In article , Clive Page
writes
Well we are getting in to questions of semantic, I fear, as to the
meaning of "dialling code". I still think that during the transition
period, when the local numbers were 7 digits long, and one could call
them by starting dialling 020... that, following the rules of the ITU
E.123, the space in the number should have preceded the local part of
the number, i.e. before the last seven digits. So that the number
could have been given either as 0171 xxx yyyy or with equal validity
0207 xxx yyyy.

No.

At that point the number was (0171) xxx yyyy.

It so happened that you could dial it as 020 7xxx yyyy, but that didn't
make the code 0207. It was just another way to dial it.

Many years ago, the code for Hockley[*] was 03704. A lack of blocking
in the switches meant that you could also dial Hockley numbers as
070224. That didn't make the code for Hockley be 070224; it was simply
another way of dialling it.
[*] This applied to all the Southend-on-Sea ring exchanges: Canewdon,
Hockley, and Shoeburyness. I *think* the last digit was 6, 4, and 2
respectively, but I may have them mixed up. Nevertheless the point
remains valid.

but it seems undeniable, if you read E.123 carefully.

Done. It remains deniable.

--
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:

In article , A H
wrote:
All day long the lazy journalists of the UK media have been giving out the
emergency telephone number for the SE Asia earthquake and subsequent tidal
waves in the format:

'0207 008 0000'

BBC News 24, Sky News, Teletext have been displaying and saying it wrongly
all day
ITN News 24 format it correctly on-screen but the presenters have been
saying "0207 008 000" all day long....

Is Oftel/Ofcom to blame for this mass stupidity/ignorance (because of the
way the renumbering was done a few years back) or are people in this country
in general just thick?

Soon we can expect to see/hear '0203 xxx xxxx'

Is this the only country in the world that can't cope with simple number
changes?

Andy

I think rhythm is important here, many people break phone Nos into triplets,
but it's into duplets on the continent.

Anyway tonight on Radio 4 tonight at 8 00 there is a programme entitled "The
secret life of phone numbers". There MIGHT be some answers.

Michael Bell

--

"Michael Bell" wrote in message
...
In article , A H
wrote:

I think rhythm is important here, many people break phone Nos into
triplets,
but it's into duplets on the continent.

Sadly on the continent they also say the pairs of digits as if they were a
number between 10 and 99. This is cumbersome in French (98 becomes
"quatre-vignts dix-huit", whereas "neuf huit" would be far simpler) and
downright ludicrous in German where the tens and units are reversed,
four-and-twenty-blackbirds style (98 becomes acht-und-neunzig). I watched
someone in Germany taking down a phone number. His pen took two steps
forwards and one step back for each pair of numbers: hilariously
inefficient!

I tend to break numbers into triplets, but if I knew the number before BT
added extra digits I break it at that point without even thinking about it:
my parents' number used to be 3698 and then was lengthened to 613698:
subconsciously I break this into 61 and 3698 rather than 613 698 ;-)

In message , at
15:20:49 on Mon, 27 Dec 2004, Martin Underwood
remarked:
I tend to break numbers into triplets, but if I knew the number before BT
added extra digits I break it at that point without even thinking about it:
my parents' number used to be 3698 and then was lengthened to 613698:
subconsciously I break this into 61 and 3698 rather than 613 698 ;-)

The breakpoint can affect the memorability very significantly. I have a
number that ends either 604 080, or 60 40 80, depending on where you
break it!
--
Roland Perry

JRS: In article ,
dated Tue, 28 Dec 2004 07:50:50, seen in news:uk.transport.london,
Roland Perry posted :
In message , at
15:20:49 on Mon, 27 Dec 2004, Martin Underwood
remarked:
I tend to break numbers into triplets, but if I knew the number before BT
added extra digits I break it at that point without even thinking about it:
my parents' number used to be 3698 and then was lengthened to 613698:
subconsciously I break this into 61 and 3698 rather than 613 698 ;-)

The breakpoint can affect the memorability very significantly. I have a
number that ends either 604 080, or 60 40 80, depending on where you
break it!

A number of new importance to me is best recalled as 0 aaaaa bbbbb,
since 0 is standard, aaaaa is unchanged being "village", and now
bbbbb=aaaaa. I'm not likely to ever want to use the local abbbbb form.
I don't mean that aaaaa is a multiple of 11111; it's "typical".

Uploaded via 020 8cde fghi.

--
© John Stockton, Surrey, UK. Turnpike v4.00 MIME. ©
Web URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/ - FAQish topics, acronyms, & links.
Proper = 4-line sig. separator as above, a line exactly "-- " (SonOfRFC1036)
Do not Mail News to me. Before a reply, quote with "" or " " (SonOfRFC1036)

Michael Bell wrote to uk.transport.london on Mon, 27 Dec 2004:

I think rhythm is important here, many people break phone Nos into triplets,
but it's into duplets on the continent.

Really, of course, we should quote London numbers in the same way that
we quote every other number (mobiles included) - as a group of 5
followed by a group of 6. But it's horrendously difficult - I can't do
it in my head with my own phone number, never mind anybody else's!
--
"Mrs Redboots"
http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/
Website updated 18 December 2004

Mrs Redboots wrote:
Michael Bell wrote to uk.transport.london on Mon, 27 Dec 2004:

I think rhythm is important here, many people break phone Nos into
triplets, but it's into duplets on the continent.

Really, of course, we should quote London numbers in the same way
that we quote every other number (mobiles included) - as a group of
5 followed by a group of 6.

We don't quote all other numbers as 5+6. Manchester, for example, has
had 3-digit exchange numbers for years (originally with letters like
London), so that CENtral 1234 became 061-236 1234, and is now 0161 236
1234. The same is true of Liverpool, Birmingham, Glasgow, etc.

Reading (0118), Coventry (024) and several others have had new exchange
codes, and should be and often are quoted correctly with their 3 or
4-digit area code. (Though 024 is actually shared with other areas!)

Also, I certainly don't adhere to any particular grouping of mobile
numbers, preferring to group the digits in the most memorable way. Do
any of the mobile phone companies or any other relevant body recommend a
particular format for mobile numbers?

--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

"Richard J." wrote in message
k...
Mrs Redboots wrote:

Really, of course, we should quote London numbers in the same way
that we quote every other number (mobiles included) - as a group of
5 followed by a group of 6.
snip
Also, I certainly don't adhere to any particular grouping of mobile
numbers, preferring to group the digits in the most memorable way. Do
any of the mobile phone companies or any other relevant body recommend a
particular format for mobile numbers?

I find them much easier to quote as, say, 0791-234-5678. The only
recommendation I've seen is to quote them as +44(0)7912345678.
--
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/

In article , Terry Harper
writes
"Richard J." wrote in message
. uk...
Mrs Redboots wrote:

Really, of course, we should quote London numbers in the same way
that we quote every other number (mobiles included) - as a group of
5 followed by a group of 6.
snip
Also, I certainly don't adhere to any particular grouping of mobile
numbers, preferring to group the digits in the most memorable way. Do
any of the mobile phone companies or any other relevant body recommend a
particular format for mobile numbers?

I find them much easier to quote as, say, 0791-234-5678. The only
recommendation I've seen is to quote them as +44(0)7912345678.

I, too, quote mobiles as 4+3+4 - the first 4 digits tend to be the
provider code, certainly our work ones (we have about 2000 mobile
numbers) are like that. But as I travel for work, mostly I store numbers
as +44 20 1234 5678. (Incidentally, the schoolboy in my finds it
hysterically funny that the international code for Russia is '007').

BBC London (or GLN or whatever) yesterday had the number displayed
correctly, but the newsreader read it twice, once 'correctly' and the
second time as 0207 008 0000 (probably from force of habit).

If it really bugs you (or anything else broadcast on the BBC prompts you
to complain) the best way is to ring BBC Audience Services 08700 100 222
and ask to speak to the Duty Officer (Or ring 020 7580 4468 for radio -
still ask for the Duty Officer). The BBC records all calls in the 'Duty
Log' which circulates around the management (daily when I worked there).
And they do take notice.
--
Steve
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GCM/B$ d++(-) s+:+ a+ C++ UL++ L+ P+ W++ N+++ K w--- O V
PS+++ PE- t+ 5++ X- R* tv+ b+++ DI++ G e h---- r+++ z++++
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

Terry Harper wrote:
"Richard J." wrote...
Mrs Redboots wrote:

Really, of course, we should quote London numbers in the same way
that we quote every other number (mobiles included) - as a group of
5 followed by a group of 6.
snip
Also, I certainly don't adhere to any particular grouping of mobile
numbers, preferring to group the digits in the most memorable way. Do
any of the mobile phone companies or any other relevant body recommend a
particular format for mobile numbers?

I find them much easier to quote as, say, 0791-234-5678. The only
recommendation I've seen is to quote them as +44(0)7912345678.

....Which looks utterly stupid to me, as here we bracket the area code as
an alternative to including the country code.

IOW your example should either be
(0791) 234 5678 or
+44 791 234 5678