On Apr 3, 3:07*am, wrote:
On Apr 2, 8:39*pm, bobharvey wrote:

On Apr 1, 1:08*am, wrote: Did the letters* on British telephone dials always correspond to
those of US dials?

No, see below. *As far as I recall the US, Canada, & the Philippines
were the only ones who used the US system, but ICBW.

I heard some countries may have had the Q and O in different
positions.

we had O & Q on the zero. *Nice photo athttp://www.1900s.org.uk/1940s50s-domestic-phones.htm

Ok, so when cell phones came out widely, did Britain convert to that
scheme? *What about older landline Touch Tone and rotary phones--did
the dial ring have to be converted?

Sorry, I don't understand this; what does the introduction of cell
phones have to do with letters/numbers, and converting other 'phones?


I'm pretty sure Britain used exchange names as the US did. *When did
Britain go to all number calling? *(The last US city 'converted' in
1980, but it took a long time for old habits and signage to die.)
Then, businesses used the letters to give themselves memorable phone
numbers, such as TAXICAB.

Yes, we used to have exchange names in the number. For example, we
had an exchange called Abbey, the first three letters were part of the
number. The London Transport travel information service was 1234 on
this exchange, and would have been written as 'ABBey 1234. Until a
few weeks ago a hairdressers shop which I pass on my way to work still
had a sign which showed their number in this way, despite the fact
that this was phased out some time in the late '60s, I think. The
next version used '01' for London, followed by the old number with the
letters converted to digites. Since the 'A and the 'B' are both in
the 2 hole this number became 01-222 1234. If calling from within
London you did not need to dial the 01, but could if you wanted
to.Something over 20 years ago we started to run out of numbers, so
London was split into inner and outer, with the inner becomming 171
and the outer 081. Since the Abbey exchange was in inner London, the
LT number then became 071-222 1234. A few years later we were running
out of numbers again, so a '1' was added, and the number then became
0171-222 1234. Various other codes also gained a 1; 021 for
Birminghame 0121 and 0865 for Oxford became 01865 for example. The
final change (so far) was when inner and outer London were re-combined
as 020 with the 7 or 8 added previously added before the remaining 7
digits, so the LT number then became 020 8222 1234, and so it remained
until recently, when it went over to one of the new non-geographic
numbers, but the 1234 part still remains the same. Internationally
the number would be shown as +44 (0) 20 8222 1234; the 0 after the 44
would not normally be dialled if calling from overseas. Other digits
are now being used after the 020; our SIP trunks at work are a 020
3xxx xxxx number for example. This caused a problem at work a couple
of weeks ago. A user complained that some of her calls weren't going
through. She was calling a 020 8xxx xxxx number, but missing out the
leading 020. This would normally work, since our ISDN trunks are a
020 8xxx xxxx number, but would fail if the call happened to be routed
over the SIP trunks. I had to tweak the ARS on the telephone system
slightly to add the missing 020 digits back in if the number dialled,
was 98 followed by exactly 7 more digits and the call was routed via
SIP. The '9' above is to obtain an outside line, and is stripped off
before the call is dialled out.

Things like your TAXICAB example were not common here. The letters
letters were not put on later dial plates, or on the rings outside
them, after all-figure numbers were introduced, so many people
wouldn't have known how to dial them. Even in candlestick and
Bakelite days many instruments were fitted with the 'F' versions of
the 10 and 12 dials, which did not have letters on them.
Interestingly, I've got a modern Mitel 5304 IP telephone in front of
me. It has both a 'Z', on the 9 button, and a 'Q' on the 7 button,
whereas the 21L dial which I have at home added the Q to the 0 hole.

Before the 5304 Mitel made a similar IP model without a display, and
SIP only. The model number of this was 5302, which probably means
something to our older American readers; a very different telephone.

On Apr 3, 9:25*am, Stephen Furley wrote:
Ok, so when cell phones came out widely, did Britain convert to that
scheme? *What about older landline Touch Tone and rotary phones--did
the dial ring have to be converted?


Sorry, I don't understand this; what does the introduction of cell
phones have to do with letters/numbers, and converting other 'phones?

The letter/number matchup on US dials/keypads has been the same since
letters were introduced in the 1920s.

I understand that historically Britain used a different matchup.
Thus, when cellphones came out with the US matchup, there was some
sort of 'conversion' between historical British practice and modern
units. That's what I'm trying to put into perspective.




I'm pretty sure Britain used exchange names as the US did. *When did
Britain go to all number calling? *(The last US city 'converted' in
1980, but it took a long time for old habits and signage to die.)
Then, businesses used the letters to give themselves memorable phone
numbers, such as TAXICAB.

[interesting history snip]

Things like your TAXICAB example were not common here. The letters
letters were not put on later dial plates, or on the rings outside
them, after all-figure numbers were introduced, so many people
wouldn't have known how to dial them. *Even in candlestick and
Bakelite days *many instruments were fitted with the 'F' versions of
the 10 and 12 dials, which did not have letters on them.
Interestingly, I've got a modern Mitel 5304 IP telephone in front of
me. *It has both a 'Z', on the 9 button, and a 'Q' on the 7 button,
whereas the 21L dial which I have at home added the Q to the 0 hole.

Before the 5304 Mitel made a similar IP model without a display, and
SIP only. *The model number of this was 5302, which probably means
something to our older American readers; a very different telephone.

Thanks for the explanation.

As mentioned, US dials stayed the same, and after exchange names were
phased out 'business names' were used. They're popular in toll free
numbers. (Amtrak is USARAIL).

Another big difference is that the US stayed at 10 digit numbers which
were introduced as the standard format in the early 1950s, but took
years to implement. Today, many callers must dial 10 digits for every
call, though some areas need only 7 if in the same area code.

(Going back some years, people in small towns had a 10-digit phone
number, but for local calls needed to dial only 5 digits.)

On Tue, 3 Apr 2012 09:30:21 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Apr 3, 9:25*am, Stephen Furley wrote:
Ok, so when cell phones came out widely, did Britain convert to that
scheme? *What about older landline Touch Tone and rotary phones--did
the dial ring have to be converted?


Sorry, I don't understand this; what does the introduction of cell
phones have to do with letters/numbers, and converting other 'phones?

The letter/number matchup on US dials/keypads has been the same since
letters were introduced in the 1920s.

I understand that historically Britain used a different matchup.

As did other European countries with their own subtle variations.
Nobody used a "standard" scheme in the international sense.

Thus, when cellphones came out with the US matchup, there was some
sort of 'conversion' between historical British practice and modern
units. That's what I'm trying to put into perspective.




I'm pretty sure Britain used exchange names as the US did. *When did
Britain go to all number calling? *(The last US city 'converted' in
1980, but it took a long time for old habits and signage to die.)
Then, businesses used the letters to give themselves memorable phone
numbers, such as TAXICAB.

[interesting history snip]

Things like your TAXICAB example were not common here. The letters
letters were not put on later dial plates, or on the rings outside
them, after all-figure numbers were introduced, so many people
wouldn't have known how to dial them. *Even in candlestick and
Bakelite days *many instruments were fitted with the 'F' versions of
the 10 and 12 dials, which did not have letters on them.
Interestingly, I've got a modern Mitel 5304 IP telephone in front of
me. *It has both a 'Z', on the 9 button, and a 'Q' on the 7 button,
whereas the 21L dial which I have at home added the Q to the 0 hole.

Before the 5304 Mitel made a similar IP model without a display, and
SIP only. *The model number of this was 5302, which probably means
something to our older American readers; a very different telephone.

Thanks for the explanation.

As mentioned, US dials stayed the same, and after exchange names were
phased out 'business names' were used. They're popular in toll free
numbers. (Amtrak is USARAIL).

Another big difference is that the US stayed at 10 digit numbers which
were introduced as the standard format in the early 1950s, but took
years to implement. Today, many callers must dial 10 digits for every
call, though some areas need only 7 if in the same area code.

(Going back some years, people in small towns had a 10-digit phone
number, but for local calls needed to dial only 5 digits.)

On Apr 3, 5:30*pm, wrote:
On Apr 3, 9:25*am, Stephen Furley wrote:

Ok, so when cell phones came out widely, did Britain convert to that
scheme? *What about older landline Touch Tone and rotary phones--did
the dial ring have to be converted?
Sorry, I don't understand this; what does the introduction of cell
phones have to do with letters/numbers, and converting other 'phones?

The letter/number matchup on US dials/keypads has been the same since
letters were introduced in the 1920s.

I understand that historically Britain used a different matchup.
Thus, when cellphones came out with the US matchup, there was some
sort of 'conversion' between historical British practice and modern
units. *That's what I'm trying to put into perspective.

I see what you're saying now. The fact that the Mitel IP 'phone
conforms to the same standard as cell 'phones suggests that this is
standard on all new 'phones. There was a considerable period when new
British 'phones didn't have letters at all, from the introduction of
all-figure dialing around the late '60s, until well into the push-
button era. Most of the button 'phones in my collection are 10 button
LD (pulse) models and most if not all of these lack letters, I don't
have all of them to hand to check. Many later 12 button DTMF or dual
signalling models also lack letters. Later, letters were re-
introduced, in the same pattern as on cell 'phones, which enabled
things like the TAXICAB example, but this is much less common here
than in the US. Because there was a long gap between the phasing out
of exchange names in numbers, such as ABBey 1234 and the use of
letters for other purposes the minor changes to the positions of a
couple of letters didn't really cause confusion. Most of the last
'phones to have letters on, or around, the dial would have been out of
use years before the re-introduction of letters to a slightly
different pattern, in fairly recent times.

Nobody seems to have mentioned New Zeeland, where the 0 is in the same
place, but the other digits run clockwise round the dial, so the 5 is
also in the same place, but all of the other digits are different.
The mechanism is the same as on a normal dial, so that dialing a digit
n generates 10-n pulses.

I'm pretty sure Britain used exchange names as the US did. *When did
Britain go to all number calling? *(The last US city 'converted' in
1980, but it took a long time for old habits and signage to die.)
Then, businesses used the letters to give themselves memorable phone
numbers, such as TAXICAB.

[interesting history snip]

Things like your TAXICAB example were not common here. The letters
letters were not put on later dial plates, or on the rings outside
them, after all-figure numbers were introduced, so many people
wouldn't have known how to dial them. *Even in candlestick and
Bakelite days *many instruments were fitted with the 'F' versions of
the 10 and 12 dials, which did not have letters on them.
Interestingly, I've got a modern Mitel 5304 IP telephone in front of
me. *It has both a 'Z', on the 9 button, and a 'Q' on the 7 button,
whereas the 21L dial which I have at home added the Q to the 0 hole.

Before the 5304 Mitel made a similar IP model without a display, and
SIP only. *The model number of this was 5302, which probably means
something to our older American readers; a very different telephone.

Thanks for the explanation.

As mentioned, US dials stayed the same, and after exchange names were
phased out 'business names' were used. *They're popular in toll free
numbers. *(Amtrak is USARAIL).

Another big difference is that the US stayed at 10 digit numbers which
were introduced as the standard format in the early 1950s, but took
years to implement. *Today, many callers must dial 10 digits for every
call, though some areas need only 7 if in the same area code.

(Going back some years, people in small towns had a 10-digit phone
number, but for local calls needed to dial only 5 digits.)

On Apr 3, 3:46*pm, wrote:

Nobody seems to have mentioned New Zeeland, where the 0 is in the same
place, but the other digits run clockwise round the dial, so the 5 is
also in the same place, but all of the other digits are different.
The mechanism is the same as on a normal dial, so that dialing a digit
n generates 10-n pulses.

The above was one of the challenges when international direct distance
dialing was introduced.

Would it be correct to say that when DTMF (Touch Tone) came out
everyone used the same frequencies world wide?

On Tue, 3 Apr 2012 13:38:30 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Apr 3, 3:46*pm, wrote:

Nobody seems to have mentioned New Zeeland, where the 0 is in the same
place, but the other digits run clockwise round the dial, so the 5 is
also in the same place, but all of the other digits are different.
The mechanism is the same as on a normal dial, so that dialing a digit
n generates 10-n pulses.

The above was one of the challenges when international direct distance
dialing was introduced.

Would it be correct to say that when DTMF (Touch Tone) came out
everyone used the same frequencies world wide?

SSMF4 seemed to have become the accepted standard in the UK by 1972,
see e.g.:-
http://www.britishtelephones.com/tsa4258.htm
but ISTR there used to be at least some subtle differences (avoiding
clashing with other MF signals) between US and UK MF telephones
although both would fit the current ITU specification.

On Tue, 3 Apr 2012 12:46:09 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Apr 3, 5:30*pm, wrote:
On Apr 3, 9:25*am, Stephen Furley wrote:

Ok, so when cell phones came out widely, did Britain convert to that
scheme? *What about older landline Touch Tone and rotary phones--did
the dial ring have to be converted?
Sorry, I don't understand this; what does the introduction of cell
phones have to do with letters/numbers, and converting other 'phones?

The letter/number matchup on US dials/keypads has been the same since
letters were introduced in the 1920s.

I understand that historically Britain used a different matchup.
Thus, when cellphones came out with the US matchup, there was some
sort of 'conversion' between historical British practice and modern
units. *That's what I'm trying to put into perspective.

I see what you're saying now. The fact that the Mitel IP 'phone
conforms to the same standard as cell 'phones suggests that this is
standard on all new 'phones. There was a considerable period when new
British 'phones didn't have letters at all, from the introduction of
all-figure dialing around the late '60s, until well into the push-
button era. Most of the button 'phones in my collection are 10 button
LD (pulse) models and most if not all of these lack letters, I don't
have all of them to hand to check. Many later 12 button DTMF or dual
signalling models also lack letters. Later, letters were re-
introduced, in the same pattern as on cell 'phones, which enabled
things like the TAXICAB example, but this is much less common here
than in the US. Because there was a long gap between the phasing out
of exchange names in numbers, such as ABBey 1234 and the use of
letters for other purposes the minor changes to the positions of a
couple of letters didn't really cause confusion. Most of the last
'phones to have letters on, or around, the dial would have been out of
use years before the re-introduction of letters to a slightly
different pattern, in fairly recent times.

Nobody seems to have mentioned New Zeeland, where the 0 is in the same
place, but the other digits run clockwise round the dial, so the 5 is
also in the same place, but all of the other digits are different.
The mechanism is the same as on a normal dial, so that dialing a digit
n generates 10-n pulses.


Yeah, I tried to explain that to a technician at then BC Tel in
Vancouver at the time when Teleglobe Canada introduced international
direct dialling (mid-70's?). He had a hard time getting his mind
around that anomaly. NZ's emergency number is 111, rather than 999.

Rotary phones had no letters on the face plate, but push buttons did
when introduced.

snipped

writes:

The letter/number matchup on US dials/keypads has been the same since
letters were introduced in the 1920s.

I understand that historically Britain used a different matchup.
Thus, when cellphones came out with the US matchup, there was some
sort of 'conversion' between historical British practice and modern
units. That's what I'm trying to put into perspective.

From what I remember, letters had disappeared from most landline phones long
before mobile phones began to appear. One of the reason 1-HELLO-WORLD
style business numbers never happened here.

There are letters on payphones, but these now follow the US/Mobile
pattern.

Phil