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

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.

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!

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

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.

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

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

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)

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 , 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: