Can't text 61016

[sor]

Alas there was a petition, but it was rejected:

Petition: Make all network providers allow free texts to 61016 British Transport Police.

Make all network providers allow free texts to 61016 British Transport Police. Because some networks treat this as a premium chargeable message.

petition.parliament.uk

that's a curious response considering the government (via Ofcom) has routinely acted on this sort of thing before, such as forcing all 0800 numbers to be free from mobiles, even if you don't have any credit (and before this, they leaned on the industry to make certain numbers like childline or the samaritans FOC). Or the creation of the "03xx" code which *must* be charged at the same rate as calling a landline, or included in minutes where applicable.

it's not clear that the BTP charge anything themselves, the question is why the network operators are treating it differently, and that is very much a government thing.

 

[Deafdoggie]

BTP don't charge for it. But network operators do. For example Vodaphone charge 15p and Three charge 30p. But even then it might vary depending on your tariff!
It's certainly not a premium rate number, but it's a non-geographic number and therefore not included in tariffs (generally) whereas an 07 number would be.

 

[Starmill]

I wonder if this is just an overzealous definition. Someone pointed out that their phone warned them, but that's something (presumably Google?) built into the software, it doesn't actually mean its a premium rate number (though perhaps still chargeable at 10p or whatever a text would normally cost, so the people with spend caps can't do it)

i.e. it is interpreting all short codes as "premium" because many are, even though this specific one might not be. The bit from BTP about it depending on tariff could be standard blurb because not everyone has text messaging included in their tariff, eg PAYG users who really do pay as they go.

Another example would be 65075, which is the industry standard number that you can send "PAC" or "STAC" to to get a code if you decide to switch mobile networks. It is free to send messages to from any phone, but your phone may still warn you.

On top of the phone warning & spend cap, some providers allow you to turn off the ability to text or call "premium rate" numbers. I wonder if it's falling into this trap, again someone treating any 5 digit number as "premium".

Perhaps this is the sort of thing that Grant Shapps should *actually* be concentrating his attention on?

It's not overzealous in the sense that you may actually be charged. This makes it different to 65075. Obviously if you're lucky you might not be charged but...

that's a curious response considering the government (via Ofcom) has routinely acted on this sort of thing before, such as forcing all 0800 numbers to be free from mobiles, even if you don't have any credit (and before this, they leaned on the industry to make certain numbers like childline or the samaritans FOC). Or the creation of the "03xx" code which *must* be charged at the same rate as calling a landline, or included in minutes where applicable.

it's not clear that the BTP charge anything themselves, the question is why the network operators are treating it differently, and that is very much a government thing.

Is it really so surprising that it's not on their radar? It only affects the small proportion of people who use trains frequently. Even then how many people are aware of the number and can recall it, other than staff or enthusiasts? Don't most people simply 'tune out' of repetitive automatic announcements about keeping your bags with you and so on? Very much different to people dialling 0800 (etc) numbers, which pretty much everyone would have wanted to do at some point or other.

 

[AngusH]

I do wonder if the networks officially know about it?

I mean, in a formal sense, have they been notified that this is a police service and asked to provide it for free
and then been rejected.

Or is it just something that was set up as any other commercial service might be?

 

[Starmill]

I do wonder if the networks officially know about it?

I mean, in a formal sense, have they been notified that this is a police service and asked to provide it for free
and then been rejected.

Or is it just something that was set up as any other commercial service might be?

As has been suggested above I imagine it'd be a fairly easy and straightforward to change the current regulation to include unlimited free access to this number. It's just nobody has really thought about it.

 

[sor]

It's not overzealous in the sense that you may actually be charged. This makes it different to 65075. Obviously if you're lucky you might not be charged but...


Is it really so surprising that it's not on their radar? It only affects the small proportion of people who use trains frequently. Even then how many people are aware of the number and can recall it, other than staff or enthusiasts? Don't most people simply 'tune out' of repetitive automatic announcements about keeping your bags with you and so on? Very much different to people dialling 0800 (etc) numbers, which pretty much everyone would have wanted to do at some point or other.

the overzealous point is in regards to treating all short codes as "premium" and providing a scary warning - that implies significant cost, not the 1-10p that a text might cost if you don't have them bundled. The warning applies to any short code, so getting a PAC is also "premium" according to Google.

My expectation would be that a number that is so repetitively advertised and part of increasing safety on public transport would be free, much like how it's free to call similar numbers (such as to report a potentially dangerous electricity/gas fault, 999, etc). And as has been pointed out, it's not just that it costs, it's that some people simply can't text it at all because they have a £0 spend cap or other restriction.

 

[Deafdoggie]

I do wonder if the networks officially know about it?

I mean, in a formal sense, have they been notified that this is a police service and asked to provide it for free
and then been rejected.

Or is it just something that was set up as any other commercial service might be?

The networks are very aware of it! They provide emergency contacts free, but not non-emergency contacts. You can call 999 for an ambulance for free for example but not your GP.

 

[skyhigh]

They provide emergency contacts free, but not non-emergency contacts.

Yet 101 is free.

 

[Starmill]

the overzealous point is in regards to treating all short codes as "premium" and providing a scary warning - that implies significant cost, not the 1-10p that a text might cost if you don't have them bundled. The warning applies to any short code, so getting a PAC is also "premium" according to Google.

I understood what you meant about the short code. But I felt it necccesary to point out that a proportion of people will be charged for using 61016. How exactly that can be determined with accuracy isn't clear so the approach you describe is the correct one in the absence of anything better.

My expectation would be that a number that is so repetitively advertised and part of increasing safety on public transport would be free, much like how it's free to call similar numbers (such as to report a potentially dangerous electricity/gas fault, 999, etc). And as has been pointed out, it's not just that it costs, it's that some people simply can't text it at all because they have a £0 spend cap or other restriction.

A reasonable expectation I quite agree, in a country with competent government focused on protecting people.

Yet 101 is free.

I understand that it was made free to use by changes to regulation recently however. As such it fits with the model. It's a shame 61016 couldn't have been included at the time.

 

[TUC]

As I stated above, and also as quoted on the BTP website, you can also Email them instead.

Although whether emails are monitored as quickly as incoming texts is an interesting question.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I wonder if this is just an overzealous definition. Someone pointed out that their phone warned them, but that's something (presumably Google?) built into the software, it doesn't actually mean its a premium rate number (though perhaps still chargeable at 10p or whatever a text would normally cost, so the people with spend caps can't do it)

i.e. it is interpreting all short codes as "premium" because many are, even though this specific one might not be. The bit from BTP about it depending on tariff could be standard blurb because not everyone has text messaging included in their tariff, eg PAYG users who really do pay as they go.

Another example would be 65075, which is the industry standard number that you can send "PAC" or "STAC" to to get a code if you decide to switch mobile networks. It is free to send messages to from any phone, but your phone may still warn you.

On top of the phone warning & spend cap, some providers allow you to turn off the ability to text or call "premium rate" numbers. I wonder if it's falling into this trap, again someone treating any 5 digit number as "premium".

Perhaps this is the sort of thing that Grant Shapps should *actually* be concentrating his attention on?

I was going to post something along these lines, you've done it in a far more articulate and complete manner than I would have!

The term "premium rate" will set alarm bells off for people of a certain age who remember Anne Robinson on Watchdog. Quite often there'd be a story about some service advertised in children's comics or computer gaming magazines which had an 0898 number (more associated with services for a more er... 'mature' audience) and parents being astonished by their 3-4-figure phone bill!

Basically it's a glitch due to shortcodes. If my network was attempting to hand-hold me in such a manner by preventing me from using 61016 I'd be looking to switch providers at the earliest opportunity.

 

[Starmill]

I was going to post something along these lines, you've done it in a far more articulate and complete manner than I would have!

The term "premium rate" will set alarm bells off for people of a certain age who remember Anne Robinson on Watchdog. Quite often there'd be a story about some service advertised in children's comics or computer gaming magazines which had an 0898 number (more associated with services for a more er... 'mature' audience) and parents being astonished by their 3-4-figure phone bill!

Basically it's a glitch due to shortcodes. If my network was attempting to hand-hold me in such a manner by preventing me from using 61016 I'd be looking to switch providers at the earliest opportunity.

Premium rate is a very poor description for the current charges obviously. However, as it is very unlikely you'd be able to text 61016 for free (or indeed using your normal allowance), I can see why some people would want a warning.

 

[Edsmith]

Although whether emails are monitored as quickly as incoming texts is an interesting question.

Exactly, surely emails are for slow time enquiries? A lot of people wouldn't know BTP's email address anyway. I think it's scandalous that a potential emergency contact is a premium rate number and unavailable to a lot of people. I guess the proverbial will hit the fan when something serious happens and it transpires that somebody had tried unsuccessfully to text BTP.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

Wales, until a couple of months ago, did not have a NHS 111 service, and I spent £30 holding on when I needed to phone for out-of-hours medical advice, only to be cut off when my limit was reached.

 

[Edsmith]

Premium rate is a very poor description for the current charges obviously. However, as it is very unlikely you'd be able to text 61016 for free (or indeed using your normal allowance), I can see why some people would want a warning.

You can call it what you like but I think it's deeply concerning that many people won't be able to contact BTP in an emergency.

 

[Deafdoggie]

Exactly, surely emails are for slow time enquiries? A lot of people wouldn't know BTP's email address anyway. I think it's scandalous that a potential emergency contact is a premium rate number and unavailable to a lot of people. I guess the proverbial will hit the fan when something serious happens and it transpires that somebody had tried unsuccessfully to text BTP.

You can call it what you like but I think it's deeply concerning that many people won't be able to contact BTP in an emergency.

1. It's not premium rate at all. It's standard rate.
2. It's not for use in an emergency. The BTP expressly say don't use it for emergencies. It's not guaranteed to be answered quickly.
In an emergency call 999. Never text or email.
There's a special emergency text for Deaf people unable to use a phone to call 999. This is manned 24/7 and free.
But normal texts are STANDARD (not premium) rate, and aren't treated as an emergency.

 

[Edsmith]

1. It's not premium rate at all. It's standard rate.
2. It's not for use in an emergency. The BTP expressly say don't use it for emergencies. It's not guaranteed to be answered quickly.
In an emergency call 999. Never text or email.
There's a special emergency text for Deaf people unable to use a phone to call 999. This is manned 24/7 and free.
But normal texts are STANDARD (not premium) rate, and aren't treated as an emergency.

Standard or premium rate the fact is that's it's unavailable to many and if it's not for use in an emergency then what exactly is the point of it? I was under the impression it was for people in a situation where it might be difficult to make a verbal phone call? Obviously non urgent enquiries can be done via email.

 

[Deafdoggie]

Standard or premium rate the fact is that's it's unavailable to many and if it's not for use in an emergency then what exactly is the point of it? I was under the impression it was for people in a situation where it might be difficult to make a verbal phone call? Obviously non urgent enquiries can be done via email.

It's just another non-emergency contact method.

 

[John Luxton]

999 is for emergency calls. Reporting things like beggars on trains or non-threatening antisocial behaviour should not be done by 999.

Conversely, when at work I have been informed by the BTP of things that people have texted in that really should have been reported to staff immediately or called through on 999.

When you call 999 from a non-railway phone (depending on the configuration calling 999 from a railway phone will normally connect straight through to BTP) you wouldn’t ask to be connected to BTP, but the incident would be logged with the local force and their control room would then transfer it through to BTP.

Never encountered a beggar on a train to be honest, have I been lucky?

As for antisocial behaviour non threating can soon turn into threatening.

I observed that happen once on board Sea Container's SUPERSEACAT TWO sailing from Liverpool to Dublin and back around 1998

The low level behaviour which one might initially dismiss has just being loud gradually worsened.

Eventually it got very out of hand with crew and other passengers being subject to abuse for several hours and some even having biscuits and other small missiles thrown at them as the group became progressively drunk. Started off harmless, but by the time they returned from Dublin where they should not have been allowed to board, things became very out of hand. That all started in a non threatening manner and gradually escalated.

On arrival back at Liverpool Merseyside Police were allowed on before passengers were allowed off to apprehend them. Speaking to one of the crew some weeks later about the incident I was informed one of the number arrested was actually an off duty railway man!

Based on that experience and observing how low level gradually turned into high level I would want it nipped in the bud and it would be a 999 call.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

Text messages can be sent to 999 if you have already pre-registered. Can be useful for emergencies in noisy or remote areas where voice calls don't always get through.

The simple 999 text trick that could save your life

You can send for help from the emergency services via text message if you are unable to speak on the phone

www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk

 

[John Luxton]

Text messages can be sent to 999 if you have already pre-registered. Can be useful for emergencies in noisy or remote areas where voice calls don't always get through.

The simple 999 text trick that could save your life

You can send for help from the emergency services via text message if you are unable to speak on the phone

www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk

That sounds like an excellent idea but have just noticed according the the page:

"The emergencySMS service lets deaf, hard of hearing and speech-impaired people in the UK send an SMS text message to the UK 999 service where it will be passed to the police, ambulance, fire rescue, or coastguard."

So can the able bodied still use it?

 

[Starmill]

You can call it what you like but I think it's deeply concerning that many people won't be able to contact BTP in an emergency.

It's certainly not a situation I'm defending!

 

[Mcr Warrior]

That sounds like an excellent idea but have just noticed according the the page:

"The emergencySMS service lets deaf, hard of hearing and speech-impaired people in the UK send an SMS text message to the UK 999 service where it will be passed to the police, ambulance, fire rescue, or coastguard."

So can the able bodied still use it?

Yes, I've used it to send in initial details of a motorcycle smash on a high up, moorland road with patchy mobile phone comms, and, yes, the system does work.

Motorcyclists in crash on Derbyshire road being treated for serious injuries

The road was closed for several hours causing long queues in both directions

www.derbytelegraph.co.uk

 

[Mojo]

Although whether emails are monitored as quickly as incoming texts is an interesting question.

In most cases they are. Usually when I email back I receive a reply with their log number within a few minutes. However, I reported a beggar via email a few weeks ago and didn’t receive a reply for several hours, the person actually stating that they were short staffed that day, hence the reason for the late reply, with their email saying that if I needed something dealing with more urgently, I should text them.

 

[DelayRepay]

That sounds like an excellent idea but have just noticed according the the page:

"The emergencySMS service lets deaf, hard of hearing and speech-impaired people in the UK send an SMS text message to the UK 999 service where it will be passed to the police, ambulance, fire rescue, or coastguard."

So can the able bodied still use it?

BT provide some information here: https://www.relayuk.bt.com/how-to-use-relay-uk/contact-999-using-relay-uk.html

It doesn't specifically state that you have to have a disability to use the service, but it is clearly aimed at people with disabilities. It does say: In an emergency, we suggest you use emergencySMS to contact the emergency services only if you've no other option. This is because it will take longer than the standard voice 999 service or the Relay 18000 service.

 

[johncrossley]

Is there a regular mobile number (starting 07) that works the same as texting 61016?

 

[TUC]

Can we get some perspective here? I don't think there should be a charge at all, but as it stands it is around 15p, not going to break the bank.

 

[Ediswan]

Yes, I've used it to send in initial details of a motorcycle smash on a high up, moorland road with patchy mobile phone comms, and, yes, the system does work.

For clarity, had you previously registered, or did the system work without that ?

 

[Mcr Warrior]

For clarity, had you previously registered, or did the system work without that ?

Pre-registered. All you need to do this is to text 'Register' to 999. Was handy at the incident at the A57 Snake Summit last August as quite a few passers-by were flummoxed because they couldn't get a mobile signal.

 

[Ediswan]

Pre-registered. All you need to do this is to text 'Register' to 999. Was handy at the incident at the A57 Snake Summit last August as quite a few passers-by were flummoxed because they couldn't get a mobile signal.

Thanks.