8/14/2019 Global Freephone

1/2

http://www.icbtollfree .comlarticle _ free.cfm ?articleId= 1583

GLOBAL FREEPHONE

A previous report (FREEPHONE GOES INVISIBLE), commented on the background to, and early development of,

Universal International Freephone/ Global Tollfree (UIFN). This article outlines progress after nearly two years'

operation.

Applications

By the official launch date, nearly 16,000 applications had been received. Since then, requests have come in much

more slowly: around twenty a day, according to the ITU.

The original rules had laid down a ninety-day period for putting numbers into service. It was soon realised, however,

that this was unworkably short, and an extension (at fIrst, temporary) to 180 days was granted. Despite thisconcession, the number of applications returned as unused has risen in recent months from a third to just over half

(users suggest that the volume of returns reflects the time involved in each host carrier having to negotiate

individually with its equivalent in every requested country).

As expected, most applications have, so far, come from the USA, followed, far behind, by Europe: not what had

been hoped for by the ITU who had anticipated a signifIcant opening-up of the Asian and European freephone

markets. Only twenty-three applications have come from the rest of the world.

The ITU gives the following fIgures for the number of applications received by early November (they will not reveal

how many requests have come from individual countries or carriers):

Countries opened: 46 Region Applications % of total N. America 10,977 65.00 Europe 5,08330.10 Asia/PacifIc 803

4.75 Latin America 220.13 Africa I 0.00 Total 16,886 Cancelled/unused 8,553 50.65

'Vanity' numbers have not, so far, been an issue and it is not known whether any have been unofficially transferred

('resold'). The ITU is cagey about who gets what number (and which ones have been the sub ject ofdisputes), but

prior to the launch of the service, a conflict resolution procedure was instituted for popular numbers (i.e. those

requested by more than one operator, of which there were around a thousand). By far the most asked-for 'vanity'

number was +800 8888 8888 - requested 57 times. Some 'good' numbers appear still to be available. Since the

launch, disputes cannot be possible, as a requested number is either available or not.

What's wrong with UIFN?

UIFN does not seem to have created a stir in the market place. Discussions with a wide range of international

telephone companies and multi-nationals reveals a feeling that universal freephone arrived too late: URLs and the

promised universal international shared-revenue services have made it unnecessary. Many potential users felt the

running costs ofUIFNs to be too high - especially when they might be paying international rates for fun and test

calls from bored children and telecomms consultants! This matches a tendency for European companies to regard

freephone as a costly expense: there is a move away from subsidised calls to, for example, 'national' or premiumrates (recent cases are the ticket reservation services of both sub-English Channel transport operators: Eurostar andEurotunnel. )

Red-tape and complex logistics were cited as the most common barriers to effective implementation. While 46

countries have, so far, signed up, no one has access to that many: it depends on which inter-connect club your PTO

belongs to. Cost was another problem: to the ITU's 200SF ($146) charge must be added local PTO charges as well

as 'subsequent' costs: staffi'subscriber/customer education, parallel running against old numbers until the U1FN has

been adequately publicised, advertising, etc. The requirement for 'dedicated' access lines and routing were also

criticised.

Other complaints related to the lack of information from PTOs, some of which appear to have no publicity

whatsoever or claim to have facilities they have difficulty in supplying. Poorly informed staff were criticised, too.

http://www.icbtollfree.comlarticle/http://www.icbtollfree.comlarticle/http://www.icbtollfree.comlarticle/http://www.icbtollfree.comlarticle/http://www.icbtollfree.comlarticle/http://www.icbtollfree.comlarticle/http://www.icbtollfree.comlarticle/http://www.icbtollfree.comlarticle/http://www.icbtollfree.comlarticle/http://www.icbtollfree.comlarticle/http://www.icbtollfree.comlarticle/http://www.icbtollfree.comlarticle/http://www.icbtollfree.comlarticle/

8/14/2019 Global Freephone

2/2

Access is another problem: managers cannot afford to re-programme company or hotel switchboards to accept just

this one international country code and, therefore, would-be users are denied access to UIFNs. Similarly, many

payphones either reject UIFNs or charge full international rates for them.

To take an example, the British incumbent operator, BT, makes no attempt to apply its usual 'hard-sell' to UIFNs: a

request for publicity material is yet to appear five months since it was requested; when asked to be connected to a

UIFN, BT operators claim Country Code '800' does not exist and some payphones show 'barred number' when a

UIFN is dialled. One BT department with its own UIFN gives it as '+44 1 800' on both letter headings and visiting

cards, insisting that this is not an error! There is no reason to believe that the approach of other major companies is

any different.

However, one cannot resist the temptation to wonder if the negative attitude of potential users, and the lackadaisical

approach from carriers, is not just an excuse for lack of interest in a service that is not an obvious money-maker.