Ofcom today confirmed plans to introduce pan-European 116 helpline phone numbers in the UK and launched the selection process to allocate the first three 116 numbers. These numbers will allow people to call telephone services of social value, such as missing children hotlines and emotional support helplines, from the same number regardless of which EU country they are in.  

The statement can be found at: http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/116/116statement/

Please also see:

Harmonised European numbers for harmonised services of social value (116XXX numbers)
http://www.ofcom.org.uk/telecoms/ioi/numbers/116

Harmonised European numbers for services of social value: comparative selection process for allocation of 116000, 116111 and 116123, published 18 February 2009 (three separate documents)

http://www.ofcom.org.uk/telecoms/ioi/numbers/116/116000.pdf
http://www.ofcom.org.uk/telecoms/ioi/numbers/116/1166111.pdf
http://www.ofcom.org.uk/telecoms/ioi/numbers/116/116123.pdf

[Source: Ofcom email update]

Members will be interested to note that, due to their being "of extreme social value", services on the three numbers announced must be genuinely "free to caller", whether the calls are made from a fixed line, mobile or public payphone.

(There could leave open doubt about the situation with a privately provided payphone.)

It is indicated that the service provider will have to bear the cost of all calls, although sponsorship (which may not be announced during the call) is permitted.

The general statement indicates that not all 116 numbers may be seen as having the same degree of social value and so may not warrant the determination that they are "free to caller". They must however meet the requirement imposed by the EU Commission that they be "freephone". In the UK, it is determined that the term "freephone" retains the meaning that calls from mobiles may be charged to callers.

For those seeking clarity about charging this is most disappointing. We will move forward with two terms "free to caller" and "freephone". The latter is understood to imply charging from mobiles, although this is subject to charge waiver by either some or all mobile companies, as presently exists.

For those interested in the complexity of arrangements this is most exciting. Either or both of the following situations could arise.

If perhaps arrangements are to be made for a service provider to bear the costs of calls from mobiles, so as to offer a "free to caller" service, the potential would arise for similar arrangements to be made available to other service providers, including commercial organisations. This is not known to exist at present.

Childline is very likely to be the successful bidder for the 116111 service. Charges for calls to its 0800 1111 number are waived by the mobile companies under a longstanding special arrangement that pre-dates the THA deal on 080880. It is therefore likely that the mobile companies will agree to sponsor the 116111 service and thereby have to be credited for this generosity. If so, it is possible that the landline providers would wish to get in on this by earning similar credit for themselves. Once the option of publicly noted sponsorship arises, who knows where this would end!

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Feb 20^th, 2009 at 6:24pm:

For those seeking clarity about charging this is most disappointing. We will move forward with two terms "free to caller" and "freephone".The latter is understood to imply charging from mobiles, although this is subject to charge waiver by either some or all mobile companies, as presently exists.

This is indeed disappointing.  It's my opinion that "free" should mean "free" !  Even BT seem to be starting to appreciate this, with their BT Mobile 0800 anouncement.  The distinction between the phrases "free to caller" and "freephone" is minimal, and I am absolutely sure that many of the most vulnerable people, whom often do not have landlines and reply on pre-pay mobiles,  will not appreciate the difference and may be put off from calling for help.  This was the main point in my response to the consultation, alluding to the mess with 118* where nobody has a clue how much any given call will cost..

116?
Ah, this would be the code repeatedly suggested to Ofcom when they were pushing 101?
I recall many objections to 101 and industry suggestions for 116 in line with ITU and EU policy; and the Home Office spokesman then responding that 101 would be more memorable - with people watching Room 101 on tv.
ye gods.

Tanllan wrote on Feb 21^st, 2009 at 12:35pm:

116? Ah, this would be the code repeatedly suggested to Ofcom when they were pushing 101? I recall many objections to 101 and industry suggestions for 116 in line with ITU and EU policy; and the Home Office spokesman then responding that 101 would be more memorable - with people watching Room 101 on tv. ye gods.

And of course to most UK based callers the digits 116 will look very like 118 so many callers will assume that they cost 50p per minute or more and avoid them.

This will only not happen if Ofcom ever decide to undertake any publicity to explain the current logic of the telephone numbering system they have allowed to grow up in the UK.  If that is they possibly can what with 0871 now being £6 per hour premium rate calls and 0870 numbers being free calls within bundled minutes allowances, at least with BT on a landline.

NGMsGhost wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2009 at 9:27pm:

And of course to most UK based callers the digits 116 will look very like 118 so many callers will assume that they cost 50p per minute or more and avoid them.

Not just UK telephone users. I guess that 118 directory enquiries is a pan-European scheme.

This French DQ service looks familiar: [url=www.118218.fr[/url]]www.118218.fr[/url]

Dave wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2009 at 9:37pm:

Not just UK telephone users. I guess that 118 directory enquiries is a pan-European scheme. This French DQ service looks familiar: [url=www.118218.fr[/url][/quote]]www.118218.fr

[/url]

If they want these calls to be easily recognised as free so people will use them as much as possible then why on earth don't they just encourage all these outfits to use the widely recognised 800 Freephone code in Europe and force the benighted mobile companies to carry calls to all 800 numbers free of charge as already happens with their landline counterparts. ::)

NGMsGhost wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2009 at 9:43pm:

If they want these calls to be easily recognised as free so people will use them as much as possible then why on earth don't they just encourage all these outfits to use the widely recognised 800 Freephone code in Europe and force the benighted mobile companies to carry calls to all 800 numbers free of charge as already happens with their landline counterparts. ::)

To my mind there are only so many numbers that can be given "special" numbers because the more you have the more it defeats the object of their uniqueness.

By special I mean short numbers such as 100, 101, 123, 999.

With the crazy way telecoms works these days, we have different length prefixes starting 1. Gone are the days when all were three digits. For some bizarre reason, the call provider 1899 has a four digit number, but others have 6 digits as too do 118 numbers.

So how many digits will the 116 numbers be?

Dave wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2009 at 9:49pm:

For some bizarre reason, the call provider 1899 has a four digit number, but others have 6 digits as too do 118 numbers.

I seem to recall that Onetel also used to use 1877 and/or 1878 before they were subsumed in to the empire of TalkTalk.  I presume there must be a list of all these indirect access codes somewhere on a BT Wholesale website?


Quote:

So how many digits will the 116 numbers be?

My bet would be on six given the relatively small number of services envisaged and the linkage with the 118 number concept.  To my mind the whole thing is barmy as if you commute to London and want to call your local council and not the one in your office's area in London then you are still going to need a full length geographic phone number.  That is why a normal 0800 number for each council is a much better idea.

I see that BT Wholesale actually markets the indirect access service as giving you a four digit rather than a five digit access code.  I assume they moved on to five digits when all the four digit permutations were exhausted.

See www.btwholesale.com/pages/static/Products/Interconnect/Access_Indirect.html

More on BT Wholesale's Indirect Access code system can be found at:-

http://www.btwholesale.com/pages/downloads/service_and_support/contractual_information/docs/nsia/nsch141_gen.rtf

NGMsGhost wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2009 at 9:58pm:

... I presume there must be a list of all these indirect access codes somewhere on a BT Wholesale website?

They are allocated by Ofcom and listed here.

What a total shambles!

Dave wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2009 at 10:05pm:

They are allocated by Ofcom and listed here

If you download and scan through the list of indirect access codes (download and install www.openoffice.org if you don't have a copy of Excel) you will see that there are 3, 4 and 5 digit indirect access codes in use.  They clearly moved on to the 5 digit codes once they realised that the 3 and 4 digit codes would very quickly be exhausted.

I see that 1899, 18185 and 18866 are all listed as belonging to  "Connect Telecom UK Ltd" rather than Finarea.

At www.phonepayplus.org.uk/business/NetworkOperators.asp they show the following contact details for Connect Telecom UK Ltd:-


Quote:

Connect Telecom UK Ltd Ms Louise Philips: 0870 799 1501 enquiry@connecttelecom.uk.com

I wonder if this is the company that we should be complaining to Ofcom is not a member of either Otelo or CISAS even though they operate telephone services in the UK?  It may also be a more profitable place to direct complaints about 1899, 18185 and 1886 phone bills to than Finarea in Switzerland?

To return to the topic, Ofcom announced that:

Quote:

The Commission has designated the 6-digit ‘116’ number range for European-wide harmonised numbers for services of social value

As Ofcom is a key contributor to the relevant EU discussions it doubtless carries some of the responsibility for this decision, however that is the decision that has now been made.