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:

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

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

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.

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

"John Shelley" wrote in message
news
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?

Martin Underwood wrote:
"John Shelley" wrote in message
news
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