I am no expert in these matters, and I apologise if this is a silly question. I had assumed that the 'justification' for organisations using 0845 numbers was that the technology of 'call-queueing' etc was only available on these numbers. However yesterday I rang my local GP (a geographical number) and immediately joined a queueing system, complete with irritating music. I WAS pleased that the technology was there to tell me what number in the queue I was, something which HMRC seems unwilling to implement.

My question is: can all the benefits of 0845 numbers to a business (other than getting a 'nice little earner') be achieved by the use of a geographical number?

The point about what is available with non-geographic numbers is commonly grossly over-stated, however that is not to say that there is no difference.

Non-geographic numbers do not terminate at a specific local exchange and may therefore be directly connected to complex network-based call handling systems, before calls are ultimately delivered to a destination.

It is possible for calls to geographic numbers to be re-routed to such a system, but this adds complexity, as well as cost.

Network based call handling systems will most likely include use of call queuing, with various degrees of sophistication. In the more sophisticated cases adding advice of queue position would increase the complexity.

For most GP practices the most suitable solution is to handle queueing locally, rather than using the costly complexity of network based systems. A queue of a reasonable size (i.e. duration of wait) could readily be managed on a standard switchboard system with multiple lines.

Those who wish to take advantage of the benefits of non-geographic numbers, but without imposing a Service Charge on callers, may do so using a 03 number. This means that the argument must be made around the Service Charge, not the difference between geographic and non-geographic.

---

May I, wearily, add another point.

I do not believe that anyone "earns money" by answering calls to a 0845 number with a live operator (even if after a considerable delay).

The Service Charge of 2p per minute is initially used to offset the cost of the network facilities deployed. Anything left over could be set against the cost of employing and equipping the person who speaks. I invite anyone to propose a business model that yields revenue for the person providing the service from such a situation.

The Service Charge on 084/087 numbers (answered in person) only provides a subsidy towards the cost of providing the service. In all cases this should be declared and in many cases it is wholly improper. I strongly believe that we must attack misuse of numbers with Service Charges on a proper basis and try to avoid getting caught up in arguments about the definition of accounting terms such as "earnings", "profit" and "revenue".

Weary wrote on Jan 25^th, 2013 at 9:25pm:


The caller's experience is not directly related to the type of number chosen. There can be advantage from choosing a local number, because it may be easier to dial, or use of a non-geographic number may enable the service provider to offer better call handling. In neither case is this guaranteed.

If a non-geographic number is chosen, the service provider has the option of adding a service charge (or making calls free). If a 03 number is chosen then the call cost will be the same as if a geographic number had been chosen - this must be thought of as being the standard.

Clearly a 0845 number disadvantages the caller, over a 03 number.

There are certain anomalies in play at present, but they will be removed once the new arrangements (shortly to be announced) come into effect.

Perhaps the biggest current anomaly relates to 0870 (not 0871/2/3) numbers. Suffice to say that under the new arrangements they will resume their place alongside the other 087 ranges, with a service charge level greater than that which applies to the 084 ranges.

One could say that a caller is advantaged by the choice of a 0845 number, over a 0871 number.


The issue with advising the queue position is an interesting one. Certain complex systems do not have a simple single queue of callers, so there could be a justification in not deploying additional complex technology to establish and update a queue position that would not necessarily advance in a linear manner.

One must remember that for most call centres the cost of handling the call grossly exceeds the revenue earned from keeping a caller waiting. Most call centres would save far more money by persuading callers to give up waiting than they would gain by keeping them hanging on. (Obviously there are other factors to consider.)

There are (rare) cases where wait times are deliberately extended, either to encourage hang-ups or to supplement revenue. I do not believe that this is widespread, as it would only be undertaken in a very crooked environment. There is no reason why such a practice is in any way related to the advice of queue position, or the lack thereof - advising an inflated queue position would be a good way of encouraging hang-ups!