On 02-Apr-12 18:27, Nobody wrote:
It intrigues me as to why North America cannot go to area code +
eight-digit addressing. Theoretically, you're increasing the number
availability by ten but don't have to create a new area code.

Changing the length of our phone numbers has many repercussions and will
not be undertaken until there is no other option. Adding new area codes
here and there is seen as the less painful solution in the short term,
and politicians rarely consider anything beyond the next election.

However, technical planning for expanding our numbers from ten to eleven
or twelve digits has already been done, for use when all other options
have been exhausted.

Note that our current ten-digit scheme allows for nearly 6.4 billion
phone numbers, which would be plenty for the 400 million people living
within the NANP if they weren't assigned so inefficiently.

S

--
Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking

On Sun, 1 Apr 2012 12:33:21 -0700 (PDT), Stephen Furley
wrote:

On Apr 1, 6:15*pm, wrote:
On Apr 1, 6:20*am, wrote:

*Letters on dials were originally to aid in dialing exchange names, eg
PEnnsylvania 6-5000 instead of 736-5000. *The US gradually
transitioned to "All Number Calling" by 1980.

I wrote a reply to this, but for some reason Google Groups won't allow
me to send it. *I'll try to send it as a reply just to you, which may
be better since it's quite long, and off-topic for this group.-

The above came through fine. *Not sure why google rejected your other
reply.

An email won't work. *This thread has already gone way off topic, so
it probably won't hurt to post it publicly. *Others may find it of
interest. *Maybe break it up into parts. *Thanks.

(Trains and telecommunications have many 'connections' in that they're
both common carriers, some of telephone technology is used for
signalling, and trains always have been heavy users of
telecommunications, including development of their own networks.)

Your post which I was trying to reply to is on Google Groups, in both
uk.railway and misc.transport.rail.americas, but does not appear in
either group in Giganews; I don't know what's going on.

The reply which I tried to send earlier was:

Somewhat different here. 0 was not used for the operator, at least
not in my time, the operator was 100. 0 was used for subscriber trunk
dialing. I think 0 may have been used for the operator in the early
days, but that was before my time. Normal GPO dials did not have the
word 'Operator' on them.

Older (pre-1950s?) ones did.

0 is still used to call the local operator on PABX systems.

On small systems, larger systems sometimes used 01 (02 etc. being used
for inter-PBX calls) or 100 to extend the available numbering range.

Leaving aside some very early dials, and special ones for pre-payment
callboxes, test instruments etc. there were four main GPO dials, the
10, 12, 21 and 54a. The 10 was used on candlesticks and early
Bakelite 'phones and was available in L (etter) and F (igure)
versions. The L dial plate, had only M and N on the 6 hole; O was on
the zero hole; there was no Q and no Z, Later dials added the Q in
the zero hole.

Dials 10, 12 and 21 all used the same three-point fixing and could be
interchanged. Dials 54 (and 51) were manufacturers' designs with
simplified mechanisms which used a clamping ring to hold them (thus
could be replaced by the earlier types).

The 21 was introduced for the new thermoplastic 706 'phone in 1959.

Early T.706s also used Dials No.12 which continued to be used for many
telephones supplied for railway use and optionally with PAXs.

This was basically our version of the 500. As with the 500 the
letters and figures were on a ring outside the fingerwheel, but this
ring was a separate part, fixed to the body of the 'phone by a metal
clip at the back, rather than an enlarged dial plate, as used by the
dial on the 500, Inside the finger holes there were arrowheads
pointing out to the numbers on the ring, rather than the dots which
the 500 used. This was known as the 'C' plate. The 'L' and 'C'
plates were also made for the 21 dial to enable it to be used as a
replacement for the 10 and 12 dials in older instruments. The 'L'
plate was also used, with a blank outer ring, after all-figure numbers
were introduced some time in the '60s. The 746, a slightly updated
version of the 706 was fitted with this arrangement. The 54a dial was
a cheaper, lightweight version of the 21, used the same dial plates
and finger wheels as the 21, but could not be used in the older
candlestick and bakelite instruments. The 54a lasted until the end of
the dial era. Many early puss button 'phones here were LD (pulse)
only, with ten buttons. Later models had twelve buttons, and were
DTMF or dual signaling.

These three sites should tell you jest about everything you want to
know about British telephones:

www.telephonesuk.co.uk

www.britishtelephones.com

www.samhallas.co.uk/telecomms.htm

Some of my collection can be seen he

http://www.classicrotaryphones.com/f...p?topic=1397.0

That's a 12F dial in the candlestick, which I've later replaced with
the correct 10F. The 232 Bakelite pyramid has a 10L, but you may not
be able to read the letters in the photographs. Towards the end of
the thread on page 5 there is a list of all of the American 'phones in
my collection, though I've since added a couple more. All work,
though several fave frequency ringers, and so won't ring.

Out ringing current is 75 V 25 Hz., rather than your 90 V 20 Hz. but
this is close enough for your straight line fingers to work here, and
ours will work over there. As for the dials, 10 pps is standard in
both places. The break ratio is different, I think ours is 66% and
yours is 60%, or have I got that the wrong way round? Anyway, again
it's close enough to work. Our ringing cadence of 0.4s on, 0.2s off,
0.4s on 2s off is also different to yours of course. Half way down
page two of this thread: http://www.classicrotaryphones.com/f...p?topic=1254.0
there's a post from me with a mp3 file of what it sounds like.

A comparison of out 706 with your 500: http://www.classicrotaryphones.com/f...hp?topic=804.0

A comparison of our 300 series Bakelite with your (older metal case)
302: http://www.classicrotaryphones.com/f...p?topic=1189.0

The 302 has since been fitted with some decent cloth cords and a four
prong plug.

On Mon, 2 Apr 2012 13:39:02 -0700 (PDT), Owain
wrote:

On Apr 2, 5:55*pm, wrote:
I've been told it's cheaper to arrange for a traditional pay phone at
a station as opposed to "help point speakerphone". *The railway has to
pay for either one.

In the UK they would usually be using the railway's own telephone
network.

Yes, but the stations already get CCTV, long line PA, and information
screens, on the railway's internal IP network. The marginal cost of
the help points is quite small and they integrate into the other
systems in ways that a public payphone wouldn't (eg when the help
point is activated the CCTV camera automatically zooms to it and the
help operator can see the video). They are also less likely to be
targeted by vandals than payphones holding cash.

http://www.adt.co.uk/commercial-secu...ail-case-study

The cost of a local call in the US at a pay phone today is 50c. *Long
distance rates vary greatly, and if a caller is not careful, can be
$25.00 for a quick call, which is ridiculous.

On a BT public payphone 60p minimum fee gets you 30 minutes, then 10p
for each subsequent 15 minutes or portion thereof, to a landline
anywhere in UK.

Owain

On Apr 1, 1:08*am, wrote:
Did the letters* on British telephone dials always correspond to
those of US dials?
No, see below. As far as I recall the US, Canada, & the Philippines
were the only ones who used the US system, but ICBW.


I heard some countries may have had the Q and O in different
positions.

we had O & Q on the zero. Nice photo at http://www.1900s.org.uk/1940s50s-domestic-phones.htm

On Apr 2, 2:43*pm, wrote:
Would you know if the British railway system ever had radio phones for
use by passengers as premier American trains did?

Not until quite late.
HSTs sometimes had a BT payphone in the buffet car, I seem to recall
that coverage was patchy, they were not a huge success.

I recall a trip to Scotland in the 1950s where a payphone was wheeled
into the restaurant car whilst at Waverley, much as we used to drop
one into ships arriving at Boston Docks.

On Apr 2, 8:39*pm, bobharvey wrote:
On Apr 1, 1:08*am, wrote: Did the letters* on British telephone dials always correspond to
those of US dials?

No, see below. *As far as I recall the US, Canada, & the Philippines
were the only ones who used the US system, but ICBW.

I heard some countries may have had the Q and O in different
positions.

we had O & Q on the zero. *Nice photo athttp://www.1900s.org.uk/1940s50s-domestic-phones.htm

Ok, so when cell phones came out widely, did Britain convert to that
scheme? What about older landline Touch Tone and rotary phones--did
the dial ring have to be converted?

I'm pretty sure Britain used exchange names as the US did. When did
Britain go to all number calling? (The last US city 'converted' in
1980, but it took a long time for old habits and signage to die.)
Then, businesses used the letters to give themselves memorable phone
numbers, such as TAXICAB.

On Apr 2, 8:51*pm, bobharvey wrote:

I recall a trip to Scotland in the 1950s where a payphone was wheeled
into the restaurant car whilst at Waverley, much as we used to drop
one into ships arriving at Boston Docks.

These were merely tied in by extension cords to a landline, right?

The US used to do that with premium trains when at major stations or
terminals.

Also, on premium trains there was a train secretary who would take
telegrams from passengers and send them off at the next station, and
also receive telegrams for passengers on the train. In the US, until
about 1960, brief messages were cheaper by telegram than by long
distance telephone. After roughly 1960 telephone rates continued
downward while telegraph rates went up.

In the 1990s long distance telephone rates made it cheaper to phone
than mail someone a letter.

On Apr 2, 6:07*pm, "Adam H. Kerman" wrote:

I don't know if AT&T ever reserved area codes to any other countries for
future expansion of NANP.

Back in the _1960s_ AT&T recognized the existing area code/NNX
framework (0/1 for area codes, 2-9 NNXs) would run out and began to
program switches so that most three digit numbers could be an area
code or an exchange (as it is today). This was long before they were
actually assigned.

I can only guess the following:

--Back then I doubt AT&T envisioned where competing local companies
would eat up blocks of numbers, that cell phone usage would explode as
it did, or that direct-inward-dialing would explode as it did. All of
those eat up numbers.

--Perhaps they intended to use the extra area codes as foreign country
codes.


I suspect they anticipated cell phones would encourage lots of people
to get them for their automobiles--which was the original concept--but
not that each and every member of a family, even little kids, would
have one.

On Apr 2, 8:05*pm, Stephen Sprunk wrote:

Note that our current ten-digit scheme allows for nearly 6.4 billion
phone numbers, which would be plenty for the 400 million people living
within the NANP if they weren't assigned so inefficiently.

It amazes me that dedicated outward trunks of a PBX get dialable
numbers even though no on ever calls them. They should get specially
identified numbers (eg in the 1nn-xxxx series) so they don't waste
addressable numbers. Actually, inward trunks to a PBX really need
only one addressable number, all the hunt lines could be a special
series, too.

Heck, I think even in panel days a hunt group didn't need to be
consecutively numbered lines, only step demanded that.

On Mon, 2 Apr 2012 19:07:30 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Apr 2, 8:39*pm, bobharvey wrote:
On Apr 1, 1:08*am, wrote: Did the letters* on British telephone dials always correspond to
those of US dials?

No, see below. *As far as I recall the US, Canada, & the Philippines
were the only ones who used the US system, but ICBW.

I heard some countries may have had the Q and O in different
positions.

we had O & Q on the zero. *Nice photo athttp://www.1900s.org.uk/1940s50s-domestic-phones.htm

Ok, so when cell phones came out widely, did Britain convert to that
scheme?

When they first came out, the allocation of letters to the numbers on
a keypad was AFAIR deprecated in Europe due to the previous lack of
uniformity.

What about older landline Touch Tone and rotary phones--did
the dial ring have to be converted?

No, they stayed as they were. Fixed telephones outwith the "director
areas" (those like Greater London, Glasgow etc. which used the first
three letters of the exchange as the code and where the exchanges used
translation) did not have letters except by accident and the letter
codes were not officially used after the late 1960s. Push button
telephones only came into general use in the 1980s with numbers only.

I'm pretty sure Britain used exchange names as the US did. When did
Britain go to all number calling?

see above

(The last US city 'converted' in
1980, but it took a long time for old habits and signage to die.)
Then, businesses used the letters to give themselves memorable phone
numbers, such as TAXICAB.

In the Greater London area many exchange codes changed due to a
"cunning plan" to route calls via tandem exchanges determined by the
first two digits but that idea was ruined by the increase in telephone
installations and traffic running too far ahead of it and modern
electronics making it unnecessary. This meant that a significant
proportion of the old names would have been ineffective. Re-use of
letters only came back as a consequence of their later standardised
proliferation on mobiles, some imported telephones and telephones
requiring letter input for e.g. the descriptions for stored numbers;
one potential consequence is the confusion of "0" with "O" or "1"
with" "I" and use of letters (other than as a crude keyboard
substitute) is generally the result of advertisers trying to be
"clever". Basic telephones typically only have numbers or have rather
small letters.