redant wrote on Apr 30^th, 2009 at 7:55am:

A comon misconception I'm afraid.  For those with a BT residential landline, 0845 calls are only included within their calls plan (i.e. weekends only for those on the Unlimited Weekend Plan, evenings and weekends only for those on the Unlimited Evenings & Weekend Plan and at any time those on the Unlimited Anytime Plan).

I any case, 0845 4 24 24 24 is the number for NHS 24 which appears to be the Scottish equivalent of the NHS Direct number, 0845 46 47, rather than a specific swine flu information number.

However, the TV advert shows a freephone number -

0800 1 513 513

.

I suspect that the government may have words with the operators to ensure this is one of the 0800 numbers that isn't charged.

It seems to me that, these days, there isn't really any incentive to offer an 0800 number - 03 is either free or a normal geographic call cost to the caller, and to the receiver, it is a lot less to pay per call than an 0800 number. However, I suspect that is veering into OT territory...

As it stands, it seems odd that the NHS (which seems to *finally* be transferring to 03 numbers) has opted for an 0800 number in this case.

The 0800 1 513513 number is free from mobiles, similar to charities (and indeed the NHS stop smoking helpline).  I imagine the government came to some kind of special arrangement with the networks.  When the number is called from an Orange mobile, there isn't the usual message informing you that your account will be charged (as is the case for other 0800 numbers), so the number does indeed appear to be free...

gazchaps wrote on May 4^th, 2009 at 5:56pm:


This may be the case and as SCV has reported special arrangements have been hastily made to waive charges for calls from (most) mobiles ............ but I say all this is utterly useless.

I know several people who would not call that number from a mobile because 0800s are normally so expensive.    Therefore these arrangements will only be of any value if people are told, and assured, that such calls will not be charged for.    I have searched high and low for any document or website giving this number which tells people that this number is free from mobiles.   I have NOT found one.  Even if I had found one, would it have made clear on which mobile networks it is free and on which it is charged?   I very much doubt it.

Who is to blame for this pathetic incompetent shambles?    DH, Ofcon, phone companies?   I reckon it is primarily OFcon for presiding over an unnecessarily complicated and confusing numbering regime in this country and doing nothing to clarify it.

loddon wrote on Jun 24^th, 2009 at 3:04pm:

loddon, I agree with you totally on this one.

I feel that there is distrust in telephone charging, particularly with different numbers. Organisations persistantly mislead consumers on the cost of calling 084/087 numbers with "local rate" and so on. It's like the boy who cried wolf too many times.

So why should they believe the DH now, when it says that this helpline is free from most mobiles?

loddon wrote on Jun 25^th, 2009 at 12:11am:


My point was that if the DH had taken the initiative, then launch of a 0808 80 swine flu helpline number, free from landlines and mobiles (a few exceptions to be mentioned in the small print), could have been used to draw public attention to the THA scheme.

loddon wrote on Jun 25^th, 2009 at 12:11am:


I agree that Ofcom misrepresents its role and the extent of its powers, fails to discharge its two distinct statutory duties and makes many mistakes, even when well-intentioned. Because one of its duties is to further the interests of consumers in a competitive market served by businesses that must first serve the interests of their shareholders, it is bound to "fail". There can be no perfect point of balance between these conflicting sets of interests.

On this specific issue, and other issues of numbering, it is easy to criticise by saying that one would not have chosen to start from where we are. Every revision to the numbering scheme has to be layered on top of what already exists. For those who campaign seeking change for the better, we have to accept the realities of the world as it is. If we see Ofcon (an independent public sector regulator) as incapable of helping, then we must propose some alternative means of securing our objectives.

A government-owned monopoly provider would seem to be the only way of providing the desired simplicity and assurance of a fair deal for consumers. Taxpayers are the only type of shareholder that can be expected to sacrifice their interests to those of consumers.

This would however be a highly Political move. Given the intolerance of state intervention shown by the EU it is hard to find a political party that would propose such an approach. Any suggestions?

One has a similar problem looking for someone calling for the tighter regulation on business that is being sought.