Great news, spoilt only by the beeb showing and announcing the number as 0207  008 etc.
Does no-one care enough to make life easier for the caller? Or do we really want three and more codes for London (0203, 0207 and 0208)?
Sorry, silly question.
Mind you BT has forgotten that 028 is the code for NI and persists in giving five digit codes starting 028.

I have sent the following enquiry to the Foreign Office under the heading "Freedom of Informatiom : ---

"REGARDING YOUR EMERGENCY PHONE NUMBER FOR THE PHUKET AIR CRASH 02070080000 ---
I wish to express my appreciation for your use of a normal geographic telephone number.  This is the only recent example that I can recall of a Government Department or Agency NOT using a NTS (Number Translation Service) number such as 0844, 0845 or 0870 in similar circumstances.

I would like to ask : ---
1. What are the reasons for choosing to use a geographic number?
2. Did you consider using a NTS number?   Why did you reject this idea?
3. Did you consider using a 0800 freephone number?   Why did you reject this idea?
4. Did you make any special technical arrangements to enable your geographic number to be used?
5. How many telephone lines are routed to your destination geographic number?
6. Did a phone call queue develop at any time?   What was the maximum length of the queue?   How long a queue could the system handle potentially?   Did you make any technical arrangements to handle a call queue?  
7. How many calls have you handled via this number?
8. Did you have any technical or administrative problems associated with the use of this number?
9. Will a geographic number be used in the future and do you have a policy which governs the choice of numbers to be used in similar circumstances?

I  wish to thank you in advance for your answers and to repeat my appreciation for your decision to use a geographic phone number on this occasion."

loddon wrote on Sep 17^th, 2007 at 9:46am:


They do the right thing and you still send them an FOI.  They must be asking what else they have to do now.

I suppose your aim is to use their responses to shoot down the excuses of other government departments like DVLA or Inland Revenue for not using GNs.  Or indeed other NGNs operated by the FCO.

By the way I have managed to watch the Points West video now.  It didn't give the URL so hence why it only picked up about 2.500 signatures from those able to work Google or who already knew how to find the petitions website.

If you enter "020 7008" and "contact centre" in Google you will find the FCO has a number of different 020 7008 contact lines.

It seems the use of 020 7008 0000 by the FCO is more than a couple of years old:-

See www.voipvox.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=42453&page=2

It would be interesting to know which telecoms provider these number blocks are actually allocated to.  I expect Dave can help us out there.

bbb_uk wrote on Sep 17^th, 2007 at 12:10pm:


I seem to remember hearing of them before in connection with NGNs but in a more negative context.

A quick look at their website suggests that they provide a similar range of outsourced business solutions to the BBC's 0870 partners in crime - Capita Solutions.

Nice to know that they can come up with a GN solution if their clients demand that they do so.

loddon wrote on Sep 17^th, 2007 at 11:18am:


I have received a most polite response from the FO saying about my questions  "in fact we are going to treat them as Business as Usual; as they are quite general questions. We have past your request on to the relevant Section within the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, who will be in touch shortly."

I have received this reply to my 10 questions : ----


1. What are the reasons for choosing to use a geographic number?  

             020-7008-0000        was  chosen as a particularly memorable number and  was  reserved for  emergency use when the FCO changed its number range in late 1999.  (This change was required as our existing range of numbers was about to run dry due to increased staffing levels and demand for more telephones.)  

2. Did you consider using a NTS number? Why did you reject this idea?  

It has been considered in the past.  However, it is often perceived by the public  that any local or national rate calls have a premium applied resulting in some form of profit for the FCO.  Calls to London numbers can potentially vary in cost by being local or national (geography) and by time and day of call.  However, local rate numbers would generally apply a slightly higher tariff across the board.

3. Did you consider using a 0800 freephone number? Why did you reject this idea?  

We have focused our efforts on increasing our call handling capacity to reduce waiting times before speaking to a call handler. We would expect free calls to increase the volume (partly by attracting callers who would otherwise have called the Travel Advice line). An increased demand would increase waiting times for all callers, including those calling about people who are highly likely to be involved in the disaster and so would not be in the best interests of those worst affected.  Given the potential to increase unnecessary calls, we decided offering a freephone number did not represents value for money.  However, we intend to review all options at regular intervals to take account of changing circumstances.  

4. Did you make any special technical arrangements to enable your geographic number to be used?  

No, it fronts an automated call distribution system (ACD) but is one of 8,000 "7008" DDI numbers the FCO telecom section in London manage.

5. How many telephone lines are routed to your destination geographic number?  

In terms of potential numbers of operators, there could be as many as 70.  In terms of how many lines or "trunks" that are available to queue inward calls, this figure is around 300, with some overspill managed via telephone exchanges elsewhere on the MTS network that can then find there way to the FCO over alternate private wire routes.  However, we cap the maximum amount of potential queuing calls depending on the number of staff available to handle the calls.  We believe it is more acceptable to receive a number busy tone and after a number of redials have perhaps several minutes queuing as opposed to getting straight through and maybe waiting up to an hour for the call to be answered.  If it is clear that an incident is going to be larger than  the Consulars facilities are designed to handle,  we have standing arrangements with the Police to divert the call management to  them using their National Mutual Aid Telephony (through which 650 call handlers can be available within 4-8hrs).  

6. Did a phone call queue develop at any time? What was the maximum length of the queue? How long a queue could the system handle potentially? Did you make any technical arrangements to handle a call queue?  

Yes, there were queues.  At the peak, waiting time was as long as 8 1/2 minutes, but these were exceptions.  Average call wait was less than 3 minutes.  Peak queues matched the times of nationwide news broadcasts on BBC and ITV.  Almost 900 calls were processed in the first 6 hours of operation (16th Sep 07 18:00 - 0:00)  We can set the max queue (by number of callers, not time) from zero to several hundred.  This can be adjusted in real time based on the degree of difficulty and time taken handling calls.  Many operators and short call times equals a larger queue capacity and this scalable figure is revisable by the telecom manager.  No special arrangements were in place to handle the call queue as the ACD is in a state of readiness.

7. How many calls have you handled via this number?

For this (Phuket) incident:  

16/9 - 885 calls
17/9 - 1371 calls
18/9 -  97 calls

The same system has been used (albeit in a different location) since late 1999.

8. Did you have any technical or administrative problems associated with the use of this number?  

There was an unforeseen fault with producing real-time stats due to a computer fault.  This has now been corrected and did not hamper the ability for people to call in or for operators to process calls.

9. Will a geographic number be used in the future and do you have a policy which governs the choice of numbers to be used in similar circumstances?

On current working practices we would look to publish a geographic number if there is a need for an emergency number for families who believe their loved ones to be involved in a disaster overseas. We may in future review our call handling procedures, but have no current plans to switch to a non-geographic number.

10. Did you consider using an 03 number? Why did you reject the idea?  

Consideration hasn't been given at this time , but it may be considered in the future .  030 range is still very new and not widely known by the public.  Range may become familiar in the future.  Potential users are limited to Government and non-profit making organisations only.