll sign it!

Best regards,

I would not wish to criticise or detract from the doubtless noble motives behind the petition; however I have never been convinced about the merits of dual numbering.

If a non-geographic number provides benefits that make the cost of renting one worthwhile, then use a 03xx number. If not, then use a geographic number.

The only purpose I can see for dual numbering is where a 0800 number is offered for landline callers and a geographic or 03xx number is provided for callers from mobiles. Away from such simple situations, the complex and frequently updated table of tariffs, call durations, times and locations that would be necessary to advise callers how to select the number to use makes this an impractical solution for those situations where there is some purpose in offering alternatives.

The present level of misunderstanding and confusion would cause many to make the wrong selection without advice. Having two or more numbers for the same purpose creates unnecessary complication and makes money for telcos. If publication of multiple numbers becomes widespread and accepted practice, then it will encourage an even greater degree of complication in telephone tariffs, when the consumer interest is probably better served by simplification.

Where a previously advertised number is taken out of use, a free-to-caller number change announcement may need to be provided for a period. Retaining it with an alternative alongside (except during a brief and defined period of transition) simply enables the problem to continue.

Where advanced features are provided on a non-geographic number, I see it as quite unacceptable for public bodies to offer a cheaper, less effective alternative. I accept that those who argue for consumer choice in public services, delivered to a variety of standards, would disagree. If this is what lies behind the petition, then I must declare my opposition.

The saynoto0870 database provides alternatives in an attempt to undermine (“say no to”) use of revenue sharing numbers. This is quite different from public bodies publishing alternatives themselves whilst retaining an unnecessary non-geographic number.

I am ready to listen to arguments in favour of the approach suggested by the petition and could perhaps be convinced. Perhaps someone would like to post a response or send me a PM.

Barbara wrote on Jun 17^th, 2008 at 9:17am:

Like many petitions, this one serves simply to highlight a valid and important issue. Beyond that point, I disagree with the proposed remedy and perhaps the wider objective.

If it is thought that the Prime Minister could and should take the action necessary to ensure use of geographic numbers “alongside” NGNs, then why not “instead of”?

I do not want public bodies to waste public money renting geographic numbers to publish alongside their NGNs. If they do, they will then probably need to spend more money ensuring that the geo numbers give exactly the same access to the same services (e.g. in the same queue to the same team of agents). If they do not take this extra step, there is a two-tier service.

With all this done, we then have a situation where those who are smart, keen to find ways of saving money and able to take the time to do the necessary research (i.e. “care enough”) can access public services more cheaply and effectively than those who are not. This effect will always exist, but I do not see it as something that should be positively encouraged.

I must repeat that I do not hold with the idea that “consumer choice” is the answer to almost everything, and that to deny it is tantamount to robbery. I acknowledge that this idea is widely accepted as a fundamental truth. The main political parties and those responsible for public policy generally (e.g. Ofcom) all subscribe, however I disagree and therefore remain unconvinced about the merits of the proposal in the petition.

Furthermore, I disagree very strongly with the suggestion that NGNs should be abolished, and will continue to campaign for all public bodies (not just central and local government departments) to adopt 03xx numbers wherever the characteristics and features of NGNs provide justifiable benefits.