|
'0207 008 0000'
In article ,
Martin Underwood writes Wasn't it '40 [not 30] cents more for the next [long pause] three [long pause] minutes'? I thought it was a mix of the two, but Googling consistently gets me 40 for all three verses. -- 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 , Aidan Stanger
writes Over here they give businesses the option of buying shorter numbers. Don't they do that at all where you are? No. and, therefore, more expensive. You have to plan for the longest number. Making some numbers longer shouldn't be any more expensive than making all numbers longer. The equipment needs to know *which* numbers have each length, so it knows when to stop collecting digits and start connecting the call. It's better if large blocks (e.g. 01234 xxxxxx) are all the same length, and worst when adjacent blocks differ (e.g. 01234 5678x and 01234 5679xx). The more variation, the bigger the internal tables need to be. -- 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 message , Clive D. W. Feather
writes 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. I believe that Staffordshire was the only other local authority to do so. -- Ian Jelf, MITG Birmingham, UK Registered Blue Badge Tourist Guide for London and the Heart of England http://www.bluebadge.demon.co.uk |
Vehicle registrations (was '0207 008 0000')
On Sat, 1 Jan 2005 12:25:52 -0000, "Martin Underwood"
wrote: "Martin Rich" wrote in message .. . As I understand it, the idea is to use the format XXX 01 PP from March 2051, and XXX 51 PP from September 2051 where XXX are random letters and PP is a place designator, so the present system could actually last until 2100 Seems logical that they simply reverse the current format, as they did in the mid-80s when ABC 123 Y was followed by A 123 ABC. In fact the precedent goes back much further than that: 123 ABC and in some areas 1234 AB numbers were issued when the ABC 123 numbers started to be used up (late 1950s). The intention to use A123 ABC after ABC 123Y was certainly there from the inception of the year suffix system in 1963 Martin |
'0207 008 0000'
"Clive D. W. Feather" wrote in message
... 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. That is what I was told by my source in a telco. As I said (in a different post) my knowledge about network infrastructure is as it affects numbering. Probably some Chinese Whispers along the way. Oh, DMSUs have all been replaced by NGSs. Well, they are still referred to as DMSUs by the (albeit non-hardware) people telco I know. 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. Indeed, I was simplifying. -- 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: regards Stephen |
'0207 008 0000'
"Clive D. W. Feather" wrote in message
... 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. I meant that all STD codes that did not start 01 were changed so that they did start 01. 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. Surely, that shows the right date was chosen. 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. Planned as in will happen in the near future, not as in an exact timetable. 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. The others basically had to changed so it made sense to do it the same time as phONEday. Given that Reading did not *have* to be done then it made sense to implement the change a while later. Two changes in, say, four months would have been rather annoying for the people of Reading (and anyone who called there). 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. Somewhere else could have 'filled up' before Reading but it was not likely. If they had they would have got 0118. regards Stephen |
'0207 008 0000'
On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 23:07:32 +0000, Clive Page
wrote: The first transition was the introduction of the "020" code running in parallel with the old codes, but with the local numbers staying at seven digits. During this short period you could call (e.g.) London Transport enquiries from a telephone in London by dialling any of the following: "222 1234" or "0171 222 1234" or "0207 222 1234" so that the new area codes were then genuinely "0207" and "0208". I can see how you are thinking, but the "new area codes" were *never* "genuinely 0207 and 0208". During the period of parallel running, subscribers in London could continue to dial the 7-digit number if calling within the 0171 or 0181 code areas, or the full number with the 0171 or 0181 prefix, *OR* they could dial the new-style number which began 020, but only in its entirety. But then the second transition occurred, with three components: firstly 0171/0181 codes were withdrawn, secondly local numbers changed from seven digits to eight, and thirdly the "new" area codes changed from 0207 and 0208 to just 020. What actually happened was that 0171/0181 codes were withdrawn, meaning that you could no longer dial the previous numbers in their 7-digit or 11-digit forms, and at the same time it was now possible to dial the 8-digit forms of the new-style numbers. One notes with surprise that an extraordinary number of shop-fronts and commercial vehicles appear to have been re-painted in the brief period during which the area codes were 0207 and 0208, and not to have been re-painted afterwards. But the area codes were *never* 0207 and 0208 - this is just a (very) commonly-held misconception because the changeover wasn't communicated well enough. Charlie -- Remove NO-SPOO-PLEASE from my email address to reply Please send no unsolicited email or foodstuffs |
'0207 008 0000'
On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 15:11:59 GMT, "John Shelley"
wrote: Martin Underwood wrote: "John Shelley" wrote in message ... snip Ah, so new suscribers in an area potentially get a brand new district number that's unrelated to that of all the other subscribers in that area? Yes, I suppose that's one way of solving the problem. Do all subscribers in one area get one new code and all those in another area get different code: can you still say "xxxx [a new code] is Harrow, alongside yyyy [the existing code]" or is the code-to-location mapping lost? The code to location mapping is, I believe, becoming blurred. My BT phone is 020 8863 xxxx, and my NTL phone line 020 8357 xxxx. This is indeed the case. I used to work in Intelligent Networks, setting up number translation services for large national companies who would want all callers to be routed to their nearest local office. Firstly, they would invariably give us their requirements in terms of postcodes, which would necessitate a long explanation to the account manager of how postcodes were a system used by the Royal Mail to distribute letters and parcels, and there wasn't a one-to-one mapping to STD codes, and secondly, it was usually impossible to meet their requirements when it came to non-BT numbers, as cable companies seemed to assign their Manchester (for example) 1000-number blocks to cover the entire city, in the order customers were signed up... Charlie -- Remove NO-SPOO-PLEASE from my email address to reply Please send no unsolicited email or foodstuffs |
'0207 008 0000'
"Charlie Pearce" wrote in
message ... On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 23:07:32 +0000, Clive Page wrote: But the area codes were *never* 0207 and 0208 - this is just a (very) commonly-held misconception because the changeover wasn't communicated well enough. I can understand why people were confused: they thought that it was a like-for-like change from 0171 - 0207 and 0181 - 0208. Going off at a tangent, slightly, how are 07xxx mobile phone codes allocated: did different networks (Vodafone, one2one etc) buy blocks of codes and allocate from them, or are the numbers allocated completely at random? In other words, for a given code (eg 07748) are all numbers with that code connected via the same provider? |
Vehicle registrations (was '0207 008 0000')
"Clive D. W. Feather" wrote in message
... In article , Martin Underwood writes Except only London used [the suffix] A. I never knew that. So did all other parts of the country keep the older formats (eg ABC 123, 123 ABC, AB 1234) for an extra year and then change over in 1964 to ABC 123B? Typically British: change something, but don't change it everywhere at the same time! I know that initially the changover of letter occurred on 1 January, until they realised that this caused a rush in car orders just as garages and distributors were returning from their Christmas holidays. I believe the change to August-to-July "years" was in 1966. So does that mean that: A, B, C ran from Jan-Dec D ran from Jan-Jul E onwards ran from Aug-Jul making D a short "year"? Of the pre-1963 formats, was there any difference between the ABC 123, 123 ABC, AB 1234 formats other than that one gave way to another when an individual authority had allocated all its numberplates? I ask because the plot twist at the end of the film "The League of Gentlemen" hinges on an observant boy noticing that the registration on the robbers' truck should have related to a car rather than a lorry - does this mean that numberplates were of a different format in the two cases? Anyone know why Northern Ireland never adopted any of the year-letter formats. I'd have thought the army would have wanted a unified system so that British soldiers' private cars were not quite so obviously different from Northern Irish residents' cars, so as to lessen the chance of them being IRA targets. |
Vehicle registrations (was '0207 008 0000')
Martin Underwood wrote:
I know that initially the changover of letter occurred on 1 January, until they realised that this caused a rush in car orders just as garages and distributors were returning from their Christmas holidays. I believe the change to August-to-July "years" was in 1966. So does that mean that: A, B, C ran from Jan-Dec D ran from Jan-Jul E onwards ran from Aug-Jul making D a short "year"? More or less, but E was the short year, and the changeover in 67. London's use of A suffixes didn't extend to buses - there were never any A reg Routemasters until some got re-registered when the original numbers got valuable. But Aldershot and District did have A reg buses, and I don't think they were registered in London. Anyone know why Northern Ireland never adopted any of the year-letter formats. I'd have thought the army would have wanted a unified system so that British soldiers' private cars were not quite so obviously different from Northern Irish residents' cars, so as to lessen the chance of them being IRA targets. I think it was for compatibility with the rest of Ireland, though it continued after the Republic went over to a new system in the late '80s. I think they use the same system as the rest of the UK now. Disclaimer: I didn't look any of the above up. Colin McKenzie |
'0207 008 0000'
"Martin Underwood" wrote in message
... "Charlie Pearce" wrote in message ... On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 23:07:32 +0000, Clive Page wrote: Going off at a tangent, slightly, how are 07xxx mobile phone codes allocated: did different networks (Vodafone, one2one etc) buy blocks of codes and allocate from them, or are the numbers allocated completely at random? In other words, for a given code (eg 07748) are all numbers with that code connected via the same provider? Numbers were assigned in blocks. I think that telcos got one or more 07xxx codes, so each block would potentially contain 999,999 numbers. However a few years ago (?about the same time that London went to 020) mobile number portability was introduced - when you go from one mobile operator to another you can take the number with you. This is a similar position to fixed lines. There are time limits within which the 'giving' telco has to pass all the necessary information to the 'receiving' telco, to enable them to take over the number. regards Stephen |
'0207 008 0000'
Huge wrote:
Actually, the A/B boxes used "gongs" in the coin feed mechanism, so that the operator could hear the coins running in. You're confusing them with the later mechanical boxes, where inserting the coin wound up a clockwork mechanism which as it unwound put 5K ohm loops across the line, which could be automatically counted by a piece of equipment in the exchange. Cooo.... fascinating! Is there a decent web site out there which explains the mechanisms involved in the old callboxes? |
Vehicle registrations (was '0207 008 0000')
Colin McKenzie ) gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying : Anyone know why Northern Ireland never adopted any of the year-letter formats. I'd have thought the army would have wanted a unified system so that British soldiers' private cars were not quite so obviously different from Northern Irish residents' cars, so as to lessen the chance of them being IRA targets. I think it was for compatibility with the rest of Ireland, though it continued after the Republic went over to a new system in the late '80s. I think they use the same system as the rest of the UK now. No, they're still their own sweet way. There's no "space" in the current UK system for any NI regi offices - besides, they don't even use DVLA - they use their own registration authority. |
Vehicle registrations (was '0207 008 0000')
Martin Underwood wrote to uk.transport.london on Mon, 3 Jan 2005:
I know that initially the changover of letter occurred on 1 January, until they realised that this caused a rush in car orders just as garages and distributors were returning from their Christmas holidays. I believe the change to August-to-July "years" was in 1966. So does that mean that: A, B, C ran from Jan-Dec D ran from Jan-Jul E onwards ran from Aug-Jul making D a short "year"? I think it was E that was the short year, if my memory serves me well. Anyone know why Northern Ireland never adopted any of the year-letter formats. I'd have thought the army would have wanted a unified system so that British soldiers' private cars were not quite so obviously different from Northern Irish residents' cars, so as to lessen the chance of them being IRA targets. At the time, in the early 1960s, it had its own government at Stormont, and was nowhere near running out of registrations, so no need to. 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. Nowadays, of course, the Republic of Ireland has its own system, with a number, a letter-code indicating the county of origin, and the year in full. -- "Mrs Redboots" http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/ Website updated 2 January 2005 |
Vehicle registrations (was '0207 008 0000')
Colin McKenzie wrote to uk.transport.london on Mon, 3 Jan 2005:
I think it was for compatibility with the rest of Ireland, though it continued after the Republic went over to a new system in the late '80s. I think they use the same system as the rest of the UK now. Not as far as I know - I think they are still on 3 letters/4 numbers. -- "Mrs Redboots" http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/ Website updated 2 January 2005 |
'0207 008 0000'
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 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. Even 20 years ago, when the first mobile phones came out, who would have guessed that they'd be so cheap and affordable that 90% of the population would have one? -- "Mrs Redboots" http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/ Website updated 2 January 2005 |
'0207 008 0000'
Stephen Osborn wrote to uk.transport.london on Mon, 3 Jan 2005:
"Clive D. W. Feather" wrote in message ... 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. I meant that all STD codes that did not start 01 were changed so that they did start 01. Again, not true. All the NI codes were changed to start 02, as were several other places. -- "Mrs Redboots" http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/ Website updated 2 January 2005 |
Vehicle registrations (was '0207 008 0000')
I wrote:
But Aldershot and District did have A reg buses, and I don't think they were registered in London. Disclaimer: I didn't look any of the above up. I just looked this up, and it seems my memory was fooled by the AAA nnn C numbers. Sorry. Colin McKenzie |
'0207 008 0000'
Mrs Redboots wrote:
Stephen Osborn wrote to uk.transport.london on Mon, 3 Jan 2005: "Clive D. W. Feather" wrote in message ... 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. I meant that all STD codes that did not start 01 were changed so that they did start 01. Again, not true. All the NI codes were changed to start 02, as were several other places. But that was the Big Number change in 2000, not the phONEday change in 1995. The latter resulted in Belfast, for example, changing from 0232 to 01232. -- Richard J. (to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address) |
'0207 008 0000'
In article , Mrs Redboots
writes I meant that all STD codes that did not start 01 were changed so that they did start 01. Again, not true. All the NI codes were changed to start 02, as were several other places. That was PhTWOday. We're discussing PhONEyDay. -- 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 Going off at a tangent, slightly, how are 07xxx mobile phone codes allocated: did different networks (Vodafone, one2one etc) buy blocks of codes and allocate from them, or are the numbers allocated completely at random? In other words, for a given code (eg 07748) are all numbers with that code connected via the same provider? Each operator is allocated a block of numbers, usually 10,000 at a time but sometimes 1000. A block relates to a specific location (for 01 and 02 numbers) or to a specific service and chargeband (e.g. mobiles are all 077 to 079, free calls are all 080, and each 0844 xxx block has a specific price). When they think they're running out of numbers in a block, they then apply for another block. If they have requirements for more than one block in an area (e.g. two physical exchanges within one location) they can ask for more blocks, and so on. Overlaying this is Number Portability. A customer can move their phone number to a new operator - for geographic numbers they must remain at the same address when doing so. The call will continue to be routed to the "donor" operator's local exchange, which will see that the number is ported, stick a special code on the front, and re-inject it into the call routeing system, which will get it to the right place based on that code. [I can't remember whether the whole call "trombones" through the donor exchange or only the call setup signalling.] NP also applies to mobiles, but the mechanisms aren't necessarily the same. -- 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 , Colin
McKenzie writes E onwards ran from Aug-Jul making D a short "year"? More or less, but E was the short year, and the changeover in 67. Wasn't there a later change to October, then to September? [NI] I think they use the same system as the rest of the UK now. No, they moved to the AXI 1 to AXI 9999 system and are still on 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: |
Vehicle registrations (was '0207 008 0000')
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. -- 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 , Mrs Redboots
writes 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? There's about 9 million people in the 020 area. That's a safety margin of 800%. Even if there was a need to give London more numbers, I would expect it to be done by either splitting some of it off or overlaying a second code as is done in the USA, not by moving to 9 digits. All of 01 to 04 is reserved for geographic numbering. -- 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 Of the pre-1963 formats, was there any difference between the ABC 123, 123 ABC, AB 1234 formats other than that one gave way to another when an individual authority had allocated all its numberplates? Not that I'm aware of. I was under the understanding that an office with a single code, say HJ[*], would allocate in the order: HJ 1 to HJ 9999 AHJ 1 to AHJ 999 BHJ 1 to BHJ 999 ... YHJ 1 to YHJ 999 1 HJ to 9999 HJ 1 AHJ to 999 AHJ 1 BHJ to 999 BHJ ... though I don't know whether any actually got to the fourth format. If it had several codes, it would go through each code in the first format, then each code in the second (that is, all of A to Z additional letter before changing code), and so on. I ask because the plot twist at the end of the film "The League of Gentlemen" hinges on an observant boy noticing that the registration on the robbers' truck should have related to a car rather than a lorry - does this mean that numberplates were of a different format in the two cases? That doesn't sound right to me, but I could have a gap in my knowledge here. The only difference I'm aware of is that there used to be two kinds of trade plates: red on white: cars and certain other vehicles only white on red: unrestricted use [*] HJ was Southend-on-Sea, which also had JN. But ignore that for the purpose of discussion. -- 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')
"Clive D. W. Feather" wrote in message
... In article , Martin Underwood writes If so, did it start at the same time as in Great Britain - ie A=1963, B=1964 etc? Except only London used A. That is incorrect. Staffordshire and Lancashire are two that used A suffixes, to my knowledge. They both started partway through 1963. -- 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'
|
'0207 008 0000'
In message , at 18:14:00 on
Mon, 3 Jan 2005, Paul Cummins remarked: 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? We have four different numbers of which three can be used together, coming in on one cable. Why would we need more physical lines? For many years I had three lines - one for the house and two for the business (one for incoming calls and another for Fax and outgoing). Later I moved to Home Highway, which is also in effect three lines. Nowadays I can make do with one, as most business is conducted by email. You don't need a line for the TV because they call out in the middle of the night. -- Roland Perry |
Vehicle registrations (was '0207 008 0000')
"Terry Harper" wrote in message
... "Clive D. W. Feather" wrote in message ... In article , Martin Underwood writes If so, did it start at the same time as in Great Britain - ie A=1963, B=1964 etc? Except only London used A. That is incorrect. Staffordshire and Lancashire are two that used A suffixes, to my knowledge. They both started partway through 1963. Any idea why the whole country didn't start the new numberplate format on 1 Jan 1963. To have only some regions adopt the new scheme - and not all of those starting on the same date - sounds like a ****-up and brewery situation! I suppose it explains why when I was little, at the sad stage of collecting car numbers, I very rarely saw A-reg cars whereas B, C, D etc were much more common. Another question: what are the rules about white-on-black plates versus black-on-white/yellow plates. I thought it became a legal requirement to have black-on-white/yellow round about H or J, but I occasionally see newer cars (though still with the year letter as a *suffix*) with old-style white-on-black plates. |
Vehicle registrations (was '0207 008 0000')
Martin Underwood ) gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying : Any idea why the whole country didn't start the new numberplate format on 1 Jan 1963. To have only some regions adopt the new scheme - and not all of those starting on the same date - sounds like a ****-up and brewery situation! Don't forget that until the early 70s, registrations were all issued by local authorities, rather than a centralised authority. They just went on in their own sweet way doing their own sweet little thing... Another question: what are the rules about white-on-black plates versus black-on-white/yellow plates. I thought it became a legal requirement to have black-on-white/yellow round about H or J, but I occasionally see newer cars (though still with the year letter as a *suffix*) with old-style white-on-black plates. Legally, white-on-black is only allowed on cars first registered pre 1/1/73. London buses are the worst offenders of the lot... |
'0207 008 0000'
In message ,
Martin Underwood writes 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. This was used for the old 999 diallers, and more recently digital communicators hooked to the house line. These days, anyone who needs any sort of security either has a dedicated ICB line or Redcare. -- 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'
In message , Clive D. W. Feather
writes NP also applies to mobiles, but the mechanisms aren't necessarily the same. Years ago the base band from your phone was multiplexed in a group using FDM. Then these were multiplexed into larger groupings called supergroups. Is the system still the same? If so how does it get converted to the TDM of mobiles? Another question, having ADSL coming down the same line as my normal telephone, I gather it would need to be on a carrier of some sort or other, DSB,VSB,SSB with or without the possibility of suppressed carrier etc. anyone out there able to give me a clue? And what would the frequencies of the carrier be? -- Clive. |
Vehicle registrations (was '0207 008 0000')
"Clive D. W. Feather" wrote in message
... 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. All the Zx registrations were in the Republic. The Ix registrations are a mixture, as are the xI and xZ combinations. SI was Clackmannanshire. There was no IS, and IZ was County Mayo. W itself was Sheffield, as were WA, WB, WE and WJ. The Welsh registrations had no particular allocations. Glamorgan was L, then NY and TG. Scotland had some extra registrations, like G, GA etc. for Glasgow, and AG for Ayrshire, VA and VD for Lanarkshire, YJ for Dundee, RG for Aberdeen, etc. Go to http://www.terry.harper.btinternet.co.uk/carreg.htm for the full 1966 list. If you find any misprints resulting from the scanning in, please let me know. I've just corrected a few as a result of looking for these examples. -- 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/ |
Vehicle registrations (was '0207 008 0000')
Clive D. W. Feather wrote:
In article , Colin McKenzie writes E onwards ran from Aug-Jul making D a short "year"? More or less, but E was the short year, and the changeover in 67. Wasn't there a later change to October, then to September? The S prefix ran from August 1998 to February 1999. Thereafter, prefix letters T,V,W,X and Y were each valid for 6 months starting on 1st March or 1st September. These are also the starting dates for the date numbers in the new format used since September 2001. -- Richard J. (to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address) |
'0207 008 0000'
On Sun, 02 Jan 2005 14:15:37 GMT, John Youles mines.a.pint@localhost
wrote: 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. So that people get it right this time! IMO as soon as it was obvious that enough people were confused about the change, the ads, website and bill inserts should have been changed to explain why the format that was becoming common was *wrong*. That so many people are still confused shows that the original publicity could have been better, doesn't it? Richard. |
'0207 008 0000'
In article , Clive Coleman
writes Years ago the base band from your phone was multiplexed in a group using FDM. Then these were multiplexed into larger groupings called supergroups. Is the system still the same? No. The line card in the concentrator will digitise the phone signal (8000 samples per second using 8 bit encoding (mu-law IIRC)). All traffic within the network uses these digitised streams. This is the source of the 64k theoretical limit for modems. An E1 is 2048000 bits per second. It's split into 64000 frames per second, each 32 bits long. Bit 0 is used for clocking, bit 16 for signalling, and the other 30 bits are the 30 voice channels on the carrier. E1s are then multiplexed up into larger groups, but again at the octet level. The basic switching device is a piece of RAM. Say you've got 32 E1s coming in (so 960 voice channels plus 64 signalling bits) on a link. Switching basically involves re-ordering these bits between the input and output. You read the 1024 bits in order into a RAM, then read them out in the appropriate order. [There are two 64000 bps data streams, one for each direction of the call. They get handled separately though, of course, in synchronisation.] Note that ISDN simply involves doing the digitising at the customer premises (or using data directly). An ISDN-2 multiplexes two channels, a 16000 bps D channel, and some framing bits into a (IIRC) 160kbs signal. The line card then splits it back out. Another question, having ADSL coming down the same line as my normal telephone, I gather it would need to be on a carrier of some sort or other, DSB,VSB,SSB with or without the possibility of suppressed carrier etc. anyone out there able to give me a clue? And what would the frequencies of the carrier be? Beyond my knowledge base, I'm afraid. I know the spectrum is divided up in the order phone, spacer, uplink, downlink, and there are complex power limit curves for the different types of ADSL equipment. -- 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'
On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 08:49:10 GMT, John Youles mines.a.pint@localhost
wrote: Ofcom don't advertise when any other area gets a new range of local numbers, why should they for London ? I'm only suggesting it because of the mess that we are in since the code change. And then not necessarily only in London, 029 seems just as misunderstood. Everywhere else in the country seems at peace with their numbers (except parts of Reading)... Numbers of the format (020) 7xxx xxxx and (020) 8xxx xxxx are not affected by the introduction of (020) 3xxx xxxx unlike the earlier changes which affected the area code and / or existing local numbers. Yes, I know, my point is that with the existing misunderstanding of the London code, the new numbers will be perceived as having a new code and that needs to be clarified otherwise we'll be moaning about seeing 0203. Richard. |
'0207 008 0000'
On Mon, 3 Jan 2005 08:41:20 +0000, "Clive D. W. Feather"
wrote: 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. Of course the phone number in the subject line is within the 70 blocks. So is my office phone number. This arose because City University already had phone numbers in two separate ranges, 7477 and 7505, and would I believe have needed to find space in a third range for any expansion in the number of separate phone numbers within the university. So instead all the existing numbers were switched to the 7040 range (with a transitional period during which both old and new numbers worked) I'm fairly certain that I haven't seen any 80 or 81 numbers in use, which fits with the remark elsewhere in the thread that the former 0171 range was the one approaching capacity. Martin |
| 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