This is a good question and not one I can answer with any degree of certainty.

In order to prove either way, there would need to be a level of technical understanding and perhaps different systems (networks) work in different ways and therefore perhaps some might not have alternatives should they be able to function in some other way.

However, to relate this to the Freedom of Information Act, the question is more on of asking the body in question what the alternative is that it knows. So if there is an alternative but it is only known to the body's provider (and not the body itself), then I think that it won't be covered by FoI. Someone with a greater understanding of the Act could perhaps clarify.

It has given an explanation of how it works, and I presume that such information would have to be tested under FoI; is disclosure in the public interest? So even though the position presented is that there is no geographic number, the test is still necessary.

As you say, Alan1, it is the policy of choosing to impose a modest fee for this service, but in a way that causes excessive additional costs to be incurred, that needs to be examined.

Putting the service on a 0844 number was probably proposed as being a cheap way of providing it, with the cost to callers probably misrepresented - this is commonly what happens, although one obviously cannot make any allegation against the particular provider in this case.


My understanding of the way that non-geographic numbers operate is that they terminate on what is known as an "intelligent switch", which can route calls according to any number of rules to any type of destination. If the calls are routed over the PSTN (public switched telephone network) then a "geographic" number is required. Where the destination is one or more business establishments, then the PSTN may well provide the most sensible and flexible way of doing this - and so there are what are known as "underlying numbers".

In this case, where the destination is a recorded information service operated by the telephone company, there would seem to be no need to use the PSTN beyond the switch, so there need be no "underlying number".


Because the essential purpose of the FOI request is to open up access to the service without providing the subsidy obtained through use of a revenue sharing 0844 number, it is easy for the respondent to argue that this would not be in the public interest. Regardless of whether the information is held, this is the point of contention.


My personal view is that a public service provider is quite entitled to attempt to justify the imposition of a charge to access a service - I would rather they did so instead of trying to pretend that it does not exist. Because of the way that revenue sharing numbers work at present, I cannot see any argument for this means of levying a charge being sustained in the context of a public service. The fundamental principles of equity, which must apply to any public service, have to be set aside in offering a justification.