John Rowland wrote:
I have never had a single problem getting anyone to understand the correct
new format, even if they won't use it themselves.

Even if you miss out the 020?

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.

Colin McKenzie

--
The great advantage of not trusting statistics is that
it leaves you free to believe the damned lies instead!

Colin McKenzie 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.

100% of mine are.

--
John Ray

John Ray wrote to uk.transport.london on Tue, 28 Dec 2004:

Colin McKenzie 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.

100% of mine are.

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

In article
, Colin
McKenzie 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.

Most of mine are dialled including 020: my phone's memory needs
the 020 prefix entered for Caller ID to work and most outgoing
calls are to people with numbers in the memory.

--
Tony Bryer

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.

--
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 , Clive D. W. Feather
wrote:
That's unusual: usually Caller ID lookups in the directory
only check the last 6 digits.

Mine is a Cabel & Wireless CWT2000: when I first got it I entered
all my local contacts without the 020 and it didn't recognise any of
them when they called.

--
Tony Bryer

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"?
--
Ian Jelf, MITG
Birmingham, UK

Registered Blue Badge Tourist Guide for London and the Heart of England
http://www.bluebadge.demon.co.uk

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. Of course BT muddle it up worse with their bad dash
formatting: London nos show up in "02072-221234" format.

Try dialling the local number you know is engaged, then hit 5 for
ringback (ouch, 10p), the CLI will be the number you dialled (no code)
and your phone will probably not recognise it.
--
New anti-spam address cmylod at despammed dot com

"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. Of course BT muddle it up worse with their bad dash
formatting: London nos show up in "02072-221234" format.

Try dialling the local number you know is engaged, then hit 5 for
ringback (ouch, 10p), the CLI will be the number you dialled (no code)
and your phone will probably not recognise it.

If you're dialling a number by hand, I can see why you would want to press
the minimum number of keys. But if you're putting it into the memory, why
not put in the full code? It takes a fraction of a second longer to dial but
it does ensure that the phone can be used anywhere in the country (eg if you
move house).

By the way, how much of a London number can you omit? You can omit the 020
if you're calling from a London number but can you also omit the district
code (the next four digits) if you're calling another number in the same
district?


By the way, how did changing from 0171 xxx yyyy or 0181 xxx yyyy to 020 7xxx
yyyy or 020 8xxx yyyy help alleviate the shortage of available numbers in
London? It didn't increase the number of available phone numbers - all it
did was to change the mapping slightly. OK, so there's scope for additional
district codes beginning with digits other than 7 or 8, but it's not
districts that are in short supply, it's subscriber numbers (the xxxx in the
above example).

Martin Underwood wrote:
snip
By the way, how much of a London number can you omit? You can omit
the 020 if you're calling from a London number but can you also omit
the district code (the next four digits) if you're calling another
number in the same district?

You have to dial the 8 digits. Think for a moment, how does the equipment
know that the 4 digits entered is a local number and not somebody having a
pause between "dialling" the exchange and the subs number.

By the way, how did changing from 0171 xxx yyyy or 0181 xxx yyyy to
020 7xxx yyyy or 020 8xxx yyyy help alleviate the shortage of
available numbers in London? It didn't increase the number of
available phone numbers - all it did was to change the mapping
slightly. OK, so there's scope for additional district codes
beginning with digits other than 7 or 8, but it's not districts that
are in short supply, it's subscriber numbers (the xxxx in the above
example).

In precisely the way you say. Instead of 2 x 10,000,000 numbers there are
now100,000,000. As to the point that it's not exchange codes that are in
short supply. but subscriber numers, all you do is add another exchange
number to an area, creates another 10,000 subscriber numbers. Many of the 4
digit exchange codes are actually located in the same building. Here in
Harrow the exchange building housed both the 8427 and 8863 exchanges and
probably others as well. With the arrival of electronic exchanges the
physical space needed for an exchange was vastly reduced so adding extra
switching capacity within a building that was built to house a mechanical
exchange isn't a problem. The extra exchange numbers are also needed for
the non BT operators.


--
Cheers for now,

John from Harrow, Middx

remove spamnocars to reply