Following the announcement from the Secretary of State for Health yesterday, we are now waiting to hear what number has been selected for telephone contact with this service.

It is understood that the service will be managed on a regional or area basis, but a single contact telephone number will be used - i.e. a non-geographic number.

It is possible that it will be a 0800 number, however on the face of it, this would require a sizable act of generosity on the part of the mobile telcos, if sufferers calling from mobiles were not to also suffer premium charges. It is understood that the mobile operators were persuaded to waive their charges on calls to the temporary recorded information number, 0800 1 513 513, presently in use, but this was done after the number had been announced. Calls to the new number will be numerous and probably longer, as they will involve instant diagnosis and referral for treatment. If, as is likely, the mobile operators were to only agree to waive their charges on payment of a sum of money, then this would set a precedent for the DWP and other public service use of 0800 numbers for services that do not fall within the strict definition of a "helpline", and so do not qualify for charge waiver under the present arrangement, brokered by the THA.

The only other feasible option is a 03 number - trust me, 084 is now dead for high profile numbers. We all know that this is fair, as callers will not pay more than the cost (if any) of a call to a 01/02 number. Many people are however unaware of this and will undoubtedly be suspicious. If a 03 number is chosen, I believe that we should do all we can to help with the positive publicity and reassurance that will be needed. This could be a great opportunity to put some weight behind 03 as an acceptable and highly desirable route for all public services to follow.

We await an announcement in the next day or so!

Remember it will only be for England because and I quote 'The service will not cover Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland as the demand there is not as great.'

sherbert wrote on Jul 21^st, 2009 at 2:51pm:

Remember it will only be for England because and I quote 'The service will not cover Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland as the demand there is not as great.'

That is a matter for the health departments of the respective governments. If they choose to set up equivalent services, they could adopt the same number if they wish, as presently happens with NHS Direct - Wales, a separate service with the same number as England.

Apparently we'll know the number "later" according to the bbs news website.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8163930.stm

Quote:

The free-phone number will only be operational during the day, but officials stressed that it will expand to meet the requirements of the pandemic.

If it IS an 0800, I hope they are taking mobile users into account, as we all know these are not normally free calls for them.

The BBC has announced "lunchtime today" for the launch, and as quoted above, that it will be 0800.

The BBC stands by this, but I have been unable to obtain confirmation from anywhere else.

If it is indeed to be 0800, then surely the mobile situation will have been dealt with. The question will be, "at what cost"? This is not a helpline, but a "transactional service", and therefore does not meet the criteria for waiver of charges by the mobile operators.

The DWP agencies will be interested to know the answer to this question, so that they can work out how much they will need to pay for the same arrangement.

If they use an 0800 and not an 03 number we will know that they are still as ignorant, stupid, moronic, useless,  expensive and wasteful of taxpayers money as ever they were.   God save us from the cretins at the Dept of Health!

Web site...
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/groups/dg_digitalassets/@dg/@en/documents/digitalasset/dg_178842.htm

Telephone numbers....


National Pandemic Flu Service

 0800 1 513 513


England

Tel: 0800 1 513 100
Minicom: 0800 1 513 200


Northern Ireland
0800 0514 142
(Monday to Friday, 9am to 5pm)

Scotland

NHS 24: 08454 24 24 24

Wales

NHS Direct Wales:
0845 46 47

Details of the National Pandemic Flu Service (national for England, that is) are:

Website: www.pandemicflu.direct.gov.uk
Telephone: 0800 1 513 100†
Minicom: 0800 1 513 200


It has been reported in The Times that O2, Orange and T-Mobile are not charging for calls to the 0800 1 513 100 number. Vodafone reportedly remain defiant in imposing its usual charges.

Mobile telephone tariffs usually charge "freephone" 0800 numbers at higher rates than standard geographical (01/02) and 03 numbers. Such calls also come outside of any inclusive minutes that may otherwise apply.

† Free from landlines, BT Payphones and mobile operators O2, Orange, T-Mobile and Vodafone. Callers from other mobile phones can use the dial-through number 020 0222 0900. When this call is answered it will request the 0800 number. The call will be charged as per 01/02/03 numbers, and inclusive minutes will apply.

This number can be used for calling any 0800/0808/0500 number from a mobile phone, which would otherwise be charged at a premium rate.  ;)

Dave wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2009 at 6:15pm:

We have yet to discover whether mobile providers will (or are) not charging for calls to the 0800 1 513 100 number. Mobile telephone tariffs usually charge "freephone" 0800 numbers at higher rates than standard geographical (01/02) and 03 numbers. Such calls also come outside of any inclusive minutes that would otherwise apply.

After confirming earlier that O2 and Orange waive their charges, some further information has come to light on this.

Flu hotline calls will cost Vodafone customers up to 20p a minute

Have the other major providers waived their charges on a goodwill basis, whilst Vodafone refused?
Alternatively, were they paid off? (this now seems less likely, as it would only make sense to do this in order to offer a guarantee of free calls)
What about the other providers - Virgin Mobile, BT, Tesco etc. ?

I continue to hope that the media will get to the bottom of this swiftly, whilst the story is still hot, but we may have to wait.

loddon wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2009 at 10:35am:

If they use an 0800 and not an 03 number we will know that they are still as ignorant, stupid, moronic, useless,  expensive and wasteful of taxpayers money as ever they were.   God save us from the cretins at the Dept of Health!

I am sad, disappointed, melancholic, unhappy, discontent, disconsolate and worried about the waste of taxpayers money because I WAS RIGHT!!   They ARE cretins!!!   :( :( >:( :o :'(

"Flu hotline calls will cost Vodafone customers up to 20p a minute"  says The Times

When will the Department of Health get this right?  Start using 03 numbers for this sort of thing or better still, use good old-fashioned geographic numbers which will not cost the taxpayer extra nor the caller. ;) :)

It has been mentioned previously on this forum that an advert for the recorded information line 0800 1 513 513 quoted that it is "free from UK landlines and most mobiles". When a concerned citizen calls the number, they just want to know whether it is free for them to call or not.

When will organisations like the DH learn that "freephone" does not mean it's the best choice number. Freephone only has an advantage for those calling from landlines at times where they are charged for calls (ie when they don't have inclusive calls at the time of calling) or for those calling from BT Payphones. For all others, there is a disadvantage (in the case of mobile callers) or no difference (in the case of landline users with inclusive calls).

They throw a higher level of tax payers' money with all calls irrespective of whether there is a positive, negative or neutral benefit to callers. If the DH were to take a similar approach to providing treatment, then it would be like handing out Tamiflu or Relenza to all citizens for them to take, regardless of whether they have the virus or not. This would be bad for the treatment programme as a whole, as only those who show signs of the virus should take it. If too many people start taking anti-virals as a precaution, it could raise the risk of the virus developing resistance, reducing the drugs' effectiveness.

The cost to the taxpayer will be greater for a 0800 number than for a 03 number. Why administer this extra charge to all?

If they wanted to provide a 0800 number for the benefit of landline callers, then this should have been a secondary alternative to a 03 (or 01/02) number. Crucially, 03 would have provided a neutral charge for all.

Sorry to report this, but it gets worse -

Statement re: Precautionary recall of heart valve surgery patients


Quote:

Dr Stephen Fowlie, Medical Director at Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, said: ... We have set up a local rate phone helpline via NHS Direct for patients who may have questions. The helpline number is 0845 6030897.

---

But on the other hand, the following appeared on 13 July -

Call the NHS Credit Crunch Stressline on 0300 123 2000

---

To get this clear (or perhaps accurate but confusing), the NHS Direct NHS Trust is commissioned to provide the telephone infrastructure (and sometimes the service itself) used by many NHS bodies, as well as providing the service that is known as "NHS Direct". The service and the trust share a name, which can create confusion. It is also fair to point out that the commissioning body does have some say in the type of telephone number that is used. One must also understand that whilst the NPFS is (I believe) presently under the direct control of the DH, this does not apply to most NHS services. It is indeed likely that the NPFS will become part of an independent trust at some point.

---

Life would be so much easier if "they" were one group of people who got everything wrong and failed to respond to our pressure, because then we could give up and do something else.

On the other it would not perhaps be desirable if they were swayed by every loud-mouthed group of eloquent campaigners.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Jul 24^th, 2009 at 1:08pm:

Sorry to report this, but it gets worse - Statement re: Precautionary recall of heart valve surgery patients Quote: Dr Stephen Fowlie, Medical Director at Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, said: ... We have set up a local rate phone helpline via NHS Direct for patients who may have questions. The helpline number is 0845 6030897.

This number has been used before, so perhaps it is one that Nottingham University Hospitals issue at times such as this when there is a problem. They have an agreement with NHS Direct that its staff take calls on whatever the number has been issued for rather than taking the calls themselves in their own hospital (office).

Dave wrote on Jul 24^th, 2009 at 10:33am:

It has been mentioned previously on this forum that an advert for the recorded information line 0800 1 513 513 quoted that it is "free from UK landlines and most mobiles". When a concerned citizen calls the number, they just want to know whether it is free for them to call or not. When will organisations like the DH learn that "freephone" does not mean it's the best choice number. Freephone only has an advantage for those calling from landlines at times where they are charged for calls (ie when they don't have inclusive calls at the time of calling) or for those calling from BT Payphones. For all others, there is a disadvantage (in the case of mobile callers) or no difference (in the case of landline users with inclusive calls). They throw a higher level of tax payers' money with all calls irrespective of whether there is a positive, negative or neutral benefit to callers. If the DH were to take a similar approach to providing treatment, then it would be like handing out Tamiflu or Relenza to all citizens for them to take, regardless of whether they have the virus or not. This would be bad for the treatment programme as a whole, as only those who show signs of the virus should take it. If too many people start taking anti-virals as a precaution, it could raise the risk of the virus developing resistance, reducing the drugs' effectiveness. The cost to the taxpayer will be greater for a 0800 number than for a 03 number. Why administer this extra charge to all? If they wanted to provide a 0800 number for the benefit of landline callers, then this should have been a secondary alternative to a 03 (or 01/02) number. Crucially, 03 would have provided a neutral charge for all.

Thanks Dave for explaining my concerns in more detail and so authoritatively.

The two aspects of the DoH decision which most concern me are :

that 0800 is usually very expensive to call from a mobile and even if some networks are not charging in this case the DoH are not telling the public about it -- no mention of call cost to mobiles on the DoH websites or in their announcements.   All the media, and especially the BBC, just give out the number with no advisory remarks at all that calling this number could be very unhealthy for your wallet.

secondly, that the use of this "freephone" number is more expensive to the DoH and hence the taxpayer.   As you put it so well they are paying for everyone's calls although that is largely unnecessary.

This whole phone number thing has been a disaster by the Dept of Health and fully illustrates that they still do not understand what they are doing.        Cretins!! ::) :'(

An anonymous visitor has submitted alternative 01635 numbers for the swine flu 0800 numbers. I am concerned about the authenticity of these numbers. Whilst they all answer as per the 0800 numbers, the 01635 774 block they are all on is allocated to QX Telecom Limited, so I wonder if someone has created these numbers and directed them to the 0800s. :-/

There is another number in this range, 01635 774800 which is for 0800 118 Free (0800 118 3733). QX provides a geographical dial through number 01635 774 305 for freephone numbers.

Maybe someone earns commission for calls to these numbers and that's why they've done it. I'm not happy about this and am considering removing these numbers for this reason.

Perhaps this person can identify themselves and let us know where these numbers have come from.

Story in the Telegraph:

Vodafone will not be charging 20p a minute for swine flu hotline

What about Three, Virgin Mobile, Tesco Mobile and others?

Dave wrote on Jul 24^th, 2009 at 10:34pm:

Quote: Vodafone will not be charging 20p a minute for swine flu hotline What about Three, Virgin Mobile, Tesco Mobile and others?

We may never know whether both the Times and the Telegraph were correct.
Perhaps the former only based its story on experience whereas the latter challenged Vodafone directly - "will not be" is not the same as "have not been".

Journalists, including the author of the Telegraph item, were invited to check this out, along with the position regarding the others.

It may be that media pressure has done the trick.

Dave wrote on Jul 24^th, 2009 at 10:03pm:

An anonymous visitor has submitted alternative 01635 numbers for the swine flu 0800 numbers. I am concerned about the authenticity of these numbers.

01635 is Newbury, right?

According to this page the hotline is being run by "Teleperformance, whose UK contact centres are based in Bristol, Gateshead, Bangor, Newry, Ashby and Birmingham".

So is indeed possible that these are not legitimate alternatives.

FWIW I tried setting one of my 03 numbers to divert to the 0800, and it seems to allow it, and being an 0800 onward call, shouldn't cost anything to run bar the 03 rental (£1.15/month)  I've not left it do so, however, as that number is published in a couple of places as a contact number.  

Also, as well as the revenue issues brought up by Dave over unofficial alternative numbers, there are also concerns over privacy etc.  On A&As system, for instance, there's a log indicating the phone numbers that called, and I just need to tick a box and I'd get recordings of all the calls emailed to me..   Obviously if a alternate was being run by a Telco, there would be a certain level of trust in them.  But would people trust me, or somebody they can't even identify, with that information?

irrelevant wrote on Jul 25^th, 2009 at 12:21pm:

Also, as well as the revenue issues brought up by Dave over unofficial alternative numbers, there are also concerns over privacy etc.  On A&As system, for instance, there's a log indicating the phone numbers that called, and I just need to tick a box and I'd get recordings of all the calls emailed to me.. …

That's a very good point. I've removed these entries.

It is worth noting that the telephone service is proposed as the means for those who do not have internet access to use.

Those able to access saynoto0870 have no need of an alternative for their own use. If an alternative were to be found (albeit that I am not aware of any telephone operator that charges for calls to the 0800 number) it would be advisable for this to be noted as only to be passed on to those who do not have internet access, unless the site is content to be seen as undermining the plans for effective delivery of this service.

I am delighted to read of the care that is being taken not to promote unsuitable alternatives, and offer this point as an additional consideration.

Whatever our views about providers of public services, we must continue to take care not to be seen to be seeking to damage the delivery of those services.

I thought members would be interested in this


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1202197/Swine-flu-turboshandy-bugs-Tasteless-humour-David-Brent-boss-briefing-recruits-official-hotline.html

If straying onto the general topic of call centres, members may be wondering what evidence there is of the charm, wit and wisdom of Dr Ian Gibson, the much lauded former MP for Norwich North.

The begining of this clip from my archive of broadcast coverage of earlier campaigning efforts may provide some amusment and comprehension for those who did not follow his ill-fated parliamentary career. These excerpts from a half hour debate on call centres, initiated by Ian Gibson, cover only contributions on one particular aspect of the issue.

OK - I have managed to speak to Dave and to explain the story about the 01635 to swine flu number...

Basically, we read about the article in Telegraph / Times in the morning and thought an alternative 01635 would be useful for some. We also emailed the 01635 set to the media. Vodafone relented later on, so, I suppose they didn't bother with it.

I can confirm that all big 5 operators have waived charges to the 08001 513 513 number as it is now in the so-called THA list.  (I have tested on 3 and VirginMobile as well. You don't even need credit in PAYG to call the 0800).  However, some MVNO may still charge for it.

Unfortunately, the Northern Ireland version of the 0800 number 0800 0514142 is still currently chargable from all network operators.

The other use would be for people on Holiday Abroad and have trouble reaching the 0800 number.

The 01635 were setup as a simple NTS service and were meant to be as an alternative to whoever where it may be of use (obviously, I missed the potential concern bits).

Any views (enhancement/warning) - let me know.  If there is a demand, we can also setup a 03 set.


Thanks
Steven @ QX Telecom

qxtelecom wrote on Aug 1^st, 2009 at 9:13pm:

Any views (enhancement/warning) - let me know.

Just two points.

Is it made clear that the NPFS telephone service is only for those who do not have access to the internet? There may be those who have trouble using the internet service or want the number to pass on to others, but the alternative should not be promoted on the internet without this qualification. I am sure that it is made clear that it is not for use by those with the big 5 or any others that are following their lead.

Has ownership / rental of the alternative number been offered to the Department of Health at a reasonable commercial rate, or is somone profiteering from its failure to setup a proper number for those who are unable to use the 0800 number without incurring a premium charge?

Strangely, 0800 cost the Goverment MOST, and cost mobile callers (OK - now all being made free from mobiles after inclusion of the 0800, except the N. Ireland one) even more.

0800 might have cost the government around 2p/min (given the volume). If they have used 03, it might have caused them 1p/min or nothing.  They could even have published both 03/08 numbers (the cost of having 2 numbers pointing down the same digital line is absolutely minimal).  I am sure the intention of setting up 0800 numbers is noble (they thought it was free to callers, but have not though of mobiles, calling from overseas), but obviously the NHS IT manager who set this up lack understanding of how the real world telecom market works...

I take it from the declared commercial interest that the answers to the two questions posed in my previous posting are NO and NO.

We can only speculate about the degree of awareness actually held and the extent of the efforts involved in making the necessary arrangements with the mobile operators. As I understand it, the NPFS number, unlike the Swine Flu helpline, falls well outside the terms of the THA scheme.

Hi SilentcallVictim,

I think you are too skeptical.

I have no insight (and we don't supply anything to the NHS) into the NHS decision making process. It might well be that the NHS managers, with their good intention, decided to use 0800 thinking that it is cheaper for people to call them.  

Both the UK 0800 1 513 513 / 100 are in the THA list as far as I am ware. The NI one isn't.
As to why NHS does not tell THA to include the number that you mentioned (which number anyway?), ask NHS or your MP OK ?

And no, we don't own the mobile phone operators (!) either so we don't make profit from the charges they apply.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Aug 4^th, 2009 at 10:28am:

Has ownership / rental of the alternative number been offered to the Department of Health at a reasonable commercial rate, or is somone profiteering from its failure to setup a proper number for those who are unable to use the 0800 number without incurring a premium charge?

The point is that the Government has yet again shown its ineptitude on telephone numbering and associated costs, both to callers and the taxpayer in general.

The DH has chosen to provide only a 0800 number, thereby incurring costs at the taxpayer's to make the number free from landlines. Crucially, these costs are incurred for all calls, including those from mobiles where the mobile providers usually charge a premium.

Fortunately, the main mobile providers have seen sense and waive their charges for these calls. Whether they would have done so had it been a 03 number, we will never know. I say this, not because I don't think that it should be a freephone number, rather that a 03 number should be provided for mobile callers alongside the "freephone from landlines/payphones" as a matter of course.

The Swine Flu Helpline was launched ineptly disregarding the situation of calls from mobiles. As it obviously qualified for the THA scheme, it was swiftly added to the list within hours of its launch. Because the NPFS number is not a “helpline”, but a “transactional” service, it does not formally qualify for the THA scheme to which the mobile companies are committed. Each therefore had to be persuaded to waive their charges through a series of individual (or possibly collective) negotiations.

(The THA is a charity independent of government, parliament and any government agency, which has brokered an arrangement with the mobile companies for its members. I cannot think where the idea that it can take orders from the NHS and compel telcos to follow its instructions comes from.)



0800 and 03 were the only options considered for the NPFS number. The Department of Health had numbers from each of these ranges still held ready on the morning of the day that the service was launched. Announcement of the number was delayed by several hours past the planned time, for reasons that have not been declared. There could have been problems with the website, however I am prepared to believe that last minute pressure was being put on the mobile companies to agree to waive their charges before the final choice of the number was made. The launch went ahead without Vodafone signed up. Once media pressure had been applied, Vodafone succumbed.

This is partly-informed speculation. If anyone else knows any better, please correct me.


I am very disappointed that there was insufficient courage to adopt a 03 number, as I was lobbying for this with all my energies (I did not believe that it would be possible to persuade the mobiles to waive their charges without some recompense). In the present situation, which we hope to see changed in the near future, adopting 03 would have been a brave move in this high profile panic-ridden case.

There remains a low level of public awareness of 03 numbers and this number needed to be relatively “safe”, given all the other issues flying around. Because there was near (and later, total) success in getting the major mobile companies to waive their charges (at no extra cost to the public purse), offering a 03 number in addition, as an alternative with the necessary explanation and the potential for confusion and misunderstanding, and for little or no purpose, would, I believe, have been very foolish.

Looking at the whole decision, I suspect that the marginal additional cost to the taxpayer of 0800 vs. 03, in the context of the overall cost of the service, would be insignificant - I would expect the total cost of handling each call to be, on average, several pounds. Considering the possible cost and effort involved in explaining that a 03 number is not one of these rip-off numbers that some people keep moaning about (albeit rightly), not to mention the public detriment of the potential confusion and misunderstanding for those unfamiliar with 03, it is hard to criticise the decision.

There is the further problem caused if a 0300 number had been chosen, because one might have to explain that although it looks like 0800, it is not free for all landline callers. Any 03 number is cheaper than normal 0800 numbers (but not the Swine Flu Helpline) for all mobile callers. 03 calls are however free if made when an inclusive package is in effect, so people could call for free at the weekend, in the evening or at the weekend, or at any time, according to the terms of their package. The chances of all this having been properly conveyed throughout the media at the time would be zero. As I say, I am disappointed, but I can understand why the simpler option was chosen.


It is disappointing that the DHSSPSNI has not simply registered its helpline with the THA, as there seems to be no reason why it would not qualify. Those with the opportunity to do so should make strong representations on this point.

---

Regarding the possible response to my two questions. The first appears not to have been addressed, so “NO” is a reasonable assumption. “We don’t supply anything to the NHS” suggests that “NO” must be the answer to the second, as I stated previously.

The alleged ignorance of the real world telecoms market that is attributed to some NHS IT manager is also applied to myself. I do not recognise that to make profit on calls passed through a 01635 number to a 0800 number one has to own the mobile phone operators. Furthermore, I am not aware that the money paid to the owner of the 01635 number by the owner of the 0800 number is a charge set by the mobile phone operators.

I have re-read my second question and cannot see how it could be fairly misunderstood. I will not however make a counter-allegation of ignorance against someone’s understanding of their own business. It is for those who read these exchanges to draw their own conclusions from the comments made.

Hi SilentCallVictim,

Can you please clarify what you are unhappy about here?

Is it NPFS using 0800 rather than 03 and make it inconvenient for the public?

Is it that you believe the supplier of the NPFS phone number did not offer a 01/03 alternative to NHS in order to make profit ?
(which is not true from what you posted above, 03 was offered, but not used because of fear of public confusion)

Is it that NHS using 0800 and costing us tax payer more ?

Is it mobile phone charging the NPFS 0800 (initially anyway) ?

Is it mobile phone charging for 0800 generally ?

Is it that we setup a rerouting number (to whoever who wants to use it), and we make it clear that calling straight from big 5 mobiles + VM at the minimum is free (it might be free from smaller MVNO as well, but I don't know)


Again back to your second questions,

Quote:

Has ownership / rental of the alternative number been offered to the Department of Health at a reasonable commercial rate, or is somone profiteering from its failure to setup a proper number for those who are unable to use the 0800 number without incurring a premium charge?

Who is the person/organisation who expect to have 'offered' the DH the numbers?  It seemed from your own post, you said 03 was available, it was DH were choose not to use it.  

Who is this 'someone' that you are referring to?  BT? the entire telecom industry? Mobile oeprators ?  

qxtelecom wrote on Aug 5^th, 2009 at 7:56am:

Can you please clarify what you are unhappy about here?

These are postings to an open discussion forum, not a dialogue.

Given the length of my previous posting, it would not be reasonable to address these many questions by further extensive comments to explain a relatively refined series of views. We should each express our views (be they of unhappiness or whatever else) in the terms which we feel best suits an open public discussion. I can be addressed by PM or email for dialogue. One could refer to other forum postings to perhaps derive a distillation of my positions on various matters.



qxtelecom wrote on Aug 5^th, 2009 at 7:56am:

back to your second question

The questions were posed in a posting addressing the immediately preceding posting, which explicitly invited comments, with reference to use of the term “alternative” in that posting, as follows:


qxtelecom wrote on Aug 1^st, 2009 at 9:13pm:

we ... thought an alternative 01635 would be useful for some ... ... The 01635 were setup as a simple NTS service and were meant to be as an alternative ...

That is indeed the “alternative” to which I was referring. I am surprised that my attempt at further explanation of what I meant did not make this clear.

I repeat, there is no need for this dialogue to be pressed to a conclusion in this forum. We can let it stand as it is. Although I expressed them in interrogative form, I did not demand any reply to my “questions”, as I referred to them as “points”.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Aug 4^th, 2009 at 10:28am:

Has ownership / rental of the alternative number been offered to the Department of Health at a reasonable commercial rate, or is somone profiteering from its failure to setup a proper number for those who are unable to use the 0800 number without incurring a premium charge?

Is this a suggestion that the Department of Health might wish to pay QX Telecom to 'rent' or 'own' this service (the 01635 number) when QX itself operates this number at, one assumes, a profit? This would seem to me to be, by definition, encouraging profiteering at the taxpayer's expense.

Or is it a suggestion that the provider might like to share some of its profits from calls to the number with the DH in return for the wider publication of the number and hence more calls to it? Remember that the DH incurs extra charges for receiving calls on the 0800 number, so any revenue it would get is coming from its own budget anyway.

This leaves two other possibilities:

1. The DH pay QX Telecom to point this number directly to the DH's "digital line", assuming that the system is setup in this way and assuming that there is no "termination charge" for connecting in this way.

2. The DH requests that the provider it uses to provide the 0800 number (probably BT) sets up a 01/02/03 number to run in parallel with it.

---

The 01635 number service itself, provided by a third party, is just what I term a "secondary origination" service. That is, in simple terms, its provider receives the call and puts another call out to the 0800 number (originates a second call). It is the surcharge made by some operators for 0800 calls that makes it worthwhile callers to call via the 01635 number.

In effect, the 01635 number reduces the level of that surcharge and in so doing shares part of what's left with another provider.

There are different classes of alternatives. The best are those which are provided by the organisations themselves. For example, the AA has published geographical numbers for member services and breakdown callouts. These answer with the same IVR as their respective 08 NGNs, and as they are provided by the AA, it is far less likely that they may be disabled at any time, even if it stops promoting them.

So if the DH was to release an 01/02/03 alternative, then this would replace the 01635 from QX Telecom in the SAYNOTO0870.COM database. In so doing it would save the DH the cost of receiving calls on the 0800 number for calls originated to the 01635 alternative.

Clearly, there is no guarantee from the DH that the 01635 numbers will remain. So all in all, the ball is in the DH's court to provide a 01/02/03 alternative.

Hi Dave,

The 01635 774 500  (redirects to 0800 1 513 513) / 01635774501 (redirects to 08001513100) /  502 (redirects to NI 08000514142) works indeed as your described and it is basically a least worst alternative for people who needs it ( it is better than anyone having to pay, say 20p to call the NI number, it is better compared to anyone who needs to dial the number from overseas but cannot reach the 0800).  

With the 01635 number, we merely trying to solve a problem as it presented. Indeed as you said, it reduces the surcharges, or solve an overseas origination problem and cost the DH exactly the same as if the 0800s are dialled directly.


It is obviously not practical for us to 'offer' our service to DH as we are not in the size or scale to deal with them.  Further, any dealing with government department obviously take ages....

The best (and cost effective) solution  remains for DH to ask for a geo number (for overseas dialling, or from an other MVNO that may have missed the THA list) from BT (who appears to supply the 0800 number). I am sure this can be done by a phone call away to their BT account manager to allocate one number and points it down the same digital lines. Perhaps the number can then be published on the NPFS website.
 OK, now, someone please tell NHS about this........

qxtelecom wrote on Aug 6^th, 2009 at 9:45am:

OK, now, someone please tell NHS about this........

Thanks to yourself and Dave for confirming my understanding about the way that the "redirect to 0800" geo numbers work and possible alternative more advanced ways of addressing the particular situation.

The Department of Health would have probably thought it unnecessary to provide alternatives for the NPFS and swine flu helpline numbers, given the arrangements that were made, by the THA, with the mobile operators, in BOTH CASES.

As a result of a telephone conversation, I have to correct a false assumption that I have been propagating. When the NPFS number was being setup, the Telephone Helplines Association managed to gain agreement to a variation of its standing arrangement with the mobile companies in two respects. Firstly, this service, although "transactional" rather than falling within the previously strict definition of a "helpline" that dispenses only advice, was included in the formal scheme. Secondly, all of the mobile providers agreed to waive their charges on this 0800 number, not just the few who always extend their offer to THA members beyond the 0808 80 range. The NPFS number is therefore formally within the (extended) THA scheme. No credit for this work has been given to the THA in the media, and it was only today that I was able to get the full story. I must apologise for perhaps misleading people previously.


It is disappointing that QX Telecom cannot be rewarded for spotting the need for a geo alternative, by being given the contract to provide the direct connection service that would be the best deal for the NHS to address those cases where mobile users do not waive their charges. Refusal of such an offer would leave QX morally in the clear when earning money from redirected calls. It has the traffic data that would be useful to the Department of Health in determining the need for a geo alternative, which is why it could be in the best position to be the "someone" referred to.


As there is generally a hole in the THA scheme for those members who use 0800 nmbers (rather than 0808 80), there could be an opportunity for QX to make a suitable arrangement with the THA and its members to fill that gap in the most appropriate way. I understand that the THA would be open to an approach regarding the possibility of setting up dedicated "rediect to 0800" numbers for THA members in this situation. The best option for THA members is to adopt a 0808 80 number. We are therefore talking about cases where there is a particular reason to use 0800, so a non-ideal solution would be worth considering.

Hi SilentCallsVictim,

I can assure you that it would cost NHS more money for anyone other than the existing supplier (looks like BT)to set this up directly due to the infrastructure cost.  For BT, all the lines are there, so they just need to make configuration changes to set this up.

For anyone else, it will involve wiring, cables, testings, new equipment etc....

Further, to get onto NHS approved supplier list probably take many many months...

qxtelecom wrote on Aug 6^th, 2009 at 1:13pm:

I can assure you ...

I am sure that we all fully understand these perfectly valid practical points, however they do not address the idea that I raised.

In theory then, would the NHS be likely to save money if it were to rent the geo redirect number (as currently configured) at a fair commercial rate, so that it was effectively paying itself on receiving redirected calls to the 0800 NPFS number?

That money is, in effect, currently swelling the coffers of QX. In my view, every business earns money by doing "good things" for people, by some definition, and thereby is essentially morally neutral. That does not however stop us from making moral judgements about particular activitivies and actions, as if they were performed by a person. Some would say that profiting unnecessarily from calls to the NHS is questionable, even if the underlying fault is with those charged with its management, and even if the activity saves patients money. Please understand that this is a comment thrown into the air in a public discussion forum, I see no need for it to be responded to with a "Yes, but ..." moral defence that seeks to strike a balance on relative grounds. Indeed, there is no demand for any response.

Quote:

In theory then, would the NHS be likely to save money if it were to rent the geo redirect number (as currently configured) at a fair commercial rate, so that it was effectively paying itself on receiving redirected calls to the 0800 NPFS number?

It would. It would not even redirect to any 0800, the 01 number will be delivered straight to the call center.


Quote:

currently swelling the coffers of QX.

The redirection cost DH exactly the same as if the 0800 is dialled directly.  So, how does we profit unncessarily from this activity ?

Dialling via the 01 will cost the originating operator (mobile) a little bit more (I am sure that you do not prefer that the mobile
operators coffers are swelled at the rates of 20p/minas in the case of the NI number ?)  Further, I think the word swell is incorrect as the amount of revenue involved is minimal).  

Your logic in this is akin that UK is acting immorally because it does not save everyone in Africa even though it is clearly unrealistic and impractical to do so. Your logic then imply that it is perfectly legitimate to judge that UK is immoral under such circumstances even if it is impossible to have taken the so-called morally correct action (or perhaps to meet your requirement of clear conscience, UK must pretend to make an offer to help everyone in the world who need help, and then say..ah... we forgot that we can't really do that).



There is obviously no demand for you to justify your moral judgement either..

qxtelecom wrote on Aug 6^th, 2009 at 4:02pm:

"Yes, but ..."

:(