HERE'S one more thought prompted by the arrival of those confusing new directory enquiries services.

I'm sure we've all heard people from the regulator Oftel telling us what a fantastic idea it is to do away with BT's 192 service and replace it with 20 new numbers run by different companies.

The fabulous thing for the consumers, apparently, is that we'll have more choice, and that some of the services will be cheaper than BT.

Let's leave aside for a moment the fact that the prices are so complicated that no one can compare them. Let's also ignore the fact that some have been connecting people without warning to their desired numbers at an extortionate rate per minute. And let's forget that some cable operators will restrict you to using their own enquiry services anyway.

All those things aside, I can't help remembering that in the old days, dialling 192 was free. In fact, it seems pretty reasonable to me that if you're going to pay money to use a company's phone system, that company should provide you with its numbers gratis.

So, we've gone from having a free directory enquiry service to having a lot of different versions for which we have to pay. Some choice.

My point is this: Have you noticed how, when we the public are offered choice in such things, we often can't escape the feeling that we've been suckered?

"Consumer choice" is routinely held up as the guiding principle of our modern world, yet all too often the choice we get is pretty meaningless. You can choose from hundreds of different foods when you go shopping, but if you want to ensure the person who grew the crop gets a fair share of your money, your options suddenly shrink.

Take the way our society has been organised around the car. People will tell you this is how lots of people choose to travel. But if you want to choose to live in an environment where the cities aren't clogged with fumes and 3,500 people a year don't get killed on the roads, that option isn't available.

Likewise, when politicians offer you choice in education or health care, what they usually mean is that a few people will win the scramble for the best services and everybody else will have to take what they're given.

All too often, "choice" just means being able to pick between different brands of the same thing.

I can't help remembering the character in Catch-22 who has taken over the mess hall and charges fortunes for the food. He's a firm believer in free choice, however, so people are at liberty to starve.