Dave wrote on Jul 24^th, 2009 at 10:34pm:

We may never know whether both the Times and the Telegraph were correct.
Perhaps the former only based its story on experience whereas the latter challenged Vodafone directly - "will not be" is not the same as "have not been".

Journalists, including the author of the Telegraph item, were invited to check this out, along with the position regarding the others.

It may be that media pressure has done the trick.

irrelevant wrote on Jul 25^th, 2009 at 12:21pm:

That's a very good point. I've removed these entries.

I thought members would be interested in this


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1202197/Swine-flu-turboshandy-bugs-Taste...

OK - I have managed to speak to Dave and to explain the story about the 01635 to swine flu number...

Basically, we read about the article in Telegraph / Times in the morning and thought an alternative 01635 would be useful for some. We also emailed the 01635 set to the media. Vodafone relented later on, so, I suppose they didn't bother with it.

I can confirm that all big 5 operators have waived charges to the 08001 513 513 number as it is now in the so-called THA list.  (I have tested on 3 and VirginMobile as well. You don't even need credit in PAYG to call the 0800).  However, some MVNO may still charge for it.

Unfortunately, the Northern Ireland version of the 0800 number 0800 0514142 is still currently chargable from all network operators.

The other use would be for people on Holiday Abroad and have trouble reaching the 0800 number.

The 01635 were setup as a simple NTS service and were meant to be as an alternative to whoever where it may be of use (obviously, I missed the potential concern bits).

Any views (enhancement/warning) - let me know.  If there is a demand, we can also setup a 03 set.


Thanks
Steven @ QX Telecom

Strangely, 0800 cost the Goverment MOST, and cost mobile callers (OK - now all being made free from mobiles after inclusion of the 0800, except the N. Ireland one) even more.

0800 might have cost the government around 2p/min (given the volume). If they have used 03, it might have caused them 1p/min or nothing.  They could even have published both 03/08 numbers (the cost of having 2 numbers pointing down the same digital line is absolutely minimal).  I am sure the intention of setting up 0800 numbers is noble (they thought it was free to callers, but have not though of mobiles, calling from overseas), but obviously the NHS IT manager who set this up lack understanding of how the real world telecom market works...

Hi SilentcallVictim,

I think you are too skeptical.

I have no insight (and we don't supply anything to the NHS) into the NHS decision making process. It might well be that the NHS managers, with their good intention, decided to use 0800 thinking that it is cheaper for people to call them.  

Both the UK 0800 1 513 513 / 100 are in the THA list as far as I am ware. The NI one isn't.
As to why NHS does not tell THA to include the number that you mentioned (which number anyway?), ask NHS or your MP OK ?

And no, we don't own the mobile phone operators (!) either so we don't make profit from the charges they apply.

The Swine Flu Helpline was launched ineptly disregarding the situation of calls from mobiles. As it obviously qualified for the THA scheme, it was swiftly added to the list within hours of its launch. Because the NPFS number is not a “helpline”, but a “transactional” service, it does not formally qualify for the THA scheme to which the mobile companies are committed. Each therefore had to be persuaded to waive their charges through a series of individual (or possibly collective) negotiations.

(The THA is a charity independent of government, parliament and any government agency, which has brokered an arrangement with the mobile companies for its members. I cannot think where the idea that it can take orders from the NHS and compel telcos to follow its instructions comes from.)



0800 and 03 were the only options considered for the NPFS number. The Department of Health had numbers from each of these ranges still held ready on the morning of the day that the service was launched. Announcement of the number was delayed by several hours past the planned time, for reasons that have not been declared. There could have been problems with the website, however I am prepared to believe that last minute pressure was being put on the mobile companies to agree to waive their charges before the final choice of the number was made. The launch went ahead without Vodafone signed up. Once media pressure had been applied, Vodafone succumbed.

This is partly-informed speculation. If anyone else knows any better, please correct me.


I am very disappointed that there was insufficient courage to adopt a 03 number, as I was lobbying for this with all my energies (I did not believe that it would be possible to persuade the mobiles to waive their charges without some recompense). In the present situation, which we hope to see changed in the near future, adopting 03 would have been a brave move in this high profile panic-ridden case.

There remains a low level of public awareness of 03 numbers and this number needed to be relatively “safe”, given all the other issues flying around. Because there was near (and later, total) success in getting the major mobile companies to waive their charges (at no extra cost to the public purse), offering a 03 number in addition, as an alternative with the necessary explanation and the potential for confusion and misunderstanding, and for little or no purpose, would, I believe, have been very foolish.

Looking at the whole decision, I suspect that the marginal additional cost to the taxpayer of 0800 vs. 03, in the context of the overall cost of the service, would be insignificant - I would expect the total cost of handling each call to be, on average, several pounds. Considering the possible cost and effort involved in explaining that a 03 number is not one of these rip-off numbers that some people keep moaning about (albeit rightly), not to mention the public detriment of the potential confusion and misunderstanding for those unfamiliar with 03, it is hard to criticise the decision.

There is the further problem caused if a 0300 number had been chosen, because one might have to explain that although it looks like 0800, it is not free for all landline callers. Any 03 number is cheaper than normal 0800 numbers (but not the Swine Flu Helpline) for all mobile callers. 03 calls are however free if made when an inclusive package is in effect, so people could call for free at the weekend, in the evening or at the weekend, or at any time, according to the terms of their package. The chances of all this having been properly conveyed throughout the media at the time would be zero. As I say, I am disappointed, but I can understand why the simpler option was chosen.


It is disappointing that the DHSSPSNI has not simply registered its helpline with the THA, as there seems to be no reason why it would not qualify. Those with the opportunity to do so should make strong representations on this point.

---

Regarding the possible response to my two questions. The first appears not to have been addressed, so “NO” is a reasonable assumption. “We don’t supply anything to the NHS” suggests that “NO” must be the answer to the second, as I stated previously.

The alleged ignorance of the real world telecoms market that is attributed to some NHS IT manager is also applied to myself. I do not recognise that to make profit on calls passed through a 01635 number to a 0800 number one has to own the mobile phone operators. Furthermore, I am not aware that the money paid to the owner of the 01635 number by the owner of the 0800 number is a charge set by the mobile phone operators.

I have re-read my second question and cannot see how it could be fairly misunderstood. I will not however make a counter-allegation of ignorance against someone’s understanding of their own business. It is for those who read these exchanges to draw their own conclusions from the comments made.