|
'0207 008 0000'
John Rowland wrote to uk.transport.london on Sat, 1 Jan 2005:
What might the rest of the exchange be used for? I know that part of the WIllesden exchange in Harlesden Road is being / has been converted to flats, but what about others? The one in Worthing, which was originally the old Swandean exchange and was upgraded when STD came in in the 1960s (before then, we had to lift the telephone and wait for an operator to notice that we had done so), has been pulled down and houses built on the site, I gather. My parents' number was originally Swandean XXX, when we moved into that house in 1959 - these days it's Worthing YYYXXX, but the final 3 digits are the same as they always were! -- "Mrs Redboots" http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/ Website updated 18 December 2004 |
'0207 008 0000'
"Clive Coleman" wrote in message
... In message , Martin Underwood writes Button A / Button B or pay-on-answer callboxes: remember those wretched pips I remember button A/B phones but not with pips, if I recall they came with the slightly more modern type where when the call was answered you then got the pips to insert the money. Yes, you're probably right. Button A/B phones had been phased out by the time I remember using a callbox. I only saw one in a hotel that we stayed in when I was little (about 1970) - I presume the GPO hadn't got round to replacing it with a "pips" phone. Button A/B were pre-payment (like modern phoneboxes), weren't they - hence button B to return your coin if there weas no answer. 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. |
'0207 008 0000'
Martin Underwood wrote to uk.transport.london on Sat, 1 Jan 2005:
- Button A / Button B or pay-on-answer callboxes: remember those wretched pips The first call we received after we'd gone to STD (Subscriber Trunk Dialling - before then, we'd had no dialling of any kind) was from a phone-box, and my mother was most upset at the thought of "That horrid noise" whenever the phone rang..... But do you remember "the pips" that would warn you when you'd been talking for three minutes on a long-distance call (trunk call, they were called), since such calls were extremely expensive and charged in 3-minute units. Few people wanted to prolong a call once they'd heard "the pips". -- "Mrs Redboots" http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/ Website updated 18 December 2004 |
'0207 008 0000'
Stephen Osborn wrote to uk.transport.london on Sat, 1 Jan 2005:
The flash change over for London numbers (from 0171 xxx xxxx to 020 7xxx xxxx) was at 1 am on 22nd April 2000. That was Easter Saturday so there more time than usual to sort out any problems, also the network load the following week would be lower than normal. But right from the beginning of that year you could dial 020 7xxx xxxx or 020 8xxx xxxx, and you programmed your phone like that so that you didn't have a problem on the Tuesday of Easter week. At least, we did where I worked. -- "Mrs Redboots" http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/ Website updated 18 December 2004 |
Vehicle registrations (was '0207 008 0000')
"Mrs Redboots" wrote in message
... Martin Underwood wrote to uk.transport.london on Sat, 1 Jan 2005: By the way, why was the letter U not used as a year letter? I can understand why I, O, Q and Z were omitted because they are too similar to digits 1, 0 [O and Q] and 2. But what digit could U be confused with? I think it was considered too similar to V. I'd have thought that U and V were fairly easy to distinguish - unlike a letter D, a letter O and a digit 0 which *can* very easily be confused in the square font that's used on numberplates. OK, so you won't have an O or 0 in the year position, but D and O are allowed interchangably in three-letter part of the numberplate. DDO, DOD, ODD, OOD and other permutations are extremely hard to distinguish. |
'0207 008 0000'
"Mrs Redboots" wrote in message
... John Rowland wrote to uk.transport.london on Sat, 1 Jan 2005: What might the rest of the exchange be used for? I know that part of the WIllesden exchange in Harlesden Road is being / has been converted to flats, but what about others? The one in Worthing, which was originally the old Swandean exchange and was upgraded when STD came in in the 1960s (before then, we had to lift the telephone and wait for an operator to notice that we had done so), has been pulled down and houses built on the site, I gather. My parents' number was originally Swandean XXX, when we moved into that house in 1959 - these days it's Worthing YYYXXX, but the final 3 digits are the same as they always were! My parents number went from Stoke Mandeville (01296 61) XXXX to Aylesbury (0296) 61XXXX - so not a lot of change there! |
'0207 008 0000'
"Mrs Redboots" wrote in message
... Stephen Osborn wrote to uk.transport.london on Sat, 1 Jan 2005: The flash change over for London numbers (from 0171 xxx xxxx to 020 7xxx xxxx) was at 1 am on 22nd April 2000. That was Easter Saturday so there more time than usual to sort out any problems, also the network load the following week would be lower than normal. But right from the beginning of that year you could dial 020 7xxx xxxx or 020 8xxx xxxx, and you programmed your phone like that so that you didn't have a problem on the Tuesday of Easter week. At least, we did where I worked. -- "Mrs Redboots" http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/ Website updated 18 December 2004 Both before and after 22nd April 2000 you could use 0171 xxx xxxx or 020 7xxx xxxx - that is standard parallel running practise. The 01* codes for the areas affected were switched off separately some months later, each one on a weekend a fortnight apart. Before 1 am 22nd April 2000 you could use xxx xxxx but not 7xxx xxxx within London After 1 am 22nd April 2000 you could not use xxx xxxx but could use 7xxx xxxx. |
'0207 008 0000'
"John Rowland" wrote in
message What might the rest of the exchange be used for? I know that part of the WIllesden exchange in Harlesden Road is being / has been converted to flats, but what about others? I am beginning to have problems telling this newsgroup from uk.telecom :) Exchanges from the "predigital" era are much larger than they need to be now - Wandsworth for instance is a 6 floor building but I'm told that only one room in one floor is now used for the digital exchange equipment. Some exchanges have: - been closed - sold for flats etc - converted into office space for BT (or others) However, I gather most of the extra space has simply been mothballed in the past and is actually gradually coming back into use - now that developments like xDSL and LLU mean that more space is needed in exchanges and the distance from an exchange to the end user becomes an issue (before it wasn't really a factor) - its also less likely that exchanges will be totally closed in future because of this - though I believe there are still have plans to close a couple of exchanges in Central London. Regards Sunil |
Vehicle registrations (was '0207 008 0000')
In message ,
Martin Underwood writes I'd have thought that U and V were fairly easy to distinguish - unlike a letter D, a letter O and a digit 0 which *can* very easily be confused in the square font that's used on numberplates. OK, so you won't have an O or 0 in the year position, but D and O are allowed interchangably in three-letter part of the numberplate. DDO, DOD, ODD, OOD and other permutations are extremely hard to distinguish. And U was used in the Isle Of Man for MAN xxxU, AMN xxxU etc. registrations similar to British ones. -- Steve Fitzgerald has now left the building. You will find him in London's Docklands, E16, UK (please use the reply to address for email) |
Vehicle registrations (was '0207 008 0000')
"Steve Fitzgerald" ] wrote in message
... In message , Martin Underwood writes I'd have thought that U and V were fairly easy to distinguish - unlike a letter D, a letter O and a digit 0 which *can* very easily be confused in the square font that's used on numberplates. OK, so you won't have an O or 0 in the year position, but D and O are allowed interchangably in three-letter part of the numberplate. DDO, DOD, ODD, OOD and other permutations are extremely hard to distinguish. And U was used in the Isle Of Man for MAN xxxU, AMN xxxU etc. registrations similar to British ones. I didn't know that? So did they use the letter suffix to denote the year? If so, did it start at the same time as in Great Britain - ie A=1963, B=1964 etc? If so, I presume it went out of sync in the early 80s when IOM used U and GB used V. |
Vehicle registrations (was '0207 008 0000')
"Steve Fitzgerald" ] wrote in message
... In message , Martin Underwood writes I'd have thought that U and V were fairly easy to distinguish - unlike a letter D, a letter O and a digit 0 which *can* very easily be confused in the square font that's used on numberplates. OK, so you won't have an O or 0 in the year position, but D and O are allowed interchangably in three-letter part of the numberplate. DDO, DOD, ODD, OOD and other permutations are extremely hard to distinguish. And U was used in the Isle Of Man for MAN xxxU, AMN xxxU etc. registrations similar to British ones. There was a time when you had the choice of pressed number plates with the square font, or Bluemell's-type plates with riveted-on numbers, using a more rounded font. My house number plates are the latter type, which in my view were far superior to the old pressed type. My first new car was UDF 173 and somewhere along the line we had VJG 129 W. I think that the risks of confusion are slight, but it was really in the handwriting used to record them that confusion could arise. -- 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/ |
'0207 008 0000'
In article , Clive Page wrote:
Hence the continued confusion, or at least lack of concern with putting the space in the right place when quoting a number. My office phone socket has a nice BT label put on it by the installing engineer 1st October 2002 (when I moved in): 0208 744 2002 When BT engineers can't get it right what hope? -- Tony Bryer |
Vehicle registrations (was '0207 008 0000')
In message ,
Martin Underwood writes And U was used in the Isle Of Man for MAN xxxU, AMN xxxU etc. registrations similar to British ones. I didn't know that? So did they use the letter suffix to denote the year? If so, did it start at the same time as in Great Britain - ie A=1963, B=1964 etc? If so, I presume it went out of sync in the early 80s when IOM used U and GB used V. They followed the same basic sequence as us although I don't know if they adopted it at the same time. MAN xxxA - MAN xxxY then Axxx MAN - Yxxx MAN. They seem to have arbitrarily also used MAN xxxx and xxxx MAN over the years too. They are currently using the series (I think they're up to) GMN xxxA - GMN xxxY having started at AMN a few years ago. The marks MAN and MN were reserved for their use and were never used on the mainland. The London office that issued AN multiples never used MAN for that reason. It certainly doesn't seem to follow our years and one just follows on from the last one. -- Steve Fitzgerald has now left the building. You will find him in London's Docklands, E16, UK (please use the reply to address for email) |
'0207 008 0000'
On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 12:24:45 -0000, "Martin Underwood"
wrote: By the way, how did changing from 0171 xxx yyyy or 0181 xxx yyyy to 020 7xxx yyyy or 020 8xxx yyyy help alleviate the shortage of available numbers in London? It didn't increase the number of available phone numbers - all it did was to change the mapping slightly. OK, so there's scope for additional district codes beginning with digits other than 7 or 8, but it's not districts that are in short supply, it's subscriber numbers (the xxxx in the above example). I think the intention is to have 020 [0-9]xxx xxxx, giving quite a lot of extra numbers. While I doubt there'd be a mass renumbering of existing districts, I suspect some districts may well end up with two prefixes to give more capacity. Neil -- Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK When replying please use neil at the above domain 'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read. |
Vehicle registrations (was '0207 008 0000')
On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 19:43:54 -0000, "Martin Underwood"
wrote: But once there would be far more offices, each with its own mark(s): now they've merged the marks so you cannot tell so accurately where a car was registered. Perhaps not - but the new style, similar to the German plates (though not quite as well) is more memorable, as the codes do bear some kind of resemblance to the area they are associated with, and there are few enough of them for the lot to be memorable. Thus, the only "random" parts of the plate (from the point of view of a layman) are the second letter and latter 3 letters, whereas on the old style the age letter would probably be quite memorable, but then followed by up to 3 random numbers and 3 random letters. The place of initial registration, after all, is not really that useful a piece of information unless you wish to buy the car - and you can get much more detail from the V5 if you do. Neil -- Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK When replying please use neil at the above domain 'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read. |
Vehicle registrations (was '0207 008 0000')
On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 20:35:21 -0000, "Jack Taylor"
wrote: Whoever decided that '0' should represent March registrations and '5' October? What happens if, at some time in the future, they decide to use every month as a registration month? Because the system will last 49 years (or thereabouts) as it is without a change being required (though one may well be introduced anyway, knowing the Government!). Neil -- Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK When replying please use neil at the above domain 'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read. |
Vehicle registrations (was '0207 008 0000')
On Sat, 1 Jan 2005 01:05:50 -0000, "Jack Taylor"
wrote: What I still don't understand is what is going to happen in March 2011, if they continue with the present logic, which is to use '0' to indicate March registrations and '5' to indicate September and the other digit to represent the last digit of the year! There will still be plenty of vehicles on the road registered in March 2001 as aa01 abc. Should be interesting! Er, they'll start using 11 and 61. That's the whole idea - it'll last a lot longer than the single letter system did without requiring a change. Neil -- Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK When replying please use neil at the above domain 'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read. |
'0207 008 0000'
Sunil Sood wrote:
"John Rowland" wrote in message What might the rest of the exchange be used for? I know that part of the WIllesden exchange in Harlesden Road is being / has been converted to flats, but what about others? However, I gather most of the extra space has simply been mothballed in the past and is actually gradually coming back into use - now that developments like xDSL and LLU mean that more space is needed in exchanges and the distance from an exchange to the end user becomes an issue (before it wasn't really a factor) - its also less likely that exchanges will be totally closed in future because of this - though I believe there are still have plans to close a couple of exchanges in Central London. Aren't they renting out space to the other telecoms suppliers for their local loop equipment? |
'0207 008 0000'
"Stuart" wrote in message ... However, I gather most of the extra space has simply been mothballed in the past and is actually gradually coming back into use - now that developments like xDSL and LLU mean that more space is needed in exchanges and the distance from an exchange to the end user becomes an issue (before it wasn't really a factor) - its also less likely that exchanges will be totally closed in future because of this - though I believe there are still have plans to close a couple of exchanges in Central London. Aren't they renting out space to the other telecoms suppliers for their local loop equipment? Yes, thats the "LLU" or Local Loop Unbunding to give its full name, that I refer to above. Regards Sunil |
'0207 008 0000'
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. If it was necessary to count coins, fore example on a long distance call, the operator (who would be needed pre-STD) would literally listen-in and count while the line was interrupted every time you put a coin in. When that money as used up the operator would have to come back to you. -- Roland Perry |
'0207 008 0000'
"Mrs Redboots" wrote in message
... But do you remember "the pips" that would warn you when you'd been talking for three minutes on a long-distance call "...and the operator says '30 cents more for the next three minutes'..." (Dr. Hook) Ian |
'0207 008 0000'
"Ian F." wrote in message
... "Mrs Redboots" wrote in message ... But do you remember "the pips" that would warn you when you'd been talking for three minutes on a long-distance call "...and the operator says '30 cents more for the next three minutes'..." (Dr. Hook) Wasn't it '40 [not 30] cents more for the next [long pause] three [long pause] minutes'? ;-) I never understood the significance of those pauses. |
'0207 008 0000'
"Martin Underwood" wrote in message
... Wasn't it '40 [not 30] cents more I think you're right - lie I was allowing for the current state of the US dollar against the pound /lie . for the next [long pause] three [long pause] minutes'? ;-) I never understood the significance of those pauses. I think it was just for scansion purposes "...next (beat) three (beat) minutes (no beat) oh please, Mrs. Avery..." Ian |
'0207 008 0000'
|
'0207 008 0000'
In message on Sun, 02 Jan 2005
13:22:40 +0000 in uk.transport.london, (Richard) tapped out on the keyboard: Perhaps Ofcom could do some advertising that actually works this time, when London starts to get 3xxx xxxx numbers. Why ? The area code will not have changed, all that will be happening is that a new range of local numbers will come into existence. You already have to dial the last eight digits anyway. -- John Youles Norwich England UK j dot y.o.u.l.e.s at n.t.l.w.o.r.l.d dot c.o.m |
'0207 008 0000'
"Martin Underwood" wrote in message
... One thing I wish they'd sort out: if someone calls you and they fail to put their receiver back, the line remains connected for ages, even after you've put your phone back, blocking you from making an outgoing call. When my grandma had a stroke a few years ago, she phoned me for help but forgot to put her phone back. I eventually had to go next door to phone for an ambulance because the line wouldn't disconnect. Surely it's not difficult to enginner things so *either* handset being replaced drops the line - or else to shorten the delay to just a few seconds if it's needed to avoid the line dropping if you accidentally blip the handset switch. When someone phones me, I answer on the nearest handset which is usually the one in the hall), and then put that down and take the rest of the call on another handset (usually in a room where I can sit down, keep warm and not keep everyone in the house awake). So I hope they don't change that. Maybe you should stay connected until you successfully dial and connect to another number. -- John Rowland - Spamtrapped Transport Plans for the London Area, updated 2001 http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acro...69/tpftla.html A man's vehicle is a symbol of his manhood. That's why my vehicle's the Piccadilly Line - It's the size of a county and it comes every two and a half minutes |
'0207 008 0000'
"John Rowland" wrote in message
... "Martin Underwood" wrote in message ... One thing I wish they'd sort out: if someone calls you and they fail to put their receiver back, the line remains connected for ages, even after you've put your phone back, blocking you from making an outgoing call. When my grandma had a stroke a few years ago, she phoned me for help but forgot to put her phone back. I eventually had to go next door to phone for an ambulance because the line wouldn't disconnect. Surely it's not difficult to enginner things so *either* handset being replaced drops the line - or else to shorten the delay to just a few seconds if it's needed to avoid the line dropping if you accidentally blip the handset switch. When someone phones me, I answer on the nearest handset which is usually the one in the hall), and then put that down and take the rest of the call on another handset (usually in a room where I can sit down, keep warm and not keep everyone in the house awake). So I hope they don't change that. Maybe you should stay connected until you successfully dial and connect to another number. I always leave the first phone off-hook until I've lifted the second receiver. I'd be quite happy if the phone remained connected, providing that there was some action (eg pressing a dial button) that reliably forced the line to drop. I've heard that the failure of line-drop was a way that burglars prevented a house's occupants from dialling 999 - they'd ring a number and then leave their phone off-hook to keep the line open while they burgled the house. Less reliable nowadays since many people have mobiles which could be used as a fall-back in this case. |
'0207 008 0000'
In article , Richard J.
writes It may have something to do with the fact that people have no idea what ITU or E.123 are. Please provide a reference to these alleged standards. That could be so. Have you heard of a body called the United Nations? Well the International Telecommunications Agency, ITU, is one of its technical agencies, with headquarters in Geneva. Its website can be found at http://www.itu.int Unfortunately you have to pay (CHF 20 I seem to remember) to get a copy of any of its main documents - but you can at least see a list of them free by digging down in the web-site. There used to be an unofficial (I guess illegal) copy of E.123 on the web, but it seems to have vanished - maybe a more careful search would still find one. No doubt a good many technical libraries keep copies of all ITU documents, and may even allow you to photocopy E.123. Not true. Since there was at that time an 0181 222 exchange as well as an 0171 222 exchange, the 222 xxxx format would not have been unique. I think you mis-understand - such numbers were unique within their own zone. During the transitional period, as I already pointed out, London continued to have the same 7-digit dialling as it had been using since the 1930s. It was not until the second change that the local numbers changed from being 7-digit to 8-digit, and then they became unique across the whole city, not just in the single zone. I doubt it. Do you have any evidence of official approval of "0207 xxx yyyy" formats? Of course not: officially the double transition did not exist, which has led directly to the current confusion. This form was only valid during the period between the first change, which introduced the area codes starting 020 and the second one which changed from 7-digit to 8-digit local numbers. But the rules of ITU E.123 are clear that the space should always be shown between the area code and the local number. During the transitional period of some six months that was after the 0207 or 0208. -- Clive Page |
'0207 008 0000'
Clive Page wrote:
In article , Richard J. writes It may have something to do with the fact that people have no idea what ITU or E.123 are. Please provide a reference to these alleged standards. That could be so. Have you heard of a body called the United Nations? Well the International Telecommunications Agency, ITU, is one of its technical agencies, with headquarters in Geneva. Its website can be found at http://www.itu.int Unfortunately you have to pay (CHF 20 I seem to remember) to get a copy of any of its main documents No wonder people don't follow their recommendations! But this might help: https://ecs.itu.ch/cgi-bin/register-for-freedownload2 [..] Not true. Since there was at that time an 0181 222 exchange as well as an 0171 222 exchange, the 222 xxxx format would not have been unique. I think you mis-understand - such numbers were unique within their own zone. Precisely. That's why your original statement (which you conveniently snipped) that you could call London Transport enquiries *from a telephone in London* by dialling "222 1234" was not true if the telephone was in the 0181 part of London. -- Richard J. (to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address) |
'0207 008 0000'
In article ,
Martin Underwood writes I'm usually fairly clued-up about technical changes like this, but I hadn't appreciated that there was an interim time when 0208 xxx yyyy and xxx yyyy were valid: There wasn't. There was a long period when both the old form (0181 xxx yyyy) and the new form (020 8xxx yyyy) were both handled by exchanges. The same was true for all the other renumberings (e.g. 01222 xxxxxx = 029 20xxxxxx). London, however, had a "flash cut" when local dialling changed from 7 digits (hence code 01[78]1) to 8 digits (hence code 020). What a shame the Oftel made such a dog's breakfast of the changes in London and didn't have the foresight to go straight from 01 xxx yyyy to 020 7xxx yyyy in one go :-( They were advised better, but ignored it. -- Clive D.W. Feather | Home: Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work) | Web: http://www.davros.org Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work: Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is: |
'0207 008 0000'
In article , Helen Deborah
Vecht writes 01532 and 01734 were valid dialling codes for several years 01532 was never valid. 01734 was. -- Clive D.W. Feather | Home: Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work) | Web: http://www.davros.org Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work: Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is: |
'0207 008 0000'
In article , Stephen Osborn
writes 'phONEday' was in 1995 and all STD codes that did not start 01 had a 1 inserted. Except for the five that got completely changed. That was Easter Saturday so there more time than usual to sort out any problems, also the network load the following week would be lower than normal. Even so, it almost broke. Over a quarter of calls were misdialled on the first day; 30% was the "the network will break" line. Reading was changed to 01734 in 1995 as part of phONEday but that number was already getting close to full and the change to 0118 was already planned. Not so. It was not implemented until c. a year later to let people get used to the previous set of changes. That would have been silly, given it wasn't done anywhere else. If it was certain that Reading would be about to fill, it would have been better to do it with the other five. Nobody was quite sure whether Reading was going to fill up, or if somewhere else would beat it, nor what the best long-term strategy was with something like 30 areas approaching trouble. So 0118 was held in reserve for the next place needing transition - this turned out to be Reading. IMHO a lot of the subsequent problems were caused by Oftel not really knowing what they were doing. That I *can* agree with. -- Clive D.W. Feather | Home: Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work) | Web: http://www.davros.org Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work: Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is: |
'0207 008 0000'
In article ,
Martin Underwood writes By the way, how did changing from 0171 xxx yyyy or 0181 xxx yyyy to 020 7xxx yyyy or 020 8xxx yyyy help alleviate the shortage of available numbers in London? It didn't increase the number of available phone numbers Actually, it did: it made the 70xx, 71xx, 80xx, and 81xx blocks available. In addition, the costs of advertising the changes were shared among telcos in proportion to the number of number blocks they had allocated. This caused a sudden rush of "oops, we don't seem to need this number block after all" letters to Oftel, freeing up enough numbers to last several years! OK, so there's scope for additional district codes beginning with digits other than 7 or 8, but it's not districts that are in short supply, it's subscriber numbers (the xxxx in the above example). Actually, it was districts (as you call them) that were in short supply, specifically in the 0171 area. If a location fills up a Director Code (as they were called when I started on this stuff) then another code can be allocated to it. The problem was that the "inner" area had used most of the 799 codes available. The renumbering would improve things by, in order: - allowing use of 201 more 7xxx codes; - allowing the use of 8xxx codes in the "inner" area; - allowing the use of 2xxx-6xxx and 9xxx codes. -- Clive D.W. Feather | Home: Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work) | Web: http://www.davros.org Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work: Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is: |
'0207 008 0000'
In article , Stephen Osborn
writes Actually the local exchange simply routes all numbers that start with a 0 to the associated trunk exchange (properly called a DMSU, for Digital Main Switching Unit). False. The RCU (if one is involved) routes all calls to the DLE. This then has routeing tables which say whether to send the call to an attached RCU, to a DLE over a junction, or to one of the parent "tandems". For example, the DLE to which my RCU is connected has 11 RCUs connected to it as well as some subscriber loops of its own, and serves numbers on 01223, 01284, 01440, 01799, and 01954. 01223 is served by 6 different DLEs at two physical sites, and the other codes I've mentioned there share them in various ways: 01223 A B C D N P 01284 A B D N P plus a sixth DLE elsewhere 01440 A C D P 01799 A B P 01954 B C D P Meanwhile other codes like 01279, 01353, 01366, 01485, 01553, 01638, 01760, and 01842 connect to A, B, C, D, and N as well as to other DLEs not in Cambridge. Calls within between those DLEs will *not* be sent to a tandem, even though they need a 0 to be dialled. Oh, DMSUs have all been replaced by NGSs. The DMSU does geographic mapping, routes the call to the relevant DMSU on the other end which in turn routes it to the relevant local exchange. http://www.davros.org/phones/btnetwork.thml explains this in more detail. If it is a non-geographic number (07*, 08*, 09*) the DMSU routes it to a special platform that does really clever lookups. Or routes it to another telco. don't forget that at some stage 9,999 lines have to be connected up to each local exchange. Actually, 4096 lines is becoming the standard unit with the switch to 21CN; before that, it would be 3000 to 4000. -- Clive D.W. Feather | Home: Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work) | Web: http://www.davros.org Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work: Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is: |
'0207 008 0000'
In article ,
Martin Underwood writes What about the situation where the same code is used by several towns and villages, each of which has a telephone exchange. My code is used by two moderate-sized towns and many neighbouring villages. I know that my village has its own exchange (the building is about 100 yards from me right now!). Presumably some form of supernetting is used: the first one or two digits of the subscriber's number determine which exchange (consolidation device) the call is routed to. Example: 01954. 21xxxx Madingley concentrator - Cambridge C DLE 23xxxx Swavesey concentrator - Cambridge C DLE 25xxxx Cottenham concentrator - Cambridge C DLE 260xxx Willingham concentrator - Cambridge B DLE 261xxx Willingham concentrator - Cambridge B DLE 262xxx Willingham concentrator - Cambridge B DLE 267xxx Elsworth concentrator - Cambridge B DLE 268xxx Elsworth concentrator - Cambridge B DLE 71xxxx Caxton concentrator - Cambridge D DLE 78xxxx Crafts Hill concentrator - Cambridge Central DLE So from a 21xxxx number, all calls will flow up to Cambridge C. Calls to other 21xxxx numbers return to Madingly, 23xxxx and 25xxxx go to other concentrators, and all other "same dialling code" calls go over a junction to another DLE (B, C, and D are in the same building, Central isn't) and thence to the correct conc. -- Clive D.W. Feather | Home: Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work) | Web: http://www.davros.org Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work: Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is: |
Vehicle registrations (was '0207 008 0000')
In article ,
Martin Underwood writes I didn't know that? So did they use the letter suffix to denote the year? Initially, yes. If so, did it start at the same time as in Great Britain - ie A=1963, B=1964 etc? Except only London used A. If so, I presume it went out of sync in the early 80s when IOM used U and GB used V. Earlier: MAN xxx T was in use within days of S registrations appearing in Great Britain. -- Clive D.W. Feather | Home: Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work) | Web: http://www.davros.org Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work: Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is: |
'0207 008 0000'
In article , John Rowland
writes Instead of 2 x 10,000,000 numbers there are now100,000,000. No, a significant proportion of those 100,000,000 are unusable, because they start with 0, or 1, or 999 0171 had 7990000 allocatable numbers, from 200 0000 to 998 9999. 0181 ditto. 020 has 79900000 allocatable numbers, from 2000 0000 to 9989 9999. [Numbers beginning 0 and 1 can be allocated in addition, but only for certain special uses.] .... also one leading digit (possibly 2) will never be used, because that will be added to the beginning when the numbers eventually become 020 abc def ghj. No such plans (I really can't see London needing more than 80 million phone *numbers*). -- Clive D.W. Feather | Home: Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work) | Web: http://www.davros.org Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work: Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is: |
'0207 008 0000'
In article , Jack Taylor
writes Just to add to John's reply, London numbers starting with 020 3xxx are due to start being allocated this summer. Unlike 020 7xxx and 020 8xxx, they will be assigned on a London-wide basis and will not be mapped to any particular district within London. Which, AIUI, was supposed to be the case with unallocated 7xxx and 8xxx series numbers post-020 implementation Correct. However, most telcos chose to keep the distinction. When 3xxx numbers start being allocated, 7xxx and 8xxx will be closed even though there are numbers left in them. This is to deliberately ensure that 3xxx gets used in both "inner" and "outer" areas. For those wondering why 3 has been chosen, the reason is that there is no 01203 dialling code, while there are 01202, 01204, 01205, 01206, and 01209. -- Clive D.W. Feather | Home: Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work) | Web: http://www.davros.org Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work: Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is: |
'0207 008 0000'
In article , Richard
writes We could have [2-9]xxx xxxx; to get the others we would have to require people to dial the whole number for all calls (as you would from a mobile), Such numbers (e.g. 01242 19xxxx or 020 0xxx xxxx) are already allocated. However, they should not be used where the number needs to be advertised. Perhaps Ofcom could do some advertising that actually works this time, when London starts to get 3xxx xxxx numbers. Advertising should start any day now. Whether it works will be another question. -- Clive D.W. Feather | Home: Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work) | Web: http://www.davros.org Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work: Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is: |
'0207 008 0000'
In message , at 09:01:17 on Mon, 3
Jan 2005, Clive D. W. Feather remarked: http://www.davros.org/phones/btnetwork.thml explains this in more detail. http://www.davros.org/phones/btnetwork.html works better. -- Roland Perry |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 01:10 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk