There is a campaign to Say No To Phonebooks which supports an opt-in system for Phonebooks. It has an e-petition to the PM running which closes on 29 March.


I think that this is an excellent idea on the basis that they are frequently not used. The information contained within them is very fluid and up-to-date numbers can be found online or by a 118 directory enquiries service.

Some subscribers are likely to wish to continue receiving them, particularly the elderly who don't have internet access or who aren't confident at looking up numbers online.

I can see no reference to any attempt to establish how an opt-in system would work.

With little thought, it seems obvious that the cost would mean that in effect this is a campaign for the abolition of phonebooks.

It is fair enough for 192.com to seek for the removal of a commercial rival and to engage "green" issues in support of its argument. There are however public interest issues around use of the telephone to consider. A broader debate would be around the place of the telephone in society and the value of the various ways of obtaining numbers. Those with a commercial interest in use of directories on the internet, which are exclusively funded by advertising, will undoubtedly press their case. Some may argue that whilst advertising has a valuable role to play, we should take care to prevent all sources of information being potentially tainted by the interests of advertisers.

"Yellow pages" remain, as they always have been, relatively cheap channels for the promotion of businesses. Competition is supported by the inclusion of free listings for all business lines.

"White pages" were always considered to be a vital public service that must be provided as a public duty. I am not sure how that duty is now defined, as it appears not to be being fulfilled particularly well. Does anybody know if the cost of publishing and distributing directories falls on only one of the providers?

This is an interesting topic, however I am not sure how it relates to the particular issues relevant to this forum.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Mar 18^th, 2010 at 1:31pm:

This is an interesting topic, however I am not sure how it relates to the particular issues relevant to this forum.

Take that as a reprimand Dave, you naughty boy! ;)

sherbert wrote on Mar 18^th, 2010 at 7:00pm:

Take that as a reprimand ...

No rebuke was intended. If anyone has anything to contribute, I would indeed be pleased to read further comments on this interesting topic. My quoted comment also invited discussion of how it may be relevant to the issues we cover in this forum.

(I probably need to confirm that this posting is not intended as a reprimand - that is for moderators, not members, to deliver. I simply respond to an implied invitation to explain myself, and take the opportunity to confirm my preference for this forum to be used for the discussion of issues rather than personal comments.)

I will repeat my points simply for further clarification.

• An opt-in system probably would not work
  
  
• Printed "Yellow Pages" offer an opportunity for the ready promotion of lots of local businesses and a competitive market
  
  
• Printed "White Pages" are seen as a public service in the context of a local / national / international telephone network
  

An interesting topic. I suspect that 192.com is somewhat motivated more by commercial opportunity than by environmental issues. White Pages, Phone Books or the more generic "telephone directory" do, I would maintain, provide a valuable public service. All too often are people excluded from tasks that we may take for granted simply because they lack on-line access. Although I am a supportive of attempts to bring as many people on-line as possible, those that cannot or do not wish to participate should be catered for. Whilst a lack of access may well preclude such individuals from flying with Ryanair, more important needs such as access to telephone numbers should be accommodated through alternate means.

I will give the opt-in system some further thought.

I presume that there is an obligation on BT to provide all addresses with at least one local telephone directory ("Phonebook"). How is this financed? I wonder, do all telephone providers contribute to its operation?

In the past, organisations like BT (formally, as part of GPO) were public utilities which existed to provide services to the public. Today, telecommunications services in the UK are provided by competing operators whose objectives are to generate a return for shareholders by supplying services to "consumers".

Clearly, universal provision of telephone directories (that consist solely of lists of phone numbers for residential and business addresses) is a public service. Service users neither have a say in or, knowingly at least, contribute. Thus, the service provider, BT, must surely be compelled to perform this task and does not do so as part of its drive to generate profit for its shareholders.

I wonder why it is that telephone directories have not been released into the lap of free market enterprise. After all, many other parts of telecommunications services have been.

---

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Mar 18^th, 2010 at 1:31pm:

I can see no reference to any attempt to establish how an opt-in system would work. With little thought, it seems obvious that the cost would mean that in effect this is a campaign for the abolition of phonebooks.

When I made my posting on this topic (above), I took it as read that the outcome would be that some administrative system would be devised to deliver Phonebooks to those who ordered them. I appreciate that this would most probably mean that those who "consumed" them would have to pay more for them than they do now.

I am interested to understand why you think that this campaign is effectively calling for the abolition of telephone directories. Do you think that the prospective cost for buying one will be that high that this will put off "consumers"?

---

There is one further point worth noting and that is now that BT has disposed of its Yellow Pages arm, it has started again from square one with classified listings, this time in the front of its Phonebooks. Thus, they do not consist solely of lists of business and residential telephone numbers, but advertisements paid for by clients.

BT is therefore moving its Phonebook operation away from being a compulsory chore by increasing its profitability. This means that it is much more likely to come out in defence of any attack on its telephone directory universal service obligation.

Dave wrote on Mar 21^st, 2010 at 12:07am:

I am interested to understand why you think that this campaign is effectively calling for the abolition of telephone directories. Do you think that the prospective cost for buying one will be that high that this will put off "consumers"?

If the question was directed at me, my answer is Yes. I cannot see the prospect of there being enough voluntary subscribers to earn sufficient advertising to fund a directory with so low a circulation, nor can I see the public service concept working with BT being made to pay to meet the needs of a select few. I do not believe that there would be a big enough market to make chargeable printed directories economic.

Although very many years ago I was involved in the preparation of the Post Office Telephones directories, I have to confess that I am not up to date on how the various arrangements now work. It would be great to have a contribution from anyone who actually understands the specific relevant issues.

There are also many general points for discussion raised here.

Well it would save me a trip to the recycling bin when they are delivered!

I wouldn't wish to see a cost introduced for those that need/want them though.

Surely the savings made by allowing those of us who do not need a 'phonebook' to opt out would be large enough to allow the free provision to continue to those that do need/want one?

Cheers, Des.

DesG wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2010 at 11:02pm:

I wouldn't wish to see a cost introduced for those that need/want them though.

But at present the cost is born by everyone, so a charge only on those who accept a Phonebook would not be 'new', but a way of having those who want one to pay and those who don't want one not to pay.



DesG wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2010 at 11:02pm:

Surely the savings made by allowing those of us who do not need a 'phonebook' to opt out would be large enough to allow the free provision to continue to those that do need/want one?

At present, BT delivers a Phonebook to everyone, unsolicited.

Should this change so that people can opt-in (or opt-out if it was to operate that way), then there would be the cost of the logistical task to administer delivery only to those who wanted one.

Before such a change were to take place, then there would need to be a survey to see how many would likely continue to have a Phonebook so as to determine the cost of the operation.

What's more, at present, it's fairly easy for BT to know how many will be needed, i.e. based on the number of addresses in each area. A change to Phonebooks being optional would make it more difficult to gauge with any degree of accuracy how many to print for each area. The demand would be based on peoples' whims at the particular time.

DesG wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2010 at 11:02pm:

Surely the savings made by allowing those of us who do not need a 'phonebook' to opt out would be large enough to allow the free provision to continue to those that do need/want one?

Further to the points made by Dave, there is also the issue of advertising, which is what funds a lot of what we think of as being "free".

Advertisers will only pay if their ads are likely to be seen by prospective customers, and according to the number of them.

I do not mean to be unkind to anyone by suggesting that purveyors of stair lifts and incontinence pads, along with pawnbrokers and debt consolidation services, are unlikely to provide enough revenue to subsidise the cost of providing a printed directory only used by those without access to the internet. Furthermore, it would probably need to be in large print and exclude all expensive numbers. Delivery costs would also be high as demand would be likely to be greater from the more remote areas.

I mean no offence by making my point in a slightly edgy manner.