'0207 008 0000'
 

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

'0207 008 0000'

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

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

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

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

Andy

'0207 008 0000'
 

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

'0207 008 0000'

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

Is Oftel/Ofcom to blame for this mass stupidity/ignorance (because of
the way the renumbering was done a few years back) or are people in
this country in general just thick?
Do you not have a family and home to go to?
--
Clive.

'0207 008 0000'
 

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

'0207 008 0000'

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

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

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

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

It wasn't a simple change, as a digit which was part of the exchange
code was moved into the subscriber's number. It was actually the 4th
number change that London has endured. The original exchange in
Chiswick, for example, CHI (=244) has become in succession 01-994, 081
994, 0181 994, and now 020 8994. The change to a 4-digit exchange code
within London was not publicised clearly enough, and the increasing use
of mobile phones means that in many cases the whole 11 digits are needed
anyway, so the exact position of the spaces becomes irrelevant, as it
also is for mobile phone numbers.

I was pleased to hear Charlotte Green on BBC Radio 4 this evening quote
the number correctly, as I drove back to London (the latter phrase being
a desperate attempt to make this thread on-topic).
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

Phone Nos (was '0207 008 0000'
 

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

'0207 008 0000'

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

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

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

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

Andy

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

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

Michael Bell

--

'0207 008 0000'
 

"A H" wrote in message
...

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

'0207 008 0000'

1. I don't think it really matters any more. I'm sick of reading out numbers
to people in the correct way - 020 7xxx xxxx - only to have them not
understand, until I repeat it as 0207 xxx xxxx . I've given up - if you
can't beat 'em, join 'em.

2. I think the people, frantic with worry for the safety of their loved
ones, who call the emergency line have a little more to be concerned about
than how the number is formatted!

Ian

'0207 008 0000'
 

On Sun, 26 Dec 2004 19:07:52 -0000, "A H"
wrote:

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

'0207 008 0000'

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

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


At the risk of going even further off topic, the answer is "no".
It's the same in Spain.

My phone number was originally Benitachell xx xx. Then it was
changed to 649 xx xx. Finally, it was given the "All Spain" number
of 96 649 xx xx. This makes sense - 96 means Alicante Province, 649
is my local exchange and xx xx my personal number. All Spain has
(or had) a nicely logical sequence - province, exchange, 4 figure
number.

Now we're officially being told to quote our numbers as three groups
of three - 966 49x xxx so that more numbers can be allocated.

Nobody is. Telefonica won't win.

Bill, whose old UK number will forever be FOOts Cray xxxx, or maybe
0208 300 xxxx but never 020 8300 xxxx
--
Bill Hayles

http://billnot.com

'0207 008 0000'
 

"Ian F." wrote in message
...

1. I'm sick of reading out numbers to people in the
correct way - 020 7xxx xxxx - only to have them not
understand, until I repeat it as 0207 xxx xxxx .
I've given up - if you can't beat 'em, join 'em.

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

--
John Rowland - Spamtrapped
Transport Plans for the London Area, updated 2001
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acro...69/tpftla.html
A man's vehicle is a symbol of his manhood.
That's why my vehicle's the Piccadilly Line -
It's the size of a county and it comes every two and a half minutes

Phone Nos (was '0207 008 0000'
 

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

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

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

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

Phone Nos (was '0207 008 0000'
 

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

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

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

Phone Nos (was '0207 008 0000'
 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Phone Nos (was '0207 008 0000'
 

On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 17:32:51 +0000, Mrs Redboots
wrote:

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

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

Really, of course, we should quote London numbers in the same way that
we quote every other number (mobiles included) - as a group of 5
followed by a group of 6. But it's horrendously difficult - I can't do
it in my head with my own phone number, never mind anybody else's!

Why a group of 5? The area code is only 3 digits long.

Phone Nos (was '0207 008 0000'
 

"Mrs Redboots" wrote in message
...

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

Really, of course, we shouldn't. The first gap should be after the bit that
you don't have to dial if it matches your own phone number, i.e. 020.

--
John Rowland - Spamtrapped
Transport Plans for the London Area, updated 2001
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acro...69/tpftla.html
A man's vehicle is a symbol of his manhood.
That's why my vehicle's the Piccadilly Line -
It's the size of a county and it comes every two and a half minutes

Phone Nos (was '0207 008 0000'
 

In message , John Rowland
writes

Really, of course, we shouldn't. The first gap should be after the bit
that you don't have to dial if it matches your own phone number, i.e.
020.
All very interesting, but just goes to show the snobbery of the people
who try to point out their living in the London area, as I've never read
anything authoritative on telephone number groupings.
--
Clive.

Phone Nos (was '0207 008 0000'
 

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

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

I find them much easier to quote as, say, 0791-234-5678. The only
recommendation I've seen is to quote them as +44(0)7912345678.
--
Terry Harper, Web Co-ordinator, The Omnibus Society
75th Anniversary 2004, see http://www.omnibussoc.org/75th.htm
E-mail:
URL: http://www.terry.harper.btinternet.co.uk/

Phone Nos (was '0207 008 0000'
 

Clive Coleman wrote:
In message , John Rowland
writes

Really, of course, we shouldn't. The first gap should be after the
bit that you don't have to dial if it matches your own phone
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".

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

'0207 008 0000'
 

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

'0207 008 0000'

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

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

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

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

Andy


The Ofcom recommended telephone number layouts are at:
http://www.ofcom.org.uk/licensing_nu...ide?a=87101#1b

Note the difference between the national and international formats (the
international format does not include the zero before the area code or any
brackets)

Phone Nos (was '0207 008 0000'
 

"Clive Coleman" wrote in message

All very interesting, but just goes to show the snobbery of the people
who try to point out their living in the London area, as I've never
read anything authoritative on telephone number groupings.

You mean like
http://www.ofcom.org.uk/licensing_nu...ide?a=87101#1b ?

Regards
Sunil

Phone Nos
 

Mrs Redboots wrote:

as a group of 5
followed by a group of 6

But my Reading number isn't 01189 351xxx, it's 0118 9351xxx, which is
preferably read as 0118 935 1xxx

--
confguide.com - the conference guide

Phone Nos (was '0207 008 0000'
 

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

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

Phone Nos (was '0207 008 0000'
 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Phone Nos (was '0207 008 0000'
 

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

On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 17:32:51 +0000, Mrs Redboots
wrote:

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

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

Really, of course, we should quote London numbers in the same way that
we quote every other number (mobiles included) - as a group of 5
followed by a group of 6. But it's horrendously difficult - I can't do
it in my head with my own phone number, never mind anybody else's!

Why a group of 5? The area code is only 3 digits long.

Yes, I know that. But many, perhaps a majority, of codes are 5 digits -
like my parents, which is 01903 xxxxxx, or my mobile, which is 07905
xxxxxx and I find most numbers easier to do as 5+6, or perhaps 5+3+3....
--
"Mrs Redboots"
http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/
Website updated 18 December 2004

Phone Nos (was '0207 008 0000'
 

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.
--
Clive.

'0207 008 0000'
 

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!

Phone Nos
 

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

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

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

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

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

'0207 008 0000'
 

Bill Hayles wrote:

On Sun, 26 Dec 2004 19:07:52 -0000, "A H" wrote:

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

'0207 008 0000'

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

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

Not only is it not, it's not even the only country where they needlessly
add digits that make the numbers harder to remember.

At the risk of going even further off topic, the answer is "no".
It's the same in Spain.

My phone number was originally Benitachell xx xx. Then it was
changed to 649 xx xx. Finally, it was given the "All Spain" number
of 96 649 xx xx. This makes sense - 96 means Alicante Province, 649
is my local exchange and xx xx my personal number. All Spain has
(or had) a nicely logical sequence - province, exchange, 4 figure
number.

Now we're officially being told to quote our numbers as three groups
of three - 966 49x xxx so that more numbers can be allocated.

Nobody is. Telefonica won't win.

Good - they deserve to lose! I only hope they are humiliated in defeat!

Phone numbers are more easily remembered in blocks of seven digits
(usually written as xxx xxxx because that's easier to read). But far too
many phone companies are forgetting this and adding extra digits, with
the stupid objective of keeping all the phone numbers the same length -
even the ones that are only used for modems to dial out on!

Bill, whose old UK number will forever be FOOts Cray xxxx, or maybe
0208 300 xxxx but never 020 8300 xxxx

How about 020 8 300 xxxx? IIRC that's how they're now listed in the
phone book.

'0207 008 0000'
 

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

'0207 008 0000'
 

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

Phone Nos (was '0207 008 0000'
 

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

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

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

Uploaded via 020 8cde fghi.

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

'0207 008 0000'
 

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

'0207 008 0000'
 

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:

'0207 008 0000'
 

In article , Aidan Stanger
writes
But far too
many phone companies are forgetting this and adding extra digits, with
the stupid objective of keeping all the phone numbers the same length -
even the ones that are only used for modems to dial out on!

If you make the numbers different lengths it makes the routeing logic
more complicated and, therefore, more expensive. You have to plan for
the longest number.

--
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 , 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

'0207 008 0000'
 

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

'0207 008 0000'
 

In message , Clive D. W. Feather
writes
If you make the numbers different lengths it makes the routeing logic
more complicated and, therefore, more expensive. You have to plan for
the longest number.

The only country where I've ever noticed major differences in number
length is Germany, where they can be very variable, even on the same
exchange.

--
Ian Jelf, MITG
Birmingham, UK

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

'0207 008 0000'
 

Clive D. W. Feather wrote:
writes
But far too
many phone companies are forgetting this and adding extra digits, with
the stupid objective of keeping all the phone numbers the same length -
even the ones that are only used for modems to dial out on!

If you make the numbers different lengths it makes the routeing logic
more complicated

Over here they give businesses the option of buying shorter numbers.
Don't they do that at all where you are?

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.

'0207 008 0000'
 

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

'0207 008 0000'
 

"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).

'0207 008 0000'
 

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

'0207 008 0000'
 

"John Shelley" wrote in message
...
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.

Yeah, silly question, on reflection! I presume the equipment has to accept a
fixed number of digits (previously seven, now eight) and identify the first
four (previously three) as the district and the remaining four as the
subscriber number. If the stream of digits begins with a 0, an alternative
algorithm identifies from the digits that follow how many are the exchange
(eg "20" signifies London, "1344" signifies Bracknell). I can see that if
you only dial the final four digits, they could be confused with 0
signifying "what follows is an exchange" or 1 signifying special numbers
like emergency (112), directory enquiries (118xxx) etc.

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.

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?

'0207 008 0000'
 

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. How big an area the
NTL 8357 covers I don't know, and my BT knowledge is now rusty, 12 years out
of it. What you can say is all esubscribers numbers on an specific exchange
number are within a specified area (excluding out of area lines of course).
The size of the area will vary and the area may well cover some, or all, of
the area covered by another exchange. This is definately a possible, maybe
situation.


--
Cheers for now,

John from Harrow, Middx

remove spamnocars to reply