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'

BBC News 24, Sky News, Teletext have been displaying and saying it wrongly
all day
ITN News 24 format it correctly on-screen but the presenters have been
saying "0207 008 000" all day long....

Is Oftel/Ofcom to blame for this mass stupidity/ignorance (because of the
way the renumbering was done a few years back) or are people in this country
in general just thick?

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?

Andy

In message , A H writes
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'

BBC News 24, Sky News, Teletext have been displaying and saying it
wrongly all day ITN News 24 format it correctly on-screen but the
presenters have been saying "0207 008 000" all day long....

Is Oftel/Ofcom to blame for this mass stupidity/ignorance (because of
the way the renumbering was done a few years back) or are people in
this country in general just thick?
Do you not have a family and home to go to?
--
Clive.

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'

BBC News 24, Sky News, Teletext have been displaying and saying it
wrongly all day
ITN News 24 format it correctly on-screen but the presenters have
been saying "0207 008 000" all day long....

Is Oftel/Ofcom to blame for this mass stupidity/ignorance (because
of the way the renumbering was done a few years back) or are people
in this country in general just thick?

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?

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. The original exchange in
Chiswick, for example, CHI (=244) has become in succession 01-994, 081
994, 0181 994, and now 020 8994. The change to a 4-digit exchange code
within London was not publicised clearly enough, and the increasing use
of mobile phones means that in many cases the whole 11 digits are needed
anyway, so the exact position of the spaces becomes irrelevant, as it
also is for mobile phone numbers.

I was pleased to hear Charlotte Green on BBC Radio 4 this evening quote
the number correctly, as I drove back to London (the latter phrase being
a desperate attempt to make this thread on-topic).
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

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

"Clive Page" wrote in message
...

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. :-)

I would hardly say 'with surprise', Clive. The whole exercise was so
spectacularly mismanaged and the misinformation or disinformation that was
received by the general public at large made such a shambles a foregone
conclusion. If I had been the owner of a property or vehicle that had been
erroneously numbered as a result of this mismanagement then I would have
been making a considerable amount of noise about who would be compensating
me for correcting the situation!

"Jack Taylor" wrote in message
...

"Clive Page" wrote in message
...

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. :-)

I would hardly say 'with surprise', Clive. The whole exercise was so
spectacularly mismanaged and the misinformation or disinformation that was
received by the general public at large made such a shambles a foregone
conclusion. If I had been the owner of a property or vehicle that had been
erroneously numbered as a result of this mismanagement then I would have
been making a considerable amount of noise about who would be compensating
me for correcting the situation!

I'm usually fairly clued-up about technical changes like this, but I hadn't
appreciated that there was an interim time when 0208 xxx yyyy and xxx yyyy
were valid: I thought they went straight from 0171 xxx yyyy to 020 7xxx
yyyy. What a shame the Oftel made such a dog's breakfast of the changes in
London and didn't have the foresight to go straight from 01 xxx yyyy to 020
7xxx yyyy in one go :-(

I've seen quite a few vehicles which even to this day bear phone numbers
such as 01532 xxxxxx or 01734 xxxxxx, having blindly applied the "insert a
1" rule to codes that changed completely - eg to 0113 or 0118.

Martin Underwood wrote:
"Jack Taylor" wrote in message
...

"Clive Page" wrote in message
...

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. :-)

I would hardly say 'with surprise', Clive. The whole exercise was
so spectacularly mismanaged and the misinformation or
disinformation that was received by the general public at large
made such a shambles a foregone conclusion. If I had been the
owner of a property or vehicle that had been erroneously numbered
as a result of this mismanagement then I would have been making a
considerable amount of noise about who would be compensating me
for correcting the situation!

I'm usually fairly clued-up about technical changes like this, but
I hadn't appreciated that there was an interim time when 0208 xxx
yyyy and xxx yyyy were valid: I thought they went straight from
0171 xxx yyyy to 020 7xxx yyyy. What a shame the Oftel made such a
dog's breakfast of the changes in London and didn't have the
foresight to go straight from 01 xxx yyyy to 020 7xxx yyyy in one
go :-(

See my other post; I think Clive is mistaken. In any case, they
couldn't go straight from 01 to 020 7 because 0207 was already the code
for Consett, Durham (now 01207). Similarly, 0208 was Bodmin, Cornwall.

I've seen quite a few vehicles which even to this day bear phone
numbers such as 01532 xxxxxx or 01734 xxxxxx, having blindly
applied the "insert a 1" rule to codes that changed completely - eg
to 0113 or 0118.

I don't know about Leeds, but Reading changed to 01734 in 1995
(phONEday). The new code of 0118 was introduced in 1996, in parallel
with 01734 which was withdrawn in 1998.
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

In article ,
Martin Underwood writes
I'm usually fairly clued-up about technical changes like this, but I hadn't
appreciated that there was an interim time when 0208 xxx yyyy and xxx yyyy
were valid:

There wasn't.

There was a long period when both the old form (0181 xxx yyyy) and the
new form (020 8xxx yyyy) were both handled by exchanges. The same was
true for all the other renumberings (e.g. 01222 xxxxxx = 029 20xxxxxx).

London, however, had a "flash cut" when local dialling changed from 7
digits (hence code 01[78]1) to 8 digits (hence code 020).

What a shame the Oftel made such a dog's breakfast of the changes in
London and didn't have the foresight to go straight from 01 xxx yyyy to 020
7xxx yyyy in one go :-(

They were advised better, but ignored it.

--
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 message , Clive Page
writes
Hence the continued confusion, or at least lack of concern with putting
the space in the right place when quoting a number.
If there was meant to be a space, then just type it in and see just how
far you get before getting number unobtainable.
--
Clive.

Clive Page wrote:
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.

It may have something to do with the fact that people have no idea what
ITU or E.123 are. Please provide a reference to these alleged
standards.

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"

Not true. Since there was at that time an 0181 222 exchange as well as
an 0171 222 exchange, the 222 xxxx format would not have been unique.

or "0171 222 1234" or "0207 222 1234" so that the new area codes
were then genuinely "0207" and "0208".

I doubt it. Do you have any evidence of official approval of "0207 xxx
yyyy" formats?

--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)