SilentCallsVictim wrote on Aug 4^th, 2009 at 10:28am:

Is this a suggestion that the Department of Health might wish to pay QX Telecom to 'rent' or 'own' this service (the 01635 number) when QX itself operates this number at, one assumes, a profit? This would seem to me to be, by definition, encouraging profiteering at the taxpayer's expense.

Or is it a suggestion that the provider might like to share some of its profits from calls to the number with the DH in return for the wider publication of the number and hence more calls to it? Remember that the DH incurs extra charges for receiving calls on the 0800 number, so any revenue it would get is coming from its own budget anyway.

This leaves two other possibilities:

1. The DH pay QX Telecom to point this number directly to the DH's "digital line", assuming that the system is setup in this way and assuming that there is no "termination charge" for connecting in this way.

2. The DH requests that the provider it uses to provide the 0800 number (probably BT) sets up a 01/02/03 number to run in parallel with it.

---

The 01635 number service itself, provided by a third party, is just what I term a "secondary origination" service. That is, in simple terms, its provider receives the call and puts another call out to the 0800 number (originates a second call). It is the surcharge made by some operators for 0800 calls that makes it worthwhile callers to call via the 01635 number.

In effect, the 01635 number reduces the level of that surcharge and in so doing shares part of what's left with another provider.

There are different classes of alternatives. The best are those which are provided by the organisations themselves. For example, the AA has published geographical numbers for member services and breakdown callouts. These answer with the same IVR as their respective 08 NGNs, and as they are provided by the AA, it is far less likely that they may be disabled at any time, even if it stops promoting them.

So if the DH was to release an 01/02/03 alternative, then this would replace the 01635 from QX Telecom in the SAYNOTO0870.COM database. In so doing it would save the DH the cost of receiving calls on the 0800 number for calls originated to the 01635 alternative.

Clearly, there is no guarantee from the DH that the 01635 numbers will remain. So all in all, the ball is in the DH's court to provide a 01/02/03 alternative.

qxtelecom wrote on Aug 6^th, 2009 at 9:45am:
Thanks to yourself and Dave for confirming my understanding about the way that the "redirect to 0800" geo numbers work and possible alternative more advanced ways of addressing the particular situation.

The Department of Health would have probably thought it unnecessary to provide alternatives for the NPFS and swine flu helpline numbers, given the arrangements that were made, by the THA, with the mobile operators, in BOTH CASES.

As a result of a telephone conversation, I have to correct a false assumption that I have been propagating. When the NPFS number was being setup, the Telephone Helplines Association managed to gain agreement to a variation of its standing arrangement with the mobile companies in two respects. Firstly, this service, although "transactional" rather than falling within the previously strict definition of a "helpline" that dispenses only advice, was included in the formal scheme. Secondly, all of the mobile providers agreed to waive their charges on this 0800 number, not just the few who always extend their offer to THA members beyond the 0808 80 range. The NPFS number is therefore formally within the (extended) THA scheme. No credit for this work has been given to the THA in the media, and it was only today that I was able to get the full story. I must apologise for perhaps misleading people previously.


It is disappointing that QX Telecom cannot be rewarded for spotting the need for a geo alternative, by being given the contract to provide the direct connection service that would be the best deal for the NHS to address those cases where mobile users do not waive their charges. Refusal of such an offer would leave QX morally in the clear when earning money from redirected calls. It has the traffic data that would be useful to the Department of Health in determining the need for a geo alternative, which is why it could be in the best position to be the "someone" referred to.


As there is generally a hole in the THA scheme for those members who use 0800 nmbers (rather than 0808 80), there could be an opportunity for QX to make a suitable arrangement with the THA and its members to fill that gap in the most appropriate way. I understand that the THA would be open to an approach regarding the possibility of setting up dedicated "rediect to 0800" numbers for THA members in this situation. The best option for THA members is to adopt a 0808 80 number. We are therefore talking about cases where there is a particular reason to use 0800, so a non-ideal solution would be worth considering.

qxtelecom wrote on Aug 6^th, 2009 at 1:13pm:
I am sure that we all fully understand these perfectly valid practical points, however they do not address the idea that I raised.

In theory then, would the NHS be likely to save money if it were to rent the geo redirect number (as currently configured) at a fair commercial rate, so that it was effectively paying itself on receiving redirected calls to the 0800 NPFS number?

That money is, in effect, currently swelling the coffers of QX. In my view, every business earns money by doing "good things" for people, by some definition, and thereby is essentially morally neutral. That does not however stop us from making moral judgements about particular activitivies and actions, as if they were performed by a person. Some would say that profiting unnecessarily from calls to the NHS is questionable, even if the underlying fault is with those charged with its management, and even if the activity saves patients money. Please understand that this is a comment thrown into the air in a public discussion forum, I see no need for it to be responded to with a "Yes, but ..." moral defence that seeks to strike a balance on relative grounds. Indeed, there is no demand for any response.

qxtelecom wrote on Aug 6^th, 2009 at 4:02pm: