I did an FoI request re the Lake District weather line, an 0844, and the answer came back that it there was no underlying geo number.  Is this likely to be true?  I am not a regular on these boards, but I do recall seeing it asserted here some time ago that there is always an underlying geo number.  Here's what they say:


Quote:

'Contrary to Mr [...]'s view that there 'must be a 01- or 02- geographic number' to which our weatherline number (0844 846 2444) points, I can now state categorically that no such number exists. To quote our telecoms service provider, "The telephone number 0844 846 2444 points to a Cable&Wireless virtual mailbox, which in turn points to an internal Cable&Wireless routing code to access the Cable&Wireless Announce Control and Cable&Wireless Message Control services. So it's quite straightforward: 08448462444 >> internal Cable&Wireless routing code >> recorded message."

Other parts of the FoI request and its response relate to issues of whether disclosure would be in the public interest, but if there is no geo number to disclose then the point is moot.  I could post it in full on the FoI board, but will only do so if there is any good reason to doubt what they say about there not being a geo number.

Thanks.

This is a good question and not one I can answer with any degree of certainty.

In order to prove either way, there would need to be a level of technical understanding and perhaps different systems (networks) work in different ways and therefore perhaps some might not have alternatives should they be able to function in some other way.

However, to relate this to the Freedom of Information Act, the question is more on of asking the body in question what the alternative is that it knows. So if there is an alternative but it is only known to the body's provider (and not the body itself), then I think that it won't be covered by FoI. Someone with a greater understanding of the Act could perhaps clarify.

It has given an explanation of how it works, and I presume that such information would have to be tested under FoI; is disclosure in the public interest? So even though the position presented is that there is no geographic number, the test is still necessary.

Thanks. I'd still be interested if anyone else can shed any more light on the original question.

I believe that info held by the telco rather than by the authority itself is still covered, because of what paragraph 3(2) of the Act says (see http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/36/section/3). Indeed, when they initially just responded that they themselves don't have the information, and I replied to point this out, they seemed to accept this because they then actually went and checked with the telco.

I still think that it would be in the public interest to provide a cheaper alternative, because there are clear safety benefits in people getting a mountain weather forecast before going into the hills, and a high call cost may deter people from doing so (e.g. it's 40p/minute on my tariff as compared to 12p/minute to a geo, and all for the sake of about 1p/minute of income that the National Park Authority say it generates). But if they are right about there being no geographic number, then providing a cheaper alternative is not just a case of releasing information but would require an actual change to the system.

As you say, Alan1, it is the policy of choosing to impose a modest fee for this service, but in a way that causes excessive additional costs to be incurred, that needs to be examined.

Putting the service on a 0844 number was probably proposed as being a cheap way of providing it, with the cost to callers probably misrepresented - this is commonly what happens, although one obviously cannot make any allegation against the particular provider in this case.


My understanding of the way that non-geographic numbers operate is that they terminate on what is known as an "intelligent switch", which can route calls according to any number of rules to any type of destination. If the calls are routed over the PSTN (public switched telephone network) then a "geographic" number is required. Where the destination is one or more business establishments, then the PSTN may well provide the most sensible and flexible way of doing this - and so there are what are known as "underlying numbers".

In this case, where the destination is a recorded information service operated by the telephone company, there would seem to be no need to use the PSTN beyond the switch, so there need be no "underlying number".


Because the essential purpose of the FOI request is to open up access to the service without providing the subsidy obtained through use of a revenue sharing 0844 number, it is easy for the respondent to argue that this would not be in the public interest. Regardless of whether the information is held, this is the point of contention.


My personal view is that a public service provider is quite entitled to attempt to justify the imposition of a charge to access a service - I would rather they did so instead of trying to pretend that it does not exist. Because of the way that revenue sharing numbers work at present, I cannot see any argument for this means of levying a charge being sustained in the context of a public service. The fundamental principles of equity, which must apply to any public service, have to be set aside in offering a justification.

Thanks for your help, SilentCallsVictim.

I have now discovered that the Met Office give out a geographical number for their contact centre (01392 885680) and if you don't have internet access you can phone them up for a forecast.  This is according to http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/loutdoor/mountainsafety/mountaincall.html and also I phoned them and they confirmed that people are welcome to do so. Comparing their website with the National Park Authority's Weatherline one, it is the same forecast. Obviously it helps if people make a reasonable attempt to use the web before resorting to phoning the Met Office for a forecast, but I found in the Lakes that I often couldn't get a GPRS signal at times when I could still make ordinary phonecalls (even after I'd paid an extra £5 to have internet for the month), a fact that seemed to be lost on the NPA when they told me that people could use the internet from mobiles to get a free service.

I agree entirely that an 0844 isn't an appropriate mechanism for levying a charge.  Levying a small charge is reasonable, and indeed, I wouldn't object to a charge if it didn't create such disproportionate costs, but 40p/minute is quite possibly enough to put people off getting a forecast, and the mountain rescue teams are forever having to deal with people who went out ill-prepared for the conditions.  I said to the NPA that an alternative would be to have a short advert at the start of the recorded message, just as they already have adverts on their website; the cost to the caller of sitting through a short advert would in most cases be a lot less than having the entire call on a much more expensive number.