In article , Richard J.
writes
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.

I think it was actually the fifth, as explained below. I think also
that the current inability of people to format numbers correctly (i.e.
in accordance with ITU recommendation E.123) arises partly from the fact
that the last "change" was actually two transitions about six months
apart.

The first transition was the introduction of the "020" code running in
parallel with the old codes, but with the local numbers staying at seven
digits. During this short period you could call (e.g.) London Transport
enquiries from a telephone in London by dialling any of the following:
"222 1234" or "0171 222 1234" or "0207 222 1234" so that the new area
codes were then genuinely "0207" and "0208".

But then the second transition occurred, with three components: firstly
0171/0181 codes were withdrawn, secondly local numbers changed from
seven digits to eight, and thirdly the "new" area codes changed from
0207 and 0208 to just 020. Thus the LT number became either "7222 1234"
or "020 7222 1234" - the latter form is almost the same as in the
interim period but the position of the space changed. Unfortunately
nobody bothered to explain these three components properly to the
public. In the confusion many people in London started quoting and
dialling the entire national number as they found by trial and error
that this always worked (I guess the increasing use of mobile phones
tended to reinforce this habit).

Hence the continued confusion, or at least lack of concern with putting
the space in the right place when quoting a number.

One notes with surprise that an extraordinary number of shop-fronts and
commercial vehicles appear to have been re-painted in the brief period
during which the area codes were 0207 and 0208, and not to have been
re-painted afterwards. What a pity that nobody told them to wait for
the second number change of the pair. :-)


--
Clive Page