On Mon, 3 Jan 2005 16:06:21 +0000, Mrs Redboots
wrote:

Clive D. W. Feather wrote to uk.transport.london on Mon, 3 Jan 2005:

No such plans (I really can't see London needing more than 80 million
phone *numbers*).

I can - although now we have broadband, the idea of two lines per
household, one for the computer and one for the phone, isn't going to
happen - although what about one's television, which increasingly needs
to use the phone lines to pay for download movies & so on?


The big expansion in the number space needed for *geographical*
numbers during the 1980s and 1990s was exacerbated partly by the
growth of DDI (direct dialling in, where individual staff in an
organisation have their own numbers, rather than callers needing to
phone a switchboard and be routed to an extension), partly by the
growth of fax. The demand for DDI numbers must surely be close to
saturation by now, barring a big increase in the number of office
workers with desks in the 020 region, which seems unlikely. Fax is
surely past its peak.

Using a second line for an Internet connection, or using ISDN or Home
Highway which would imply two or more numbers, would have accounted
for a demand for numbers in the late 1990s, but broadband is gradually
superseding these.

I used to have BT Highway, which needed three numbers. Now with
broadband I could revert to a single number, though in fact I've
retained one of the other BT Highway lines as a call-sign number
(rings the same line with a different ringing cadence) to use as a fax
number.

In the immediate future, I would expect the greatest growth in numbers
to be non-geographic - not just mobiles but also Internet phones.

The thing is, it's as well to have that capacity in reserve - after all,
40 years ago, who could have guessed where telecomms would be today.

Very true...

Martin

On Sun, 2 Jan 2005 08:17:13 +0000, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message , at
14:57:34 on Sat, 1 Jan 2005, Martin Underwood remarked:
Nowadays no buttons
are needed because the coin is automatically consumed if the call is
answered (equivalent to pressing A) and automatically returned (if not used)
when the handset is replaced (equivalent to pressing B). I'm not sure why
this functionality wasn't included in old callboxes: surely it wasn't
difficult even in valve-amplifier and relay days.

Almost certainly because the button A/B callboxes weren't powered. All
the work was done by pressing the buttons very hard.

That explains a lot. My experience of A/B boxes is limited: they were
on their way out in London at least by the time that I was old enough
to use phone boxes, though I came across them in significant numbers
in Ireland as late as 1985, and at least one in a remote spot in the
north of Scotland even later than that. But I always had the sense of
buttons that were extremely heavy to use and some chunky thumb-powered
mechanisms within the box.

Incidentally http://www.bt.com/archives/history/19241931.htm and
scroll down to 1925 reveals that the A/B button system was introduced
in 1935 and the very last ones in the UK weren't discontinued until
1992

Martin

"Martin Rich" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 2 Jan 2005 08:17:13 +0000, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message , at
14:57:34 on Sat, 1 Jan 2005, Martin Underwood remarked:
Nowadays no buttons
are needed because the coin is automatically consumed if the call is
answered (equivalent to pressing A) and automatically returned (if not
used)
when the handset is replaced (equivalent to pressing B). I'm not sure why
this functionality wasn't included in old callboxes: surely it wasn't
difficult even in valve-amplifier and relay days.

Almost certainly because the button A/B callboxes weren't powered. All
the work was done by pressing the buttons very hard.

That explains a lot. My experience of A/B boxes is limited: they were
on their way out in London at least by the time that I was old enough
to use phone boxes, though I came across them in significant numbers
in Ireland as late as 1985, and at least one in a remote spot in the
north of Scotland even later than that. But I always had the sense of
buttons that were extremely heavy to use and some chunky thumb-powered
mechanisms within the box.

Incidentally http://www.bt.com/archives/history/19241931.htm and
scroll down to 1925 reveals that the A/B button system was introduced
in 1935 and the very last ones in the UK weren't discontinued until
1992

Gosh, I hadn't realised that Button A/B phones lasted as long as 1992 in
some places - that's about the time that the post-payment "pips" phones were
starting to be replaced with modern pre-payment phones. Life goes
full-circle!

Surely all phones have always had a very ready source of power: the standing
voltage on the phone line. Couldn't that have been used to power coin-return
etc in Button A/B phones? Or was it just that there was enough current
available?

In message , at
11:36:50 on Tue, 4 Jan 2005, Martin Underwood remarked:
Surely all phones have always had a very ready source of power: the standing
voltage on the phone line. Couldn't that have been used to power coin-return
etc in Button A/B phones? Or was it just that there was enough current
available?

A combination of the latter, and "why complicate things" if a cheap
mechanical solution works.
--
Roland Perry

Clive D. W. Feather wrote to uk.transport.london on Mon, 3 Jan 2005:

In article , Mrs
Redboots writes
My husband (who comes from Northern Ireland) can still tell you where a
car with a NI registration comes from, and even I know a few of them: IW
is/was County L'derry, OI was Belfast (city), IJ was County Tyrone, I
think..... Anything with an I or a Z in it was either Northern Ireland
or the Republic.

Wasn't it I for NI, Z for the Republic, S for Scotland, and W for Wales?
Though I don't recall who got hybrids like SI or IZ.

Not entirely, as I know Co. Derry had/has at least one code with a Z in
it, but I can't remember what it was, and Husband is now back at work.
S was mostly in Scotland, I do know. SI was, I think, somewhere in the
Republic and IZ was - sheesh, I'm thinking Derry City, BICBW!
--
"Mrs Redboots"
http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/
Website updated 2 January 2005

"Martin Rich" wrote in message
...

I used to have BT Highway, which needed three numbers. Now with
broadband I could revert to a single number, though in fact I've
retained one of the other BT Highway lines as a call-sign number
(rings the same line with a different ringing cadence) to use as a fax
number.

Couldn't you have a series of numbers, for individual family members? And
couldn't you have two digital numbers and two analogue numbers with Home
Highway? Perm any two from four and all that....
--
Terry Harper, Web Co-ordinator, The Omnibus Society
75th Anniversary 2004, see http://www.omnibussoc.org/75th.htm
E-mail:
URL: http://www.terry.harper.btinternet.co.uk/

On Sat, 1 Jan 2005 12:14:10 -0000, "Malcolm Knight."
wrote:

"Stephen Osborn" wrote in message
...

BTW, I do know that 244 is not used for Chislehust, I was just doing a
simple 2=A/B/C, 3=D/E/F ... substitution.

We still use Imperial measure in Chislehurst, none of this metric nonsense.

Don't some of you still use the HURstway?

--
Bill Hayles

http://billnot.com

I seriously wonder what percentage of London to London calls between
fixed lines - which can be dialled without the 020 - actually are
dialled without the 020.

Does leaving out the 020 actually work reliably when you aren't using a BT
line or are redirecting calls via another provider? I always use the 020
myself regardless.

On a sort of related subject, at one London based company I worked for we
were moving to a brand new office and so having a new PABX installed. The
IT Manager hit on the idea of having the code for the outside line be "0"
rather than the usual "9" (or indeed anything but "0") which seemed a neat
trick to me. With a bit of special handling for external numbers not
beginning with "0" such as directory enquiries (which would probably have
been done anyway), it meant you never thought about whether a call was
internal or external, you just dialled it. By forcing all London calls to
be made using the full number it also meant the staff didn't have the option
of getting confused with 020 and 0207/8 and local numbers when the change
came along a few months later. It also gave the supplier's techies
something to think about as they'd never been asked for it before.

G.

Graham J wrote:
I seriously wonder what percentage of London to London calls
between
fixed lines - which can be dialled without the 020 - actually are
dialled without the 020.

Does leaving out the 020 actually work reliably when you aren't using
a BT
line or are redirecting calls via another provider? I always use the
020
myself regardless.

I never dial the London area code from a land line, but dial the
8-digit number. From mobiles you have to dial the full number with the
London area code.

Friheej

"Mrs Redboots" wrote in message
...

Not entirely, as I know Co. Derry had/has at least one code with a Z in
it, but I can't remember what it was, and Husband is now back at work.
S was mostly in Scotland, I do know. SI was, I think, somewhere in the
Republic and IZ was - sheesh, I'm thinking Derry City, BICBW!

Annabel, Londonderry had/had IW, UI and YZ. IZ is County Mayo. No SI
allocated AFAIA.
--
Terry Harper, Web Co-ordinator, The Omnibus Society
75th Anniversary 2004, see http://www.omnibussoc.org/75th.htm
E-mail:
URL: http://www.terry.harper.btinternet.co.uk/