Hi James Bond, I was actually told that the underlying geographical numbers wouldd be "switched off" progressively, starting with some branches in January 09 and being completed by June 09, the intention being that there would be no geo no to discover.   I was also advised that I could ring the call centre and ask to be put through to my branch (far more efficient, of course!!!!!).  In my last, extremely angry, email to the Chief Exec, I did say I might be forced to email him every time I needed to speak to my branch and ask him to arrange for them to phone me (particularly as the only times I ever need to call is because Nationwide has made an error)!   Maybe we should all try that???   I also have the names, email addresses and current geo tel nos of teh Customer Servies and Member Services Managers if anyone would like them.

Barbara wrote on Mar 7^th, 2009 at 3:54pm:

All 08xx numbers have underlying numbers. So the actual "underlying" geographical numbers cannot be "switched off".

I think what they are saying is that the current (or "old") 01/02 numbers will be disabled progressively from January to June 2009.

Dave wrote on Mar 7^th, 2009 at 5:32pm:

This is a very bold statement.

It seems to totally deny the possibility of calls being routed through some internal mechansim, rather than the public network, after arriving at the non-geographic number. We know that the public network is widely used for this purpose and that some geo numbers appear to provide access to the same intelligent network features as offered by non-geos. I am not however sure that we have all the evidence necessary to support so bold a statement.

In answer to Barbara, who also queries this statement. On the day when banks start charging us for storing our money, I will ask for payment for storing theirs.

irrelevant wrote on Mar 7^th, 2009 at 10:20pm:

So you have tried all A&A geographical numbers to prove that no underlying geographical number exists?

One provider I know of has geographical numbers allocated to it that are the underlying numbers to its 08xx numbers. They have the IVR on, just like the 084xs. I strongly suspect that its customers are unaware of these intermediate underlying numbers.

Dave wrote on Mar 7^th, 2009 at 10:36pm:

Hang on a minute, this is getting a bit silly.

The SayNo database contains many useful numbers, many of which could be described as being the “underlying” numbers to those for which they serve as an alternative.

It is a big leap to go from there to the bold assertion that “All 08xx numbers have underlying numbers” and to place the burden of proof on those who cannot accept that leap.

I cannot offer proof that some 08xx numbers do not have underlying numbers, but that does not oblige me to accept that they all do, simply because it can be shown that some do. I stand ready to be convinced one way or the other, however I believe that improper use of revenue sharing numbers needs to tackled at source, even if publication and use of alternatives can be shown to be successful in undermining it.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Mar 8^th, 2009 at 2:29am:



The point I was making was that just because irrelevant hasn't been told about an underlying number does not mean one doesn't exist. To prove either way would be nigh on impossible.

I have no professional knowledge to say either way. All I know is from my experience finding alternative numbers. Geographical numbers do exist for organisations which are not published and which non-geographical numbers point to.

pw4 wrote on Mar 9^th, 2009 at 4:03pm:

Thanks to PW4 for describing what may be one possible arrangement for use of a NGN.

I am not however convinced that this is the only possible type of arrangement, i.e. that all calls to non-geographic numbers are simply routed to a "GN". It is implied, or stated, that the routing of NGN calls is always done at the point of origination using database lookups that provide the GN (or rather the routing that corresponds to a GN). If this were so, then it would indeed be necessary to have a point on the public network (i.e. a GN) to which each call was routed , even if that were not a single point for each NGN.

I have heard talk of an intelligent switch associated with the NGN, which handles and distributes calls as they arrive, possibly holding them to await selection of an option before deciding where to route them. If this alternative method of handling calls to NGNs were used, perhaps only in some cases, then surely there would be the option to route calls over a private network, e.g. using IP, to the point where they are answered, without having to use a GN.

pw4 wrote on Mar 9^th, 2009 at 4:03pm:


Many of the alternative numbers in the "SayNo" database do not offer exactly the same service as those against which they are given. Some could be said to be equivalent to one of PW4s "underlying numbers", and so there is no good reason why these numbers are not in the database - perhaps they are!

I am not sure if anyone believes that every NGN has a GN equivalent as a simple alternative. Life would be so much easier if this were so, but I fear that we have to deal with the sadly complex reality of the world as it is.


On a related, if broader, point, which could be relevant to Nationwide. We all recognise the benefit that publication of alternative numbers can provide to those who use them. Can we offer any example of an organisation that has been forced to abandon one or more revenue sharing numbers, or to itself publish alternatives, as a result of alternatives having been published in the "SayNo" database?

I have read of cases where alternatives have been changed or disconnected. This could be classed as a type of victory, if the numbers were truly valid alternatives, if not it is a shameful defeat. I am thinking of cases where a revenue sharing number has been removed from the database because its presence there, with an alternative, can be shown to have caused it to be abandoned.