Opposition to the proposed change in UK telephone numbers is set to come to a head about now. The changes, due for implementation during the 1994 Easter weekend, require the addition of an extra digit (usually 1) after the initial 0 to all the 30m-odd numbers in Britain. But while no-one disputes that the UK needs more numbers in order to accommodate the boom in facsimile machines, premium services, mobile systems and the like, a powerful lobby is arguing that the change is hasty and ill-conceived. Under the barrage, the Office of Telecommunications watchdog is publicly saying that it has no plans to review the situation, but is privately thought to be wavering. Meanwhile, in the other corner of the ring, the Telecommunications Users Association continues to back the move, saying that a single digit addition is the best way of adding capacity to the numbering plan while minimising disruption to the vast bulk of domestic users. Those against the proposals include the Telecommunications Manufacturers Association, which recently launched a renewed campaign. In a letter sent to the daily and Sunday broad-sheets, David Harrington, the Association’s director general, called for the changes to be put on hold pending the results of the European Commission’s study into numbering which is being carried out by Ovum Ltd. Harrington’s letter was timed to coincide with the release of Ovum’s preliminary findings and a consultative meeting in Brussels. The manufacturers lobby suggests that, as a stop-gap measure, plenty of extra codes can be be found by rationalising the use of area codes – merging areas with few numbers and then re-assigning the freed codes to areas of high growth. The fact that Europe is conducting its own review of telephone numbering holds up the spectre of the UK having to undergo a further re-numbering to keep in line with the continent. However, Ovum’s Brussels presentation suggests that by and large this is a false alarm: the consultants broadly came out against a single European numbering scheme, such as that employed in North America, deeming it both impractical and unlikely to garner support. They even doubt the likelihood of Europe achieving consistent numbering for services such as directory enquiries the exception being a pan-European number for emergency services. Instead, it seems most likely that the European Community initiative will focus on ensuring that newer services such as international Freefone and premium services will be consistently numbered across the continent – and possibly globally. But, while European plans will probably leave the bulk of UK numbering untouched, it would seem prudent, the critics argue, for the UK to avoid setting its plans in concrete until the European Commission reports this summer. Although the Commission’s study has formed a focus for this particular round of protest, it is not the only reason for opposition. Particularly vocal has been Manufacturers Association member Richard Cox, an independent consultant with Mandarin Technology Ltd who has consistently argued that the change in numbering scheme will severely hit manufacturers of telephony products for the UK, many of which use the existing four digit area codes to calculate billing information. Cox accuses British Telecommunications Plc of giving its user equipment business an unfair advantage, by ensuring that its own PABXs, for example, have been designed to cope with longer codes, while the rest of the industry continued to assume that four-digit area codes were the norm. To be fair, the current number pattern has never been enshrined in any formal standard, and BT would no doubt argue that the assumption of a four-digit code for routing information was ill-advised. However, the practical upshot of the proposed change is that a wide range of devices – from the smart boxes that route long distance calls to Mercury Communications Ltd, to PABXs with call barring – will need expensive modification to work. Cox’s message is simple – the country should wait to see what the Commission does and then lay down a st
andard for numbering in the UK which would come in force once manufacturers had been given time to get their act together. In the meantime he too proposes that under-used national numbering groups (area codes) such as those belonging to villages, are merged, with the freed codes being re-assigned to those areas where numbers are in short supply. It may be a nice idea from the manufacturers point of view, but it is not particularly attractive for the inhabitants of said small villages who will have to change their codes.
Dial an extra digit
This is the view of Vivienne Peters, chief executive of the Telecommunications Users Association. Ms Peters was one of the first supporters of the BT-Oftel proposals and now, despite finding herself on the opposing side of a concerted campaign to have it scrapped, is still sticking to her guns. Ms Peters believes that given the choice between having to dial an extra digit, or a piecemeal merging of codes pending a proper evaluation, most users would go for the former. It will be a busy seven days. The Manufacturers Association recently scheduled an internal meeting to discuss further moves and our sister publication, Network Week, has learned that another meeting of minds will be taking place between some of the chief protagonists in the debate. Details will follow in due course.
