11811 - does it even work anymore?

11811 costs a few euro these days. Why are you even using it?

11811 is still licenced for directory enquiries. It may not work from all phone networks anyway; and is one of the dearest

This claims to have the cheapest prices for the various services.

If you have internet access you will find the same info for free - that is all these services do, basically.

Because some people still call them and one call could pay for an hours wages for a staff member.

Nobody other than eir can answer that, basically. These services are all in their dying years and could be withdrawn at any moment.

Eir don't publish the phonebook cause it stopped making money. It is not because of GDPR

GDPR gets blamed for absolutely piles of stuff it has nothing to do with.

Anyone in the phonebook gave explicit consent to be listed.

Provide links to prove this claim please.

The online phonebook was provided by Truvo, who went bust. That is why it is gone.

Any GDPR restriction on one of online/print would entirely apply to the other, by the way.

Also note that a few other countries to which GDPR applies still produce paper phonebooks

Eir is a private company which does not receive state subsidies. This has been the case for nearly a quarter of a century.

I don't know that it was ever subsidised by the state.

Remember, directory enquiries used to be free. Back in the day when telcos made the bulk of their revenue from fixed line call charges, encouraging and facilitating the making of phone calls made good business sense. Directory enquiries were provided for free because the cost of providing them was more than covered by the revenue earned in the calls that followed. We know this because, even in countries where the phone service was wholly private, directory enquiries were typically free.

So, even in the days when the telephone system in Ireland was a government department, and was providing a directory enquiry service for free, I don't think the directory enquiry service required a taxpayer subsidy; it paid for itself in the additional call revenue generated.

Over time the telco business model changed, and this ceased to be true. That's why a paid-for directory enquiry service was introduced, some time in the 80s, I think. But the very fact that charges were introduced would indicate that the government wasn't subsidising it. Plus this happened, if my memory is correct, after the time that P&T was reorganised as a state-owned, but not state-subsidised, company, so the government would not have been inclined to subsidise it.

It was also at the same time that rival directory enquiry services (also paid-for) were introduced, and this argue strongly against a state subsidy for the TE service. Competition law rules would forbid the government subsidising a state-owned company to provide a directory enquiry service in direct competition with a commercial competitor.

11890 usually does.

Per the Information Commissioner's website, if you are publishing telephone, email, etc directory, you must tell people and give them an opportunity to opt out. If you're publishing a reverse directory (i.e. one where you can look up a phone number and find whose number it is) you can only include people who expressly opt in.

The same rules apply whether you publish the directory in paper form or online, or control access via an operator.

Not strictly true that directory services generated zero revenue. while calling directory enquiries was free the directory enquiry operator would offer to put you directly through to the number you wanted rather than hanging up and calling it yourself. There was a charge if the directory enquiry operator put you through directly.

Nope. People gave consent by ordering a phoneline and not going unlisted, something everyone was made aware of. That is the legal situation.

Your claim was based on the "but GDPR!" thing when GDPR has nothing to do with it and was hence entirely wrong. It was, and remains, bobbins.

Nope yourself. You claimed that "Anyone in the phonebook gave explicit consent to be listed". You have now pivoted to implied consent. You yourself have proven your original position to be untrue. Bobbins indeed. You're welcome

Sigh, yet again I am quoting your assertion that "Anyone in the phonebook gave explicit consent to be listed." Instead of conceding that you were wrong on that point, you make cowardly allegations of pedantic trolling, which I think is a breach of the charter but don't let that stop you.

For someone who accuses others of inaccurate ideas of GDPR, you should be embarrassed to make an assertion that phonebook listings had given explicit consent when this is patently untrue.

GDPR and the explicit consent hurdle is exactly why directory enquiry businesses didn't adapt their business model to provide services that would have market appeal

Check with your phone provider - some block premium and/or costly numbers until you request otherwise.