"Martin Underwood" wrote in message
...
"Stephen Osborn" wrote in message
...
"Martin Underwood" wrote in message
...
"John Shelley" wrote in message
news Martin Underwood wrote:

The association of a single code with a geographic area disappeared
decades
ago. Harrow has the 8424, 8427, 8861 and 8863 codes. In the predigital
days I believe these were normally co-located in the same exchange
building.

Well it exists to the extent that there is one or more codes that relate
to
a specific geographical area (eg a town or a collection of neighbouring
towns/villages) but don't relate to anywhere else: given a phone code, you
can say which places use it[*]. Maybe the boundaries have become a bit
more
blurred and the regions have got larger (like a two-letter code in a car
registration number used to relate to a specific town, whereas now it
relates to a group of counties).


I said the association of a *single* code with a geographic area disappeared
decades ago.

In an earlier post there was a comment along the lines of
"my number was CHIselhurst xxxx, then 244 xxxx, then 01 244 xxxx ..."
and I was just saying that that simple linkage was long gone.

Two people move into adjacent houses (pre 2000) in, say, Harrow and one gets
a 424 xxxx and the other gets 863 xxxx. One thinks that the code for Harrow
is 424 and the other thinks it is 863 and *both* are wrong.

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.


Nowadays the exchange equipment is orders of magnitudes smaller, so in
some
case your 'local' exchange is actually located in an exchange building
in
a
neighbouring area, along with half a dozen other 'local' exchanges.

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.

To answer your specific question, I believe that anyone in Harrow will
get
one of the above codes *if one is available*. If not they will get one
form
one the exchange in the exchange building where their 'phone line ends
up.

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!).

The building is still there but how much of it is still used for exchange
purposes?

Some have been sold off / leased out, with perhaps a new small brick 'shed'
holding the equipment that used to fill the building. Some, especially the
larger ones, have been converted into BT offices, with perhaps ... . Some
of the smaller ones have equipment in one room and the rest is used for
other purposes, storage, hot desks for non office based staff, etc.

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.

I would make the same presumption but I don't actually know. My knowledge
is much more about numbering and about network infrastructure only as it
affects numbering.


regards

Stephen

"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.
;-)
--
Malcolm

"Colum Mylod" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 23:10:16 +0000, Ian Jelf
wrote:

In message , Clive D. W. Feather
writes
In article , Tony Bryer
writes
Most of mine are dialled including 020: my phone's memory needs
the 020 prefix entered for Caller ID to work

That's unusual: usually Caller ID lookups in the directory only check
the last 6 digits.

On mobiles that's true but both of the home phones we've had in recent
years require the full code with STD for caller display to work. Maybe
we were just "unlucky"?

Isn't that due to BT sending the CLI for local numbers with the full
code tacked on? In other countries local numbers' CLI is the pure
local number (why else have shorter local numbers?). In most other
parts of the planet local numbers can't be dual-dialled with area
codes in front.

Except of course in the good ol' US of A where local numbers *must* be
dialled including the area code.

Not everywhere, but where numbers have run out, rather than splitting the
area or some other form of renumbering they just assign a second area code.

So Massachusetts - Eastern (the Boston area) used to be 617 but is now 617
and 508. From 617 xxx xxxx to call your next door neighbour you have to
dial 617 yyy yyyy. Also 508 xxx xxxx may well be in use, so you have to
quote your number including the area code.


regards

Stephen

"Martin Rich" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 1 Jan 2005 09:49:11 -0000, "Martin Underwood"
wrote:


So for vehicles registered in Mar-Sep, the digits will be the last two of
the year; for vehicles registered in Sep-Mar, the digits will be the last
two of the year in which the September occurred + 50. This will last until
2050, when a new system will be required.

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.

2100 - I don't think any of us will be around to see what they decide to do
when that format runs out!


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?

"Stephen Osborn" wrote in message
...
"Colum Mylod" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 23:10:16 +0000, Ian Jelf
wrote:

In message , Clive D. W. Feather
writes
In article , Tony Bryer
writes
Most of mine are dialled including 020: my phone's memory needs
the 020 prefix entered for Caller ID to work

That's unusual: usually Caller ID lookups in the directory only check
the last 6 digits.

On mobiles that's true but both of the home phones we've had in recent
years require the full code with STD for caller display to work. Maybe
we were just "unlucky"?

Isn't that due to BT sending the CLI for local numbers with the full
code tacked on? In other countries local numbers' CLI is the pure
local number (why else have shorter local numbers?). In most other
parts of the planet local numbers can't be dual-dialled with area
codes in front.

Except of course in the good ol' US of A where local numbers *must* be
dialled including the area code.

Not everywhere, but where numbers have run out, rather than splitting the
area or some other form of renumbering they just assign a second area
code.

So Massachusetts - Eastern (the Boston area) used to be 617 but is now
617
and 508. From 617 xxx xxxx to call your next door neighbour you have to
dial 617 yyy yyyy. Also 508 xxx xxxx may well be in use, so you have to
quote your number including the area code.

At least in the UK we got rid of local codes for neighbouring exchanges:
these varied from one place to another - so you might precede a person's
number with a 9 from exchange A to B but precede it with 61 from exchange C
to B. I worked out fairly early on that it was possible to dial the STD code
from *any* exchange, even when a local code existed. I've heard it said that
before local codes were abolished it was possible to go from one end of the
country to the other in hops by dialling each local code in turn - and that
the resulting trunk call was then charged at the local rate ;-)

Martin Underwood wrote:
snip
At least in the UK we got rid of local codes for neighbouring
exchanges: these varied from one place to another - so you might
precede a person's number with a 9 from exchange A to B but precede
it with 61 from exchange C to B. I worked out fairly early on that it
was possible to dial the STD code from *any* exchange, even when a
local code existed. I've heard it said that before local codes were
abolished it was possible to go from one end of the country to the
other in hops by dialling each local code in turn - and that the
resulting trunk call was then charged at the local rate ;-)

That was possible, but as you used local links all the way many repeaters
(amplifiers) were bypassed which resulted in a very quiet call with lots of
background noise.


--
Cheers for now,

John from Harrow, Middx

remove spamnocars to reply

"John Shelley" wrote in message
...
Martin Underwood wrote:
snip
At least in the UK we got rid of local codes for neighbouring
exchanges: these varied from one place to another - so you might
precede a person's number with a 9 from exchange A to B but precede
it with 61 from exchange C to B. I worked out fairly early on that it
was possible to dial the STD code from *any* exchange, even when a
local code existed. I've heard it said that before local codes were
abolished it was possible to go from one end of the country to the
other in hops by dialling each local code in turn - and that the
resulting trunk call was then charged at the local rate ;-)

That was possible, but as you used local links all the way many repeaters
(amplifiers) were bypassed which resulted in a very quiet call with lots
of
background noise.

Ah, those were the days:

- Telephones with dials that took forever to return so you could dial the
next number - a real pain when you had to keep re-dialling because the
number was engaged.

- A loooooooooong delay after dialling the last digit before you got a
ringing tone, as the relays chugged away

- The brrrrrr dialling tone that was often so faint that you didn't know if
you'd "got a line" - at least the modern 350 Hz + 450 Hz dialling tone is
audible.

- Button A / Button B or pay-on-answer callboxes: remember those wretched
pips

- Recorded announcements made by women with cold, unwelcoming, cut-glass,
plummy accents who sounded as if they were speaking from the moon. They
probably came from the same place that trained the dragonesses in my local
library!


At least things are better these days.

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.

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.
--
Clive.

Jack Taylor wrote to uk.transport.london on Sat, 1 Jan 2005:

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!


They won't. March 2001 will be XX11, and September XX61. That way, the
present system will last until September 2049, by which time we'll
probably not have any oil left to run cars on anyway!
--
"Mrs Redboots"
http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/
Website updated 18 December 2004

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.
--
"Mrs Redboots"
http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/
Website updated 18 December 2004