On Nov 19, 8:06 am, "Clive D. W. Feather" cl...@on-the-
train.demon.co.uk wrote:
In article , Paul Scott
writes

I reckon the long term plan is that 023 will become the Solent area, and the
codes inbetween (geographically speaking) will disappear when they need to
become 8 digit numbers.

As and when areas run out of numbers, the current plan is to introduce
"overlay" codes that will occupy the same area but have 8 figure
numbers.

023 will be used for the south of England. So, suppose that 01983 (Ryde)
runs out of numbers, then a new "Wight" area code will be created
consisting of 023 with 8 digit numbers beginning (say) 34. Existing Ryde
numbers will *not* be renumbered. If 01730 (Petersfield) runs out, a new
area code would be 023 with 8 digit numbers beginning (say) 61. And so
on.

024 has the same role for central England, 029 for Wales, and 037 to 039
for Scotland.

--
Clive D.W. Feather | Home:

Great information Clive thanks.

Question: This implies 037 and 039 will be exceptions to new non
geaographice "03" codes. Is that right?

Adrian

Adrian Auer-Hudson, MIMIS wrote:
On Nov 19, 8:06 am, "Clive D. W. Feather" cl...@on-the-
train.demon.co.uk wrote:
In article , Paul Scott
writes

I reckon the long term plan is that 023 will become the Solent area, and the
codes inbetween (geographically speaking) will disappear when they need to
become 8 digit numbers.
As and when areas run out of numbers, the current plan is to introduce
"overlay" codes that will occupy the same area but have 8 figure
numbers.

023 will be used for the south of England. So, suppose that 01983 (Ryde)
runs out of numbers, then a new "Wight" area code will be created
consisting of 023 with 8 digit numbers beginning (say) 34. Existing Ryde
numbers will *not* be renumbered. If 01730 (Petersfield) runs out, a new
area code would be 023 with 8 digit numbers beginning (say) 61. And so
on.

024 has the same role for central England, 029 for Wales, and 037 to 039
for Scotland.

--
Clive D.W. Feather | Home:

Great information Clive thanks.

Question: This implies 037 and 039 will be exceptions to new non
geaographice "03" codes. Is that right?

No, that is not right. 037-9 are not for Scotland, they are UK-wide
numbers (non-geographic).

http://www.ofcom.org.uk/telecoms/ioi...plan081107.pdf

037 numbers, for example, are explicitly reserved for operators and
end-users using the corresponding 087 numbers.

On Nov 19, 1:16 pm, Paul Cupis wrote:
Adrian Auer-Hudson, MIMIS wrote:
On Nov 19, 8:06 am, "Clive D. W. Feather" cl...@on-the-
train.demon.co.uk wrote:
In article , Paul Scott
writes

I reckon the long term plan is that023will become the Solent area, and the
codes inbetween (geographically speaking) will disappear when they need to
become 8 digit numbers.
As and when areas run out of numbers, the current plan is to introduce
"overlay" codes that will occupy the same area but have 8 figure
numbers.

023will be used for the south of England. So, suppose that 01983 (Ryde)
runs out of numbers, then a new "Wight" area code will be created
consisting of023with 8 digit numbers beginning (say) 34. Existing Ryde
numbers will *not* be renumbered. If 01730 (Petersfield) runs out, a new
area code would be023with 8 digit numbers beginning (say) 61. And so
on.

024 has the same role for central England, 029 for Wales, and 037 to 039
for Scotland.

--
Clive D.W. Feather | Home:

Great information Clive thanks.

Question: This implies 037 and 039 will be exceptions to new non
geaographice "03" codes. Is that right?

No, that is not right. 037-9 are not for Scotland, they are UK-wide
numbers (non-geographic).

http://www.ofcom.org.uk/telecoms/ioi...plan081107.pdf

037 numbers, for example, are explicitly reserved for operators and
end-users using the corresponding 087 numbers.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Will there be (an) overlay code(s) for Scotland?

One can't believe folks will like dialling 11 digits in order to reach
nearby neighbors.

Clearly there is no plan to eventually drop 01nnn area codes.

Adrian

In article
,
"Adrian Auer-Hudson, MIMIS" writes
Great information Clive thanks.

You're welcome, but ...

Question: This implies 037 and 039 will be exceptions to new non
geaographice "03" codes. Is that right?

It hadn't clicked with me that this would be an issue.

However, I happened to meet with Ofcom's Numbering Unit a couple of days
ago, and they now believe that changes they have made to number
management, combined with a central portability database in a few years
time, mean that overlays will probably not be needed.

Even if one or two turn out to be necessary, they won't need the full
Scotland plan they had a few years ago, but can use 027.

--
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:

On 22 Nov, 14:13, "Clive D. W. Feather" cl...@on-the-
train.demon.co.uk wrote:

"Adrian Auer-Hudson, MIMIS" writes:

Great information Clive thanks.

You're welcome, but ...

Question: This implies 037 and 039 will be exceptions to new non
geaographice "03" codes. Is that right?

It hadn't clicked with me that this would be an issue.

However, I happened to meet with Ofcom's Numbering Unit a couple of days
ago, and they now believe that changes they have made to number
management, combined with a central portability database in a few years
time, mean that overlays will probably not be needed.

Even if one or two turn out to be necessary, they won't need the full
Scotland plan they had a few years ago, but can use 027.


Thanks for the info.

Overlays sound like a pretty ugly 'solution', I'm glad it sounds like
they're probably off the cards.

I wonder whether the earlier projections for a squeeze on available
numbers aren't a bit out now. I'd think there's far less demand for
second residential lines nowadays, as people don't want dedicated
lines for fax machines or dial-up internet access. Of course, business
still likes direct-dial numbers which certainly has driven demand for
new numbers in certain locations. But I wonder if the real demand in
the future will be for mobile 07 prefixed numbers. That said, well
over half the population has a mobile now and there doesn't appear to
be any problems with 07 number shortages.

May I enquire what the forthcoming central portability database is all
about?

On 23 Nov, 00:36, Mizter T wrote:
I wonder whether the earlier projections for a squeeze on available
numbers aren't a bit out now. I'd think there's far less demand for
second residential lines nowadays, as people don't want dedicated
lines for fax machines or dial-up internet access. Of course, business
still likes direct-dial numbers which certainly has driven demand for
new numbers in certain locations. But I wonder if the real demand in
the future will be for mobile 07 prefixed numbers. That said, well
over half the population has a mobile now and there doesn't appear to
be any problems with 07 number shortages.

Landlines are only an issue because the numbers after "01" and "02"
mean something, which means you can't (e.g.) fill the demand for new
numbers in London by using the spare capacity in the 01620 range (I'm
guessing there are rather fewer than a million landlines in North
Berwick...).

Since mobile codes signify nothing of any use ["the operator that you
signed up with eight years ago, before porting your number twice to
get whizzy new phones" is not IMO information that's of any use], the
same problems don't arise.

There are a billion unique numbers with the 07 prefix. Even if you
take out the 070 range (used for personal numbers IIRC), that means
everyone in the UK can have around 15 mobile devices each.

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

On 23 Nov, 09:48, John B wrote:
On 23 Nov, 00:36, Mizter T wrote:

I wonder whether the earlier projections for a squeeze on available
numbers aren't a bit out now. I'd think there's far less demand for
second residential lines nowadays, as people don't want dedicated
lines for fax machines or dial-up internet access. Of course, business
still likes direct-dial numbers which certainly has driven demand for
new numbers in certain locations. But I wonder if the real demand in
the future will be for mobile 07 prefixed numbers. That said, well
over half the population has a mobile now and there doesn't appear to
be any problems with 07 number shortages.

Landlines are only an issue because the numbers after "01" and "02"
mean something, which means you can't (e.g.) fill the demand for new
numbers in London by using the spare capacity in the 01620 range (I'm
guessing there are rather fewer than a million landlines in North
Berwick...).

Since mobile codes signify nothing of any use ["the operator that you
signed up with eight years ago, before porting your number twice to
get whizzy new phones" is not IMO information that's of any use], the
same problems don't arise.

There are a billion unique numbers with the 07 prefix. Even if you
take out the 070 range (used for personal numbers IIRC), that means
everyone in the UK can have around 15 mobile devices each.


Yes I had considered the non-geographic nature of mobile numbers, but
I hadn't done the maths, so thanks for that! However I was aware that
mobiles only use the 077, 078 and 079 number ranges - though having
just checked this I see that 075 has just been allocated as a new
mobile number range. Meanwhile 070 personal numbers are moving to a
new 06 range to avoid confusion with mobiles, whilst 076 is for
pagers. So that means that 072, 073 and 074 (and eventually 070) will
be available for mobile numbering in the future too. So, as you say,
there won't be any shortage of numbers.

I'll take issue with you saying that "mobile codes signify nothing of
any use" these days - when calling from a landline you may be charged
at different rates according to what mobile number you're dialling -
and they charge according to which network owns that number range
(i.e. that of the network or provider the number was originally with),
as opposed to which network the mobile subscriber may now be with
(i.e. after porting it around).

I've just had a quick check here http://www.magsys.co.uk/telecom/
tarifres1.htm and from a *very quick* glance it would seem that on
many residential tariffs calls to most mobiles are charged at the same
rate, though this certainly wasn't always the case - and calls to the
Three network remain cheaper than other networks.

On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 04:01:30 -0800 (PST), Mizter T wrote:
I've just had a quick check here http://www.magsys.co.uk/telecom/
tarifres1.htm and from a *very quick* glance it would seem that on
many residential tariffs calls to most mobiles are charged at the same
rate, though this certainly wasn't always the case - and calls to the
Three network remain cheaper than other networks.

What provider would this be? Almost without exception I've found calls to
Three are significantly more expensive than the other 4 networks, and at
best the same price.

--
-- Michael "Soruk" McConnell Eridani Star System
MailStripper - http://www.MailStripper.eu/ - SMTP spam filter
Second Number - http://secondnumber.matrixnetwork.co.uk/

In article
,
John B writes
Landlines are only an issue because the numbers after "01" and "02"
mean something, which means you can't (e.g.) fill the demand for new
numbers in London by using the spare capacity in the 01620 range

True, though there are a number of spare codes, such as 01220, 01532,
01734, and 01999.

(I'm
guessing there are rather fewer than a million landlines in North
Berwick...).

Not long ago Benbecula was officially listed as being short of numbers.

--
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:

On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 01:48:57 -0800 (PST), John B
wrote:

Landlines are only an issue because the numbers after "01" and "02"
mean something, which means you can't (e.g.) fill the demand for new
numbers in London by using the spare capacity in the 01620 range (I'm
guessing there are rather fewer than a million landlines in North
Berwick...).

Well, you *could*. All you'd need to do, assuming the modern
exchanges can be modified to cope, is to do away with STD codes.
They're of limited relevance these days anyway, as I recall another
poster said earlier in the thread.

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.