"Stephen Osborn" wrote in message
...
"Colum Mylod" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 23:10:16 +0000, Ian Jelf
wrote:

In message , Clive D. W. Feather
writes
In article , Tony Bryer
writes
Most of mine are dialled including 020: my phone's memory needs
the 020 prefix entered for Caller ID to work

That's unusual: usually Caller ID lookups in the directory only check
the last 6 digits.

On mobiles that's true but both of the home phones we've had in recent
years require the full code with STD for caller display to work. Maybe
we were just "unlucky"?

Isn't that due to BT sending the CLI for local numbers with the full
code tacked on? In other countries local numbers' CLI is the pure
local number (why else have shorter local numbers?). In most other
parts of the planet local numbers can't be dual-dialled with area
codes in front.

Except of course in the good ol' US of A where local numbers *must* be
dialled including the area code.

Not everywhere, but where numbers have run out, rather than splitting the
area or some other form of renumbering they just assign a second area
code.

So Massachusetts - Eastern (the Boston area) used to be 617 but is now
617
and 508. From 617 xxx xxxx to call your next door neighbour you have to
dial 617 yyy yyyy. Also 508 xxx xxxx may well be in use, so you have to
quote your number including the area code.

At least in the UK we got rid of local codes for neighbouring exchanges:
these varied from one place to another - so you might precede a person's
number with a 9 from exchange A to B but precede it with 61 from exchange C
to B. I worked out fairly early on that it was possible to dial the STD code
from *any* exchange, even when a local code existed. I've heard it said that
before local codes were abolished it was possible to go from one end of the
country to the other in hops by dialling each local code in turn - and that
the resulting trunk call was then charged at the local rate ;-)