freephone goes invisible

8/14/2019 Freephone Goes Invisible

1/4

This morning I was watching one ofthe trans-European tv shopping channels: ordering a product

was easy - all I needed to do was ring up, give my credit- or debit-card number and delivery

address. And how did I know where to ring? Periodically, the numbers were displayed on screen.

The ordering information was 'Shown with each country represented by its flag and one-, two- or

three-letter country code ('CH' for Switzerland, 'F' for France, 'IRL' for Ireland, and so on).

Alongside these were that country's freephone access number to the main 'call centre'. So, before

I could even dial, I had to be able to recognize the relevant flag and/or code. With as many as

thirteen flags on the screen that's by no means simple. For example, if I am English and watching

in Germany, I need to be able to work out which stripes belong to the German flag - or to know

the country code (is it 'G' or 'GR'? Neither, it's 'D'). By the time I have worked all that out, and

started squinting at the numbers, the program has moved on to the next item!

It isn't easy for the companies, either: they must negotiate and register freephone access with

operators in each of the countries from which they need access, and that can be both time-

consuming and costly. They have also to tell customers all the access numbers, with the result

that frequent travelers carry long lists of numbers and dialing instructions. Manufacturers have

the expense of listing numbers for different countries on adverts and packaging.

The arrival of Global Freephone

Since the start of 1997, an alternative has been available: Universal International Freephone

(UIFN)/Global Tollfree. It works like this:

UIFN is an ITU standard (E.152) for international freephone and its aim is to encourage

consumers to obtain information, or shop around, internationally at no cost to themselves. The

hope was that, with globalization, it would also stimulate the European and Asia-Pacific markets,

where freephone has had little impact. Everyone thought the potential market to be huge.

In developing UIFN, the ITU had four objectives:

1. Portability.

2. A flexible structure: a UIFN consists of the Country Code '800', plus an eight-digit

Global Subscriber Number. It is, of course, still necessary to prefix this number with theinternational access code (e.g. '011' or '00').

US delegates to the negotiations were severely split - those representing customers had wanted

the present '1-800' numbers to be retained for UIFNs - their domestic freephone service being the


2/4

original and, by far, the most established. This would have pleased heavy users, such as hotels

and airlines, by allowing their already well-known US numbers to be accessible from almost

anywhere. But, unfortunately, such hopes remained unfulfilled: major US carriers were involved

in alliances with operators in Europe (where there was already bad feeling about the allocation of

Country Codes).

The upshot was a compromise: NANP '800' numbers with an extra (confusing) digit added.

Furthermore, there was no guarantee that American customers could have their US numbers'grand-fathered' into the new system. The result: dissatisfaction all round. And no guidance on

how to incorporate '877' and '888' into UIFN.

3. A format which allows for efficient routing of calls between service providers.

4. An impartial system for allocation and handling of numbers, through a registrar at the

ITU. The cost of a UIFN has been set at 200 Swiss Francs.

Requests for UIFNs are, in the first instance, sent by interested subscribers to their international

carriers or national administrations (depending on the country), who will then conclude bilateral

agreements with carriers in the countries in which the service is required. The subscriber'scarrier, then, submits an application to the ITU on the subscriber's behalf and, if the application

is successful, informs the carriers in other countries of the number.

Only an international telecommunication-recognized operating agency (ROA) can submit an

application and numbers are given to users based within two or more numbering plans (so, a

company serving only Canada, the USA and the Caribbean wouldn't be eligible). Once a

reservation request has been made, the number must be in service within 90 days, or the request

will be canceled.

The principle ofUIFN is excellent: it allows access through a single number dialed from

anywhere in the world, regardless of country or carrier. The system is ideal for companies

providing international sales or services: tv and Internet shopping, hotels and airlines with

centralized reservations systems, credit- and debit-card companies, providers of remote-memory

and post-paid telephone card services, for example. UIFN makes for easy communication

between the offices of multi-nationals and for sales or technical staff to contact headquarters

from customers' premises. No more need to remember and promote many numbers and dialing

codes. Origin-dependent routing shows, if necessary, from which country a call has been made,

while the number to be dialed from a particular country can be employed or withdrawn as and

when required (some operators will issue a UIFN that works from everywhere, while others

charge on a per-country basis). The UIFN can also be used as part of a domestic campaign

promoting overseas services.

The launch - and after

Applications came in slowly during the lead up to 'day one' (31st January 1997: the final date for

initial receipt of applications by the ITU in Geneva). By 14th January, only 100 had been

received. However, 15,800 had arrived by the initial deadline (7,000 of them presented on the

day, itself). These came from a Heinz-worth of service providers in 33 countries. As the ITU

insisted on payment before registration, the vagaries of the banking world meant some countries'

applications couldn't be entered in time.

Since 'day one', about thirty fresh applications a day have come in and they are being dealt with

during a second phase.


3/4

Some smaller countries, such as Ireland, have embraced the idea ofUIFN enthusiastically: they

see it as giving the same footing internationally as their larger competitors.

However, as expected, the US has been the major player: it's where 95% of the world's ten

million ordinary freephone numbers are: the US has one number for every 25 people; Britain

(Europe's biggest freephone market, by far) has one number per 1000 population. To put it

another way, 50% of all long-distance calls handled by AT&T, alone, are freephone (they werethe first to introduce the concept back in 1967): that's 400 for each man, woman and child. It is

not surprising, therefore, that in the first month of issue, only 5% of the 15,000 UIFN

applications came from companies in Europe.

Why should this be? partly it can be attributed to cultural differences: in Europe, phone calls are

seen as revenue-generators (hence transport operators and tourist offices increasingly use shared-

revenue and premium-rate numbers for enquiry services: a UK telephone company executive's

reaction to the news that British Airways had generated four million freephone calls in response

to a promotion was "What a waste: they could have made an extra ?400,000 ($650,000) by

charging for the calls at premium rate!"). In the USA, on the other hand, the attitude is quitedifferent: giving customers free telephone access is seen as standard business practice and good

public relations.

Some numbers are more popular than others and operators have been competing for the same

numbers. The ITU has had to introduce a 'conflict resolution' procedure to deal with such cases.

However, the organization does not allow individual companies to check the data base to see if

their favored number is already in use: access is restricted to ROAs (providing wider access to

the data base would speed the process). During the initial application period, 2014 conflicting

requests were received, with eleven service providers agreeing to sort out conflicts among

themselves. In the end, 900 of the original applicants failed to get the number of their choice.The most popular number was the 'lucky' 8888 8888 (which turned out unlucky for 56

applicants!).

One commentator has pointed out that the whole conflict-resolution process depends on the good

health of one man: ifhe should be taken ill, the process could collapse.

In preparing for this article, I contacted a wide range of international 'phone companies, hotel

groups and airlines, to see how they find UIFN. I expected lots of enthusiasm for a service that

promises to make life much easier. Did I fmd that?

Of all the people I contacted, only one admitted to actually having a UIFN: a British ROA which

uses a single number (obtained through British Telecom, rather than from the ITU directly) for

its customers to dial into its telephone card platform. France Telecom claimed they picked up

200 subscribers during the first year. Everyone else said: nice idea - if it worked.

The verdict

So, what were the problems? Cost was one. Another was the fact that UIFN can currently be

used only from about 17 countries (one hotel chain claimed they'd jump at the chance - if only

they could use it from South Africa. When I suggested it would be a bonus if customers could

use a UIFN from elsewhere in the meantime, I was told ordinary freephone was good enough!).Many blamed teething problems: hotels and switchboards charging full-international rates for

Country Code '800' (due to un-reconfigured billing and dialing software or lack of knowledge on


4/4

the part of switchboard managers), access blocked from public telephones, too much PTO 'red

tape' - the list went on.

Some spokesmen refused to explain on the grounds that the subject was too complex for me to

understand, while others claimed anything to do with UIFN was a trade secret! PIT's promised

to send full documentation, but it,never arrived, while one advised me to contact their PR

company for full information and, yes, you've guessed it, the PR people had been told absolutely

nothing (and, like me, were blocked when they asked the PTT). Notice, that I am not naming any

companies: that's because virtually all the people I spoke to requested anonymity.

Several countries have reported cases of people trying to sell conventional '800' numbers

illegally. It is not surprising, therefore, that the same has been tried with UIFNs - encouraged,

perhaps, by some telephone companies promoting the numbers as giving subscribers 'sole'

ownership.

I would like to have been able to report that UIFN is a great success. Ask me again in a couple of

years: perhaps, I'll be able to tell a different story!

freephone goes invisible

Documents