Clive D. W. Feather wrote:

In article , Aidan Stanger
writes
Over here they give businesses the option of buying shorter numbers.
Don't they do that at all where you are?

No.

Any idea why not?

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.

The equipment needs to know *which* numbers have each length, so it
knows when to stop collecting digits and start connecting the call. It's
better if large blocks (e.g. 01234 xxxxxx) are all the same length, and
worst when adjacent blocks differ (e.g. 01234 5678x and 01234 5679xx).

The more variation, the bigger the internal tables need to be.

Yes, it would be silly to not put the longer numbers in large blocks.
UIVMM numbers no longer have to be assigned by physical location, so
that shouldn't be a problem.

"Richard" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 02 Jan 2005 14:15:37 GMT, John Youles mines.a.pint@localhost
wrote:
In message on Sun, 02 Jan
2005
13:22:40 +0000 in uk.transport.london,
(Richard)
tapped out on the keyboard:

Perhaps Ofcom could do some advertising that actually works this time,
when London starts to get 3xxx xxxx numbers.

Why ? The area code will not have changed, all that will be happening is
that a
new range of local numbers will come into existence. You already have to
dial
the last eight digits anyway.

So that people get it right this time! IMO as soon as it was obvious
that enough people were confused about the change, the ads, website
and bill inserts should have been changed to explain why the format
that was becoming common was *wrong*. That so many people are still
confused shows that the original publicity could have been better,
doesn't it?

Richard.


I work in an office with 12 people, only 3 of them (including myself) format
London numbers correctly...

All day long I am surrounded by people who say "my number is 0207 (long
pause) 074 xxxx". I tell them they are wrong but they insist they are right,
that London "is either 0207 or 0208".

Today a woman called my extension, when I gave her another number to ring
i.e "020 (long pause) 7637 xxxx" she interrupted and said "You mean 0207, is
that 898 after it?". I then said "No, I didn't mean, or say, "0207"....I
gave you the correct number, in the correct format. If you are phoning from
a London landline you only need to dial 7898 xxxx, 0207 is NOT the code".

The reply was, "Oh, you mean you can call another London number without
putting 0207 or 0208 in front it? I didn't know that, no-one has ever said
it was 020".

Oftel/Ofcom are to blame and they should sort it out before 020-3xxx xxx
brings on apoplexy within the media who will insist *London phone numbers
are changing again.....0203 is the new code for London" (or similar,
hysterical and duff headlines appear as 'information' for Londoners).

It is probably too late now to re-educate the majority who seem convinced
London has two, soon to be three area codes...

Andy

"Richard" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 08:49:10 GMT, John Youles mines.a.pint@localhost
wrote:
Ofcom don't advertise when any other area gets a new range of local
numbers, why
should they for London ?

I'm only suggesting it because of the mess that we are in since the
code change. And then not necessarily only in London, 029 seems just
as misunderstood. Everywhere else in the country seems at peace with
their numbers (except parts of Reading)...

Except much of Northern Ireland and many people in Coventry who think their
code is '02476'

Numbers of the format (020) 7xxx xxxx and (020) 8xxx
xxxx are not affected by the introduction of (020) 3xxx xxxx unlike the
earlier
changes which affected the area code and / or existing local numbers.

Yes, I know, my point is that with the existing misunderstanding of
the London code, the new numbers will be perceived as having a new
code and that needs to be clarified otherwise we'll be moaning about
seeing 0203.

We can expect to see '0203' in the media and painted on vans and shop signs
in the near future...

Andy

A H wrote:

Oftel/Ofcom are to blame and they should sort it out before 020-3xxx xxx
brings on apoplexy within the media who will insist *London phone numbers
are changing again.....0203 is the new code for London" (or similar,
hysterical and duff headlines appear as 'information' for Londoners).

They already have, when the new numbers were announced in the summer

In message , John Youles
writes

Ofcom don't advertise when any other area gets a new range of local
numbers, why
should they for London ? Numbers of the format (020) 7xxx xxxx and (020) 8xxx
xxxx are not affected by the introduction of (020) 3xxx xxxx unlike the earlier
changes which affected the area code and / or existing local numbers.

Except I did spot a 'news' item in the Metro (Local Free paper to London
and other cities) a few months ago along the lines that 'London is to
get a new dialling code - 0203'.

It's no wonder people think the way they do when this sort of rubbish is
published.
--
Steve Fitzgerald has now left the building.
You will find him in London's Docklands, E16, UK
(please use the reply to address for email)

Terry Harper wrote:

Go to http://www.terry.harper.btinternet.co.uk/carreg.htm for the full 1966
list. If you find any misprints resulting from the scanning in, please let
me know.

TC isn't quite right! (= Lancashire).

--
John Ray

"Richard J." wrote in message
. ..

The logic is to use the last two digits of the year for Mar-Aug
registrations, ditto plus 50 for Sep-Dec, and the same code for Jan &
Feb of the following year. So Mar-Aug 2011 will be 11 and Sep 2011 to
Feb 2012 will be 61. This formula will be valid until 28 Feb 2051, the
last two 6-month periods using the codes 50 and 00.

Thanks Richard, Neil, Annabel and others for clearing that up (sorry for the
delay in responding, I've been away over the Christmas/New Year period). I'd
clearly been incorrectly informed about the third/fourth digit structure. As
it was explained to me at the time the third digit would *always* be 0 or 5,
dependant upon month of registration, and the fourth digit would always be
the last digit of the year - hence my confusion! Obviously I was
misinformed.

On Tue, 4 Jan 2005 11:36:50 -0000, "Martin Underwood"
wrote:

"Martin Rich" wrote in message
.. .


Incidentally http://www.bt.com/archives/history/19241931.htm and
scroll down to 1925 reveals that the A/B button system was introduced
in 1935 and the very last ones in the UK weren't discontinued until
1992

Gosh, I hadn't realised that Button A/B phones lasted as long as 1992 in
some places - that's about the time that the post-payment "pips" phones were
starting to be replaced with modern pre-payment phones. Life goes
full-circle!


The pay-on-answer phones must have almost disappeared by 1992. BT's
archive web pages have the first 'blue payphone' (the first
modern-type prepayment phone) in 1979 and the 'blue payphone 2'
(presumably the production model used in large numbers) introduced in
1983. My memory, which could be inaccurate, is that for a couple of
years around 1983/4 the prepayment phones were common in busy places,
but pay-on-answer phones were the norm elsewhere. However, after that
the pay-on-answer phones were phased out rapidly.

In fact one possible explanation is that in 1992, modern prepayment
phones were finally being rolled out to remote areas, and this
included the few public phones that skipped the pay-on-answer phase
completely. According to the BT archives, the handful of A/B button
phones in Scotland survived because they used radio links which didn't
support the meter pulsing necessary for the pay-on-answer phones. So
it's possible - and I wonder if anybody reading this actually knows -
that the last A/B button boxes disappeared at around the same time as
the last pay-on-answer phones.

Martin

Jack Taylor ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying :

The logic is to use the last two digits of the year for Mar-Aug
registrations, ditto plus 50 for Sep-Dec, and the same code for Jan &
Feb of the following year. So Mar-Aug 2011 will be 11 and Sep 2011
to Feb 2012 will be 61. This formula will be valid until 28 Feb
2051, the last two 6-month periods using the codes 50 and 00.

Thanks Richard, Neil, Annabel and others for clearing that up (sorry
for the delay in responding, I've been away over the Christmas/New
Year period). I'd clearly been incorrectly informed about the
third/fourth digit structure. As it was explained to me at the time
the third digit would *always* be 0 or 5, dependant upon month of
registration, and the fourth digit would always be the last digit of
the year - hence my confusion! Obviously I was misinformed.

http://www.dvla.gov.uk/vehicles/regm...ent_system.htm

Terry Harper wrote to uk.transport.london on Tue, 4 Jan 2005:

"Mrs Redboots" wrote in message
...

Not entirely, as I know Co. Derry had/has at least one code with a Z in
it, but I can't remember what it was, and Husband is now back at work.
S was mostly in Scotland, I do know. SI was, I think, somewhere in the
Republic and IZ was - sheesh, I'm thinking Derry City, BICBW!

Annabel, Londonderry had/had IW, UI and YZ. IZ is County Mayo. No SI
allocated AFAIA.

That's right, it was YZ I was trying to think of. I think they've
finished the *IWs now and are going through the *YZs? UI is Derry City,
isn't it, rather than Co Londonderry? I remembered this morning that IL
is Co Fermanagh
--
"Mrs Redboots"
http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/
Website updated 2 January 2005