I'm sorry; my knowledge of telecoms is mostly technical, and from an interested-observer point of view - I have no inside knowledge.  My political and campaigning skills are zero and I happily defer to those whom are much better at it.

My impression is that many of those whom have been sold 08 numbers have been done so by unscrupulous salespersons who sell on the basis of the income available, and gloss over, or just lie about, the additional costs for callers.  Also, they have become so common, and the untruths ("local call rate" etc) so often quoted, that there's a fair amount of "well if they can do it, so can I" too.  Nobody tells them that it can put off customers from calling...

Whilst it is true that 01/02 numbers can be linked to all the same call handling facilities as NGN numbers, to add this to an existing number can involve some technical trickery, as the standard BT exchanges do not generally support it - either additional equipment would need to be installed in-house, or the number would have to be ported to another operator who can handle it, either of which might involve some downtime at point of changeover.

Supply of a new number of any sort avoids this, of course, as it can be set up in parallel first.  And operators will push 08* numbers as their cut is much higher, and it gives them enough margin to cover the cost of forwarding the call back to the existing 01/02 number, so making setup far easier.  This is why we usually find geographic numbers behind NGN numbers.

The only benefits of 03 over using a geographic number that I can see are:
- it'll slot right into existing NGN providers infrastructure
- it still provides geographic anonymity (and no need for providers to get allocations in every area code)
- migration options, e.g. 0845->0345 to make changing over numerically simpler.
- plus the smaller benefit of having enough new numbers available to find a memorable one.

I think the second of these is the most important.  Despite everything, there is still a perceived disadvantage of calling "long distance" among a large segment of the population.  03, like the original intent of 0845, addresses this.

Obviously in the case of a local business serving a local area, be that John Smith the Blacksmith, or Transport for London, people would expect them to be on a "local" (ie, relevant are code) number.   Having an NGN can be counter-productive.  I've called businesses with NGNs that are not able to help me as I've turned out to be out of their area!  Obviously if they had real numbers, I'd have been able to tell this before I called.

I think there is a case for educating the people in businesses whom get sold NGNs about the true facts.  It's too easy for them to be blinded by the pound signs in their eyes, letting them be taken in by the salespersons.  What use is being told that 0844 is only 5p/min from a BT landline when your target audience is going to be calling from mobiles or payphones at between 20 and 40p/min?   I wonder how much clout the ASA could have in this - they already rule against incorrect pricing; would they be amenable to a suggestion that pricing should be "appropriate" too - i.e. if the callers are expected to be mobile users, then typical mobile pricing should be quoted rather than landline pricing ..  Anybody got any feelers into them?


Sorry this has been a bit of a ramble..

Returning to an earlier point made in this thread, if one of the reasons for using 0843 is to be able to increase automation and reduce the number of operators is this not, too, against consumer interests?   Surely the main reason to phone TfL (certainly when I have called them) is because I want to speak to a PERSON as I have a specific question which may also generate a follow-up query?   If generalised automated information was sufficient, surely their website or a leaflet would be adequate?   Hence another reason why 0843 would be a VERY BAD THING if it leads to less opportunity for human contact!

There's a new tube map to be published around December 9th/16th (I believe) and then again in March.


I'd guess any change would occur at one of those points.

Source: Evening Standard

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23777011-tfl-to-charge-40p-a-minu...

<<
TfL to charge 40p a minute for travel information

Katharine Barney, City Hall Reporter
30.11.09

Bosses at Transport for London are facing a public backlash over plans to make passengers pay more for travel information by phone.

The company wants to change its telephone information line to a higher rate number which means it will receive part of the money from the cost of the call.

Currently passengers call an 020 7 number but this is to be changed to an 0843 number - against the advice of telephone regulator Ofcom.

Callers from pre pay mobiles will now be charged 40p per minute rather than 20p. On a land line it will cost 3-5p, similar to its current level.

Passenger watchdog London Travelwatch condemned the moveand said it was preparing a report.

A spokeswoman said: "Passengers should be able to call on a low cost number and not have to pay any more."

Members of the London Assembly's transport committee also criticised the number change as "outrageous" that would hurt the poorest the most.

Labour member Val Shawcross said: "People logged onto a computer will normally be able to find the information they need free of charge, but if you think about the poor pensioners who want to make a trip - it could cost them quite a lot of money."

TfL has also switched the number used by buskers to book pitches to an 084 number which is said to cost up to £20 a week.

A spokesman for TfL defended the move, saying that it was being made so an automated service could be implemented.

He claimed that some customers would pay less as TfL would be able to handle a greater volume of calls.

TfL's public affairs manager Graham Orr said in an email: "Through the percentage of the call income we receive, TfL will only cover the cost of providing our services - we are not making a 'profit'."
>>

Maybe it's the cynic in me, but one wonders if TfL are thinking of the massive amount of revenue they could generate from transport-related calls during the Olympics?

So far there is no other mention of the new number other than here and on Money Saving Expert.

Keep an eye on:   http://www.google.com/search?num=100&q=%220843+222+1234%22

I am not sure why you think my statement disagrees with yours.

So far, the number has not been publicised by TfL on the web. Keep an eye on that search for the first indications of any mention so that swift action can be taken in complaining about it. However, do also complain about it before it happens because scrapping the 020 number would be a stupid move.

irrelevant wrote on Nov 27^th, 2009 at 6:13pm:

Not wishing to defend the use of rip-off numbers, but I have to say I doubt changing those places you mention to reflect the new numbers will cost that much. Signs and maps are replaced all the time. They release new versions of the maps several times every year, for example for the new Circle Line service starting next week. All the posters at tube stations will have to be changed anyway. It'll be interesting to see if the new number is on them!

Although I travel to London fairly frequently, I've never seen the need to call any phone number (likewise for National Rail enquiries). It's claimed it costs 40p from mobiles, but show me a mobile nowadays that can't access the web or at least WAP. There's no point making a phone call just to use an automated system (not that the call operatives on this sort of phoneline usually provide much more help than a machine anyway). Perhaps there should be a new campaign site to teach people how to use their mobile phone properly to find information instead of dialling rip-off numbers.

If it's between charging people to call the phoneline or increasing my London transport costs, I'm afraid I'm for the former. They should be honest and make it an 09 premium rate number, though, not a covert 0843 number so that most people won't have a clue of the cost.