The number being given out on Sky News tonight as the emergency Foreign Office number to contact for relatives of anyone who might be involved in the ill fated flight from Bangkok to Phuket is 020 7008 0000.  Not just a geographic number but a highly memorable geographic number that clearly post dates the creation of the London 020 and 0171 and 0181 area codes. (that is to say there was never an 008 London exchange area in 0171 and 0181 or 01 days)

When I called just now to test this number using 141 before the number to withold my caller id there was a recorded announcement saying it was the Foreign & Commonwealth Office Consular Emergency Advice Line and to hold to be put through to an adviser.  Naturally I then hung up so as not to block any legitimate callers.

So it seems it is possible after all to run an emergency contact centre number on a good old geographic area code.  Perhaps the FCO was well aware that using one of Ofcom's shiney new 03 national call numbers would be no use at all as thanks to the total incompetence of the said body it is still completely impossible to connect to 03 numbers through a large number of UK call carriers and/or many of the customer service staff of these call carriers are wrongly leading customers to believe 03 is a premium rate call.

So thumbs up to the FCO for getting this right and a big thumbs down as usual to Ofcom for its total and utter and complete incompetence in failing to take any national advertising to launch and publicise the start of the 03 number range not just to the mere citizen consumer (for whom we know Ofcom has active contempt and sees as fat cash cows to be exploited by its chums in the telecoms industry) but also to the actual telecoms industry itself that they normally take such active pride in getting in to bed with. :o >:( [smiley=thumbdown.gif] [smiley=thumbdown.gif] [smiley=thumbdown.gif]

Great news, spoilt only by the beeb showing and announcing the number as 0207  008 etc.
Does no-one care enough to make life easier for the caller? Or do we really want three and more codes for London (0203, 0207 and 0208)?
Sorry, silly question. >:(
Mind you BT has forgotten that 028 is the code for NI and persists in giving five digit codes starting 028. >:( >:(

Tanllan wrote on Sep 16^th, 2007 at 10:04pm:

Does no-one care enough to make life easier for the caller? Or do we really want three and more codes for London (0203, 0207 and 0208)? Sorry, silly question. >:( Mind you BT has forgotten that 028 is the code for NI and persists in giving five digit codes starting 028. >:( >:(

I think the reason no one any longer understands the UK telephone numbering system is actually due to the repeated failure of the so called regulator to carry out any satisfactory public information campaign to explain it to consumers given that it and not BT determines the numbering policy and allocates the number blocks.

The total shambles by Ofcom over the introduction of the 03 code with most telecoms providers either not interconnecting to it still or not indicating the correct pricing for the numbers is a case in point.

I have sent the following enquiry to the Foreign Office under the heading "Freedom of Informatiom : ---

"REGARDING YOUR EMERGENCY PHONE NUMBER FOR THE PHUKET AIR CRASH 02070080000 ---
I wish to express my appreciation for your use of a normal geographic telephone number.  This is the only recent example that I can recall of a Government Department or Agency NOT using a NTS (Number Translation Service) number such as 0844, 0845 or 0870 in similar circumstances.

I would like to ask : ---
1. What are the reasons for choosing to use a geographic number?
2. Did you consider using a NTS number?   Why did you reject this idea?
3. Did you consider using a 0800 freephone number?   Why did you reject this idea?
4. Did you make any special technical arrangements to enable your geographic number to be used?
5. How many telephone lines are routed to your destination geographic number?
6. Did a phone call queue develop at any time?   What was the maximum length of the queue?   How long a queue could the system handle potentially?   Did you make any technical arrangements to handle a call queue?  
7. How many calls have you handled via this number?
8. Did you have any technical or administrative problems associated with the use of this number?
9. Will a geographic number be used in the future and do you have a policy which governs the choice of numbers to be used in similar circumstances?

I  wish to thank you in advance for your answers and to repeat my appreciation for your decision to use a geographic phone number on this occasion."

I have sent another question to the Foreign Office : ---

10. Did you consider using an 03 number?  Why did you reject the idea?

loddon wrote on Sep 17^th, 2007 at 8:46am:

I have sent another question to the Foreign Office : --- 10. Did you consider using an 03 number?  Why did you reject the idea?

They do the right thing and you still send them an FOI.  They must be asking what else they have to do now.

I suppose your aim is to use their responses to shoot down the excuses of other government departments like DVLA or Inland Revenue for not using GNs.  Or indeed other NGNs operated by the FCO. ;)

By the way I have managed to watch the Points West video now.  It didn't give the URL so hence why it only picked up about 2.500 signatures from those able to work Google or who already knew how to find the petitions website.

NGMsGhost wrote on Sep 17^th, 2007 at 9:41am:

They do the right thing and you still send them an FOI.  They must be asking what else they have to do now.

My thinking is; this use of a Geo number could be part of a new specific policy so lets find out.   Perhaps Gov't are taking note of what we are saying.   I had intended to write a normal letter/enquiry and then I found their website "feedback" facility.   You are asked to ensure that you "select the correct subject" for your message.   They provide a choice of 6 headings for "subject" and the first one is "Freedom of information".   The choices are not in alphabetical order and yet FoI is the first.   It seemed to me that FoI was the most appropriate subject rather than "Other".  

I am not being critical, rather, I have indicated I am in favour of their decision.   I would think my questions would take very little effort to answer and they are perfectly reasonable.    I am hoping that my enquiry may help encourage the FO to use geo numbers in the future.    Regarding other Departments, well, lets wait and see.

If you enter "020 7008" and "contact centre" in Google you will find the FCO has a number of different 020 7008 contact lines.

It seems the use of 020 7008 0000 by the FCO is more than a couple of years old:-

See www.voipvox.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=42453&page=2

It would be interesting to know which telecoms provider these number blocks are actually allocated to.  I expect Dave can help us out there.

NGMsGhost wrote on Sep 17^th, 2007 at 10:36am:

It would be interesting to know which telecoms provider these number blocks are actually allocated to.

A quick look-up via Magsys Megenta Code LookUp reveals the number belongs to Global Crossing.

bbb_uk wrote on Sep 17^th, 2007 at 11:10am:

Magsys Megenta Code LookUp[/url] reveals the number belongs to Global Crossing.

I seem to remember hearing of them before in connection with NGNs but in a more negative context.

A quick look at their website suggests that they provide a similar range of outsourced business solutions to the BBC's 0870 partners in crime - Capita Solutions.

Nice to know that they can come up with a GN solution if their clients demand that they do so. ;)

Case study document for this is available on the Global Crossing website here.

loddon wrote on Sep 17^th, 2007 at 10:18am:

NGMsGhost wrote on Sep 17th, 2007 at 9:41am: They do the right thing and you still send them an FOI.  They must be asking what else they have to do now. I am not being critical, rather, I have indicated I am in favour of their decision.   I would think my questions would take very little effort to answer and they are perfectly reasonable.    I am hoping that my enquiry may help encourage the FO to use geo numbers in the future.    Regarding other Departments, well, lets wait and see.

I have received a most polite response from the FO saying about my questions  "in fact we are going to treat them as Business as Usual; as they are quite general questions. We have past your request on to the relevant Section within the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, who will be in touch shortly."

Dave wrote on Sep 17^th, 2007 at 2:22pm:

Case study document for this is available on the Global Crossing website here.

The case study rather seems to prove that an extensive international private network using voip and the internet to over 100 countries can still be terminated perfectly satisfactorily in the UK office on geographic voip numbers of which this range is clearly part.

So much for the unique call routing and handling features only available on NGN numbers.  For which instead read unique hidden revenue earning opportunities to make the customer pay for the operation of your phone system. :o >:( [smiley=thumbdown.gif]

I have received this reply to my 10 questions : ----


1. What are the reasons for choosing to use a geographic number?  

             020-7008-0000        was  chosen as a particularly memorable number and  was  reserved for  emergency use when the FCO changed its number range in late 1999.  (This change was required as our existing range of numbers was about to run dry due to increased staffing levels and demand for more telephones.)  

2. Did you consider using a NTS number? Why did you reject this idea?  

It has been considered in the past.  However, it is often perceived by the public  that any local or national rate calls have a premium applied resulting in some form of profit for the FCO.  Calls to London numbers can potentially vary in cost by being local or national (geography) and by time and day of call.  However, local rate numbers would generally apply a slightly higher tariff across the board.

3. Did you consider using a 0800 freephone number? Why did you reject this idea?  

We have focused our efforts on increasing our call handling capacity to reduce waiting times before speaking to a call handler. We would expect free calls to increase the volume (partly by attracting callers who would otherwise have called the Travel Advice line). An increased demand would increase waiting times for all callers, including those calling about people who are highly likely to be involved in the disaster and so would not be in the best interests of those worst affected.  Given the potential to increase unnecessary calls, we decided offering a freephone number did not represents value for money.  However, we intend to review all options at regular intervals to take account of changing circumstances.  

4. Did you make any special technical arrangements to enable your geographic number to be used?  

No, it fronts an automated call distribution system (ACD) but is one of 8,000 "7008" DDI numbers the FCO telecom section in London manage.

5. How many telephone lines are routed to your destination geographic number?  

In terms of potential numbers of operators, there could be as many as 70.  In terms of how many lines or "trunks" that are available to queue inward calls, this figure is around 300, with some overspill managed via telephone exchanges elsewhere on the MTS network that can then find there way to the FCO over alternate private wire routes.  However, we cap the maximum amount of potential queuing calls depending on the number of staff available to handle the calls.  We believe it is more acceptable to receive a number busy tone and after a number of redials have perhaps several minutes queuing as opposed to getting straight through and maybe waiting up to an hour for the call to be answered.  If it is clear that an incident is going to be larger than  the Consulars facilities are designed to handle,  we have standing arrangements with the Police to divert the call management to  them using their National Mutual Aid Telephony (through which 650 call handlers can be available within 4-8hrs).  

6. Did a phone call queue develop at any time? What was the maximum length of the queue? How long a queue could the system handle potentially? Did you make any technical arrangements to handle a call queue?  

Yes, there were queues.  At the peak, waiting time was as long as 8 1/2 minutes, but these were exceptions.  Average call wait was less than 3 minutes.  Peak queues matched the times of nationwide news broadcasts on BBC and ITV.  Almost 900 calls were processed in the first 6 hours of operation (16th Sep 07 18:00 - 0:00)  We can set the max queue (by number of callers, not time) from zero to several hundred.  This can be adjusted in real time based on the degree of difficulty and time taken handling calls.  Many operators and short call times equals a larger queue capacity and this scalable figure is revisable by the telecom manager.  No special arrangements were in place to handle the call queue as the ACD is in a state of readiness.

7. How many calls have you handled via this number?

For this (Phuket) incident:  

16/9 - 885 calls
17/9 - 1371 calls
18/9 -  97 calls

The same system has been used (albeit in a different location) since late 1999.

8. Did you have any technical or administrative problems associated with the use of this number?  

There was an unforeseen fault with producing real-time stats due to a computer fault.  This has now been corrected and did not hamper the ability for people to call in or for operators to process calls.

9. Will a geographic number be used in the future and do you have a policy which governs the choice of numbers to be used in similar circumstances?

On current working practices we would look to publish a geographic number if there is a need for an emergency number for families who believe their loved ones to be involved in a disaster overseas. We may in future review our call handling procedures, but have no current plans to switch to a non-geographic number.

10. Did you consider using an 03 number? Why did you reject the idea?  

Consideration hasn't been given at this time , but it may be considered in the future .  030 range is still very new and not widely known by the public.  Range may become familiar in the future.  Potential users are limited to Government and non-profit making organisations only.  

Quote:

4. Did you make any special technical arrangements to enable your geographic number to be used?   No, it fronts an automated call distribution system (ACD) but is one of 8,000 "7008" DDI numbers the FCO telecom section in London manage. 5. How many telephone lines are routed to your destination geographic number?   In terms of potential numbers of operators, there could be as many as 70.  In terms of how many lines or "trunks" that are available to queue inward calls, this figure is around 300, with some overspill managed via telephone exchanges elsewhere on the MTS network that can then find there way to the FCO over alternate private wire routes.

Both of these answers prove you can run a modern and efficient call handling system with virtual call queuing beyond the number of real lines in existence on a geographic phone number.  NEG please take note!

A shame though about the misunderstanding in point 2 that there is no longer any difference between local and national calls.  Apart from that a highly informed and extremely thorough set of answers to your questions.

I'm sure this would serve as useful material to say the Inland Revenue about their own continued use of 0845 numbers despite the recent launch of 03 numbers and to blow out of the water their argument that they needed to use 0845 numbers in the first place.  Ditto with various police forces and local councils.

Thought this amy be of interest from this page...

http://www.wscountytimes.co.uk/latest-national-news/FO-aid-for-Britons-stranded.6235265.jp





The FO also launched a special advice line for callers in the UK who were concerned about the well-being of relatives stranded overseas. It is 020 7008 0000.

Big thumbs up for the FO! Perhaps the government is finally learning that non-geo numbers are no good!

jgxenite wrote on Apr 18^th, 2010 at 7:36pm:

Big thumbs up for the FO! Perhaps the government is finally learning that non-geo numbers are no good!

The FO has always been aware of this issue since it has a Voip based switchboard on which all the individual extensions can be reached using their own 020 numbers.  We commended them some years ago now on this website are their consistency and thoughtfulness in this area.  No doubt they have always been well aware in their professional existence of the very great difficulty facing overseas callers in contacting UK based 084/7 numbers since they inevitably get many calls from overseas.

The Passport Agency on the other hand unfortunately ultimately reports to the Home Office and hence why it has always shown such unpleasant revenue share loving tendencies.  The Home Office have now gone back to an 020 number for their switchboard from their 0870 but only after an exchange of several emails with the Permanent Secretary by myself some years ago as well of course as criticism by many MPs and their constituents.

NGMsGhost wrote on Apr 18^th, 2010 at 8:00pm:

The Passport Agency on the other hand unfortunately ultimately reports to the Home Office and hence why it has always shown such unpleasant revenue share loving tendencies. …

Are you not aware that the Passport Agency switched to 0300 numbers a year and a half ago? This was noted on the forum at the time and is another success story for the campaign to talk about.

Dave wrote on Apr 18^th, 2010 at 8:04pm:

Are you not aware that the Passport Agency switched to 0300 numbers a year and a half ago? This was noted on the forum at the time and is another success story for the campaign to talk about.

No I only remember all the bad publicity that occurred before they changed I'm ashamed to say Dave.  But well done to whichever campaign members had most to do with that one.  I am of course well aware of the change to 03 by the DVLA.

NGMsGhost wrote on Apr 18^th, 2010 at 8:44pm:

No I only remember all the bad publicity that occurred before they changed I'm ashamed to say Dave.  But well done to whichever campaign members had most to do with that one.  I am of course well aware of the change to 03 by the DVLA.

Judging by the negativity that you seem to be ensuing, then perhaps you should look at the Hall of Fame.  ;)

Dave wrote on Apr 18^th, 2010 at 8:46pm:

Judging by the negativity that you seem to be ensuing, then perhaps you should look at the Hall of Fame.  ;)

They may have taught English differently in your day Dave but I really don't think that my English teacher would not have given me any marks for the above sentence.

In any even the Hall of Fame Public Sector list is still rather depressingly small compared to those in the public sector who should have changed but have bloody mindely refused to take any steps at all towards such an action.

You also remind me to re-pursue Surrey Police where they made a variety of attempts at what seemed like quite deliberate initial obfuscation of my enquiry but then their head of FOI finally said in an email that he would send me my requested information of all internal reports that justified their original use of 0845 and its subsequent retention and information on any evaluation they had done of the costs of switching to 03.  Only to then still not send me the information he had faithfully promised me in writing.

I suspect that actually putting a question down for and then turning up at the next meeting of Surrey Police Authority and asking why Surrey Police is still holding out on this information might get rather more results than the seemingly futile attempts to deal by correspondence with their apparently deliberately unhelpful FOI section (of course there are theoretically appeals to the ICO but those are usually frustrating and lengthy too).  Their original ludicrous stock reason for refusing my request was that it would require them to examine all their custody records over the last several years. ::) >:(

jgxenite wrote on Apr 18^th, 2010 at 7:36pm:

Big thumbs up for the FO! Perhaps the government is finally learning that non-geo numbers are no good!

Never fear. While the FCO does the right thing, and has done so for some time now, the travel and transport sector continues with its 08 policy. A quick browse at some random UK airline/ferry/airport web pages shows the ubiquitous +44 871 and similar contact numbers. No temporary respite provided in the form of a normal number for the extraordinary circumstances - that would be simply too much to ask. There appears to be anecdotal evidence that some calls are taking in excess of one hour to be answered once in a queue. Some very expensive telephone calls, no doubt, and admittedly, the cost of calls is likely to be way down a stranded individual's concerns, it further demonstrates the UK corporate attitude rather well.

jgxenite wrote on Apr 18^th, 2010 at 7:36pm:

Big thumbs up for the FO! Perhaps the government is finally learning that non-geo numbers are no good!

Proving - once again - that living in Scotland is good for you, the Scottish Government today announced a Homecoming Helpline for travellers affected by the current travel disruption. It's an 0800 number

Homecoming Helpline
0800 027 0504
From overseas + 44 800 027 0504

Off to feed my pet haggis...

farci wrote on Apr 20^th, 2010 at 8:40am:

It's an 0800 number Homecoming Helpline 0800 027 0504 From overseas + 44 800 027 0504 Off to feed my pet haggis...

So will presumably cost precisely the same ripoff rates for calling from abroad as an 084 or an 087 prefixed number.

Why on earth did they not use an 01, 02 or 03 number.

Do these cretins have any idea at all what they are up to.  Its incredible that at the very least its not an 00 800 number as these can at least also be called free of charge from overseas landlines and payphones, although not from mobiles.

NGMsGhost wrote on Apr 20^th, 2010 at 9:08am:

[quote author=farci link=1189971086/15#23 date=1271752829]It's an 0800 number [b]Homecoming Helpline 0800 027 0504 From overseas + 44 800 027 0504 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting              + 44 800 027 0504      end_of_the_skype_highlighting So will presumably cost precisely the same ripoff rates for calling from abroad as an 084 or an 087 prefixed number.

Is this true - will it be charged as an NGN number and not a geo call?

farci wrote on Apr 20^th, 2010 at 9:44am:

Is this true - will it be charged as an NGN number and not a geo call?

In many cases, yes. Foreign operators often do not distinguish between different NGN charge bands. My main 'calling card' provider charges 32c/minute from the US to UK "08" numbers, so a call to +44 871 will cost exactly the same as a call to +44 800. By way of comparison, its general rate to +44 1 is 2.2c/minute.

farci wrote on Apr 20^th, 2010 at 9:44am:

Is this true - will it be charged as an NGN number and not a geo call?

Yes.

For instance www.18185.co.uk charge 0.5p per minute for me to call any normal US area code but 3p per minute to numbers with the 800 area code.

The same often applies in reverse for those calling the UK.

Surely you are also aware farci that most uk mobile phone contracts with inclusive minutes do not allow calls to 0800 numbers to be made out of those inclusive minutes.  Also for instance Vodafone does not extend its Passport deal (calls can be made out of bundled minutes + a 75p connection fee when roaming in the EU) to calls to UK 0800 or 0808 numbers.

Matters are only set to get worse with BT just having appealed to the Competition Tribunal over its right to now charge mobile operators termination fees for carrying calls to 0800 numbers.  I don't know the exact background but I expect BT thinks that if the mobile operators are fleecing their customers for calling 0800 numbers on mobiles that BT ought to also be allowed to fleece them.

See www.ofcom.org.uk/bulletins/comp_bull_index/comp_bull_ccases/closed_all/cw_01036/

Whilst this would not help with overseas callers, for whom the line is primarily intended, the Scottish Government could have saved most UK mobile callers some expense by getting the number registered with the Helpline Association scheme.