'0207 008 0000'
 

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

'0207 008 0000'
 

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

'0207 008 0000'
 

"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?

'0207 008 0000'
 

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

Vehicle registrations (was '0207 008 0000')
 

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

'0207 008 0000'
 

"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/

'0207 008 0000'
 

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

'0207 008 0000'
 

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.

'0207 008 0000'
 

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

Vehicle registrations (was '0207 008 0000')
 

"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/

'0207 008 0000'
 

Clive D. W. Feather wrote:

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.

Any idea why not?

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.

Yes, it would be silly to not put the longer numbers in large blocks.
UIVMM numbers no longer have to be assigned by physical location, so
that shouldn't be a problem.

'0207 008 0000'
 

"Richard" wrote in message
...
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.


I work in an office with 12 people, only 3 of them (including myself) format
London numbers correctly...

All day long I am surrounded by people who say "my number is 0207 (long
pause) 074 xxxx". I tell them they are wrong but they insist they are right,
that London "is either 0207 or 0208".

Today a woman called my extension, when I gave her another number to ring
i.e "020 (long pause) 7637 xxxx" she interrupted and said "You mean 0207, is
that 898 after it?". I then said "No, I didn't mean, or say, "0207"....I
gave you the correct number, in the correct format. If you are phoning from
a London landline you only need to dial 7898 xxxx, 0207 is NOT the code".

The reply was, "Oh, you mean you can call another London number without
putting 0207 or 0208 in front it? I didn't know that, no-one has ever said
it was 020".

Oftel/Ofcom are to blame and they should sort it out before 020-3xxx xxx
brings on apoplexy within the media who will insist *London phone numbers
are changing again.....0203 is the new code for London" (or similar,
hysterical and duff headlines appear as 'information' for Londoners).

It is probably too late now to re-educate the majority who seem convinced
London has two, soon to be three area codes...

Andy

'0207 008 0000'
 

"Richard" wrote in message
...
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)...

Except much of Northern Ireland and many people in Coventry who think their
code is '02476'

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.

We can expect to see '0203' in the media and painted on vans and shop signs
in the near future...

Andy

'0207 008 0000'
 

A H wrote:

Oftel/Ofcom are to blame and they should sort it out before 020-3xxx xxx
brings on apoplexy within the media who will insist *London phone numbers
are changing again.....0203 is the new code for London" (or similar,
hysterical and duff headlines appear as 'information' for Londoners).

They already have, when the new numbers were announced in the summer

'0207 008 0000'
 

In message , John Youles
writes

Ofcom don't advertise when any other area gets a new range of local
numbers, why
should they for London ? 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.

Except I did spot a 'news' item in the Metro (Local Free paper to London
and other cities) a few months ago along the lines that 'London is to
get a new dialling code - 0203'.

It's no wonder people think the way they do when this sort of rubbish is
published.
--
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')
 

Terry Harper wrote:

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.

TC isn't quite right! (= Lancashire).

--
John Ray

Vehicle registrations (was '0207 008 0000')
 

"Richard J." wrote in message
. ..

The logic is to use the last two digits of the year for Mar-Aug
registrations, ditto plus 50 for Sep-Dec, and the same code for Jan &
Feb of the following year. So Mar-Aug 2011 will be 11 and Sep 2011 to
Feb 2012 will be 61. This formula will be valid until 28 Feb 2051, the
last two 6-month periods using the codes 50 and 00.

Thanks Richard, Neil, Annabel and others for clearing that up (sorry for the
delay in responding, I've been away over the Christmas/New Year period). I'd
clearly been incorrectly informed about the third/fourth digit structure. As
it was explained to me at the time the third digit would *always* be 0 or 5,
dependant upon month of registration, and the fourth digit would always be
the last digit of the year - hence my confusion! Obviously I was
misinformed.

'0207 008 0000'
 

On Tue, 4 Jan 2005 11:36:50 -0000, "Martin Underwood"
wrote:

"Martin Rich" wrote in message
.. .


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!


The pay-on-answer phones must have almost disappeared by 1992. BT's
archive web pages have the first 'blue payphone' (the first
modern-type prepayment phone) in 1979 and the 'blue payphone 2'
(presumably the production model used in large numbers) introduced in
1983. My memory, which could be inaccurate, is that for a couple of
years around 1983/4 the prepayment phones were common in busy places,
but pay-on-answer phones were the norm elsewhere. However, after that
the pay-on-answer phones were phased out rapidly.

In fact one possible explanation is that in 1992, modern prepayment
phones were finally being rolled out to remote areas, and this
included the few public phones that skipped the pay-on-answer phase
completely. According to the BT archives, the handful of A/B button
phones in Scotland survived because they used radio links which didn't
support the meter pulsing necessary for the pay-on-answer phones. So
it's possible - and I wonder if anybody reading this actually knows -
that the last A/B button boxes disappeared at around the same time as
the last pay-on-answer phones.

Martin

Vehicle registrations (was '0207 008 0000')
 

Jack Taylor ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying :

The logic is to use the last two digits of the year for Mar-Aug
registrations, ditto plus 50 for Sep-Dec, and the same code for Jan &
Feb of the following year. So Mar-Aug 2011 will be 11 and Sep 2011
to Feb 2012 will be 61. This formula will be valid until 28 Feb
2051, the last two 6-month periods using the codes 50 and 00.

Thanks Richard, Neil, Annabel and others for clearing that up (sorry
for the delay in responding, I've been away over the Christmas/New
Year period). I'd clearly been incorrectly informed about the
third/fourth digit structure. As it was explained to me at the time
the third digit would *always* be 0 or 5, dependant upon month of
registration, and the fourth digit would always be the last digit of
the year - hence my confusion! Obviously I was misinformed.

http://www.dvla.gov.uk/vehicles/regm...ent_system.htm

Vehicle registrations (was '0207 008 0000')
 

Terry Harper wrote to uk.transport.london on Tue, 4 Jan 2005:

"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.

That's right, it was YZ I was trying to think of. I think they've
finished the *IWs now and are going through the *YZs? UI is Derry City,
isn't it, rather than Co Londonderry? I remembered this morning that IL
is Co Fermanagh
--
"Mrs Redboots"
http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/
Website updated 2 January 2005

'0207 008 0000'
 

In article , Martin Rich
writes
According to the BT archives, the handful of A/B button
phones in Scotland survived because they used radio links which didn't
support the meter pulsing necessary for the pay-on-answer phones.

Could it be that A/B phones could only be used for local calls?

There was a time in the mid-1970s when some rural exchanges still didn't
have Subscriber Trunk Dialling when most places did. I remember seeing a
placard in a phone box saying that local calls were 2p unlimited if STD
was not available, or 2p per [3 minutes, I think] if it 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 , Graham J
writes
Does leaving out the 020 actually work reliably when you aren't using a BT
line or are redirecting calls via another provider?

It's an Ofcom requirement that you can leave out the area code when
dialling within the same code. [Note that mobile codes like 07973 are
not "area codes" for this reason.] So from any 020 line it is possible
to dial all other 020 numbers without the code.

This applies equally in 023 and 028, where not all intra-code calls are
local.

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"
[...]

That's how the PBX at Demon worked for many years; you dialled an
internal number or an external one without having to think.

With a bit of special handling for external numbers not
beginning with "0"

IIRC, our usual practice was to dial 141 in front of these (since that
was recognised and also escaped out to an external line, just like 0).

--
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'
 

That's how the PBX at Demon worked for many years; you dialled an
internal number or an external one without having to think.

Ah, that would explain where the idea came from :-) There was me thinking
he'd come up with it for himself instead of bringing it with him :-)

'0207 008 0000'
 

"Clive D. W. Feather" wrote in message
...

Could it be that A/B phones could only be used for local calls?

You could only use them for local calls. STD didn't exist, so you had to
call the operator. She (or he at night) told you how much to insert for your
trunk call, and when to press button A.
--
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'
 

On 5 Jan 2005 09:49:13 GMT, (Huge) wrote:

Martin Rich writes:

[33 lines snipped]

it's possible - and I wonder if anybody reading this actually knows -
that the last A/B button boxes disappeared at around the same time as
the last pay-on-answer phones.

When we started going to the West Coast of Scotland in 1984, they still
had A/B phone boxes in places (to our astonishment). They disappeared
shortly thereafter.

My last sighting of an A/B button box in the UK was on the *North*
coast of Scotland - to similar astonishment - circa 1989: we were
definitely travelling in a car that I'd acquired in April 1988 so it
wasn't earlier than that.

Conversely I remember modern phone boxes - pre-payment, unused coins
returned, LCD displays saying how much credit was outstanding - being
easy to find in Brodick on the Isle of Arran in summer 1986, when a
trip to the West of Scotland coincided with a family hiatus that
required a few long phone calls to my parents in London

Martin

'0207 008 0000'
 

In article ,
Martin Rich wrote:

My last sighting of an A/B button box in the UK was on the *North*
coast of Scotland - to similar astonishment - circa 1989: we were
definitely travelling in a car that I'd acquired in April 1988 so it
wasn't earlier than that.

I remember a news story about the last Button A/Button B phone being
decommissioned - I think it was in the early 1990s.

--
http://www.election.demon.co.uk
"The guilty party was the Liberal Democrats and they were hardened offenders,
and coded racism was again in evidence in leaflets distributed in September
1993." - Nigel Copsey, "Contemporary British Fascism", page 62.

'0207 008 0000'
 

In article , Richard J.
writes
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.

OK, I understand your point now: I should have said "from a telephone
in the central telephone zone of London".


--
Clive Page

'0207 008 0000'
 

In article , Charlie Pearce
writes
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.

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.

It wasn't until London got eight-digit local dialling that the former
code vanished, and the space moved to a point before the 7 (or 8). Of
course Oftel didn't support this, and it's a somewhat pedantic point,
but it seems undeniable, if you read E.123 carefully.

--
Clive Page

'0207 008 0000'
 

In article , (Terry
Harper) wrote:

Could it be that A/B phones could only be used for local calls?

You could only use them for local calls. STD didn't exist, so you had to
call the operator. She (or he at night) told you how much to insert for your
trunk call, and when to press button A.

And the only way the operator knew how much you put in was by listening to
the sound of the different coins dropping - quite an acquired skill, I should
think.

--
Peter Beale

'0207 008 0000'
 

On Thu, 6 Jan 2005 22:54:01 +0000, Clive Page
wrote:

In article , Charlie Pearce
writes
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.

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.

I disagree - the number could have been given as either 0171 xxx yyyy
or 020 7xxx yyyy during the transition period, but you could only
choose to dial 0171 xxx yyyy, xxx yyyy or 020 7xxx yyyy.

Charlie

--
Remove NO-SPOO-PLEASE from my email address to reply
Please send no unsolicited email or foodstuffs

'0207 008 0000'
 

In article ,
(John Rowland) wrote:

"Stephen Osborn" wrote in message
...

Your 'phone line will physically be connected to a some
sort of device locally. However this could be a consolidation
device that takes all of those lines on to a neighbouring
exchange building. Alternatively it could just take *some*
of those lines to a neighbouring exchange building if there
are logistcal reasons. For example the one room in the
building still being used for exchanges only has room for
three and a half sets of lines - don't forget that at some
stage 9,999 lines have to be connected up to each local
exchange.

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?

Developers in partnership with Cambridge City Council are paying a small
fortune right now to demolish part of the Cambridge central exchange (at
the back of the main post office) and re-route its cables. It serves a lot
more than 9,999 lines.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

'0207 008 0000'
 

In article ,
(Martin Underwood) wrote:

"Richard J." wrote in message
. ..
Martin Underwood wrote:
"Jack Taylor" wrote in message
...

"Clive Page" wrote in message
...

I've seen quite a few vehicles which even to this day bear phone
numbers such as 01532 xxxxxx or 01734 xxxxxx, having blindly
applied the "insert a 1" rule to codes that changed completely - eg
to 0113 or 0118.

I don't know about Leeds, but Reading changed to 01734 in 1995
(phONEday). The new code of 0118 was introduced in 1996, in parallel
with 01734 which was withdrawn in 1998.

My memory must be playing tricks with me (nothing new there!) - I could
have sworn that Leeds changed to 0113 2 at the same time as most other
exchanges had a 1 inserted in their code. I used to phone my grandpa in
Leeds every so often and I'm sure I had to change from 0532 671xxx to
0113 2671xxx without an intervening 01532 671xxx. Now I think about it
more, I believe that Reading did change from 0(1)734 to 0118 later than
phONEday, so maybe 01734 was valid for a while.

Your memory is not playing tricks. 01532 was never a valid area code, nor
were 01742 (actually 0114 Sheffield), 01602 (0115 Nottingham), 01533 (0116
Leicester) or 01272 (0117 Bristol).

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Phone Nos (was '0207 008 0000'
 

In article ,
(Clive Coleman) wrote:

In message , Richard J.
writes
number, i.e. 020.
All very interesting, but just goes to show the snobbery of the
people who try to point out their [= they're] living in the London
area, as I've never read anything authoritative on telephone number
groupings.

How on earth can you deduce any snobbery from that eminently practical
suggestion? In fact the snobbery lies with people who have to
emphasise that they live in the "0207" part of London.

I'm coming to the conclusion that "just goes to show" often means
"matches my prejudices".
To be honest, I was just thinking of the old "Beattie" ad, where when
the numbers were first introduced, a friend rings Beattie on her "our
of town number" so she rings back to make sure her friends inner-city
number is working.

These people seem not to realise that 020 7xxx and 020 8xxx numbers ceased
to be confined to inner and outer London respectively some years ago.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

'0207 008 0000'
 

In article ,
(Martin Underwood) 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?

There was a translation table from the previous allocations which, being
picked from unused STD allocations, were all over the place. E.g. my O2
(then Cellnet) number was 0410 which became 07710.

In general O2 and Vodafone are in both 077 and 078 and T-Mobile and Orange
are 079 though.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

'0207 008 0000'
 

In article ,
(Clive D. W. Feather) wrote:

http://www.davros.org/phones/btnetwork.thml explains this in more
detail.

or would if you'd not misspelled it! Try
http://www.davros.org/phones/btnetwork.html.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Vehicle registrations (was '0207 008 0000')
 

In article ,
(Martin Rich) wrote:

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

or 28th February 2101, to be precise. See you there!

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Vehicle registrations (was '0207 008 0000')
 

In article ,
(Clive D. W. Feather) wrote:

If so, did it start at the same time as in Great Britain - ie A=1963,
B=1964 etc?

Except only London used A.

Not exactly. IIRC Only Middlesex (this was before the GLC remember) and
Staffordshire used "A". London (as in the LCC) didn't use "A" in 1963.

A number of offices have used "A" since for re-registrations of vehicles
going back to 1957, again IIRC. There are some obvious examples in
re-registered early Routemasters (to bring this back onto topic for this
group).

--
Colin Rosenstiel

'0207 008 0000'
 

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:

'0207 008 0000'
 

In article ,
Colin Rosenstiel writes
Developers in partnership with Cambridge City Council are paying a small
fortune right now to demolish part of the Cambridge central exchange (at
the back of the main post office) and re-route its cables. It serves a lot
more than 9,999 lines.

46,900 numbers, according to my records. Of course, a phone number might
have more than one line allocated to it, or vice versa.

--
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')
 

"Colin Rosenstiel" wrote in message
...
In article ,
(Clive D. W. Feather) wrote:

If so, did it start at the same time as in Great Britain - ie A=1963,
B=1964 etc?

Except only London used A.

Not exactly. IIRC Only Middlesex (this was before the GLC remember) and
Staffordshire used "A". London (as in the LCC) didn't use "A" in 1963.

Lancashire also issued A-suffix numbers in 1963. It was a toss-up whether my
car was registered as ATExxxA or 6189DK, ending up as the latter.
--
Terry Harper, Web Co-ordinator, The Omnibus Society
Web Site: http://www.omnibussoc.org/75th.htm
E-mail:
URL: http://www.terry.harper.btinternet.co.uk/