On 23 Nov, 00:36, Mizter T wrote:
I wonder whether the earlier projections for a squeeze on available
numbers aren't a bit out now. I'd think there's far less demand for
second residential lines nowadays, as people don't want dedicated
lines for fax machines or dial-up internet access. Of course, business
still likes direct-dial numbers which certainly has driven demand for
new numbers in certain locations. But I wonder if the real demand in
the future will be for mobile 07 prefixed numbers. That said, well
over half the population has a mobile now and there doesn't appear to
be any problems with 07 number shortages.

Landlines are only an issue because the numbers after "01" and "02"
mean something, which means you can't (e.g.) fill the demand for new
numbers in London by using the spare capacity in the 01620 range (I'm
guessing there are rather fewer than a million landlines in North
Berwick...).

Since mobile codes signify nothing of any use ["the operator that you
signed up with eight years ago, before porting your number twice to
get whizzy new phones" is not IMO information that's of any use], the
same problems don't arise.

There are a billion unique numbers with the 07 prefix. Even if you
take out the 070 range (used for personal numbers IIRC), that means
everyone in the UK can have around 15 mobile devices each.

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

On 23 Nov, 09:48, John B wrote:
On 23 Nov, 00:36, Mizter T wrote:

I wonder whether the earlier projections for a squeeze on available
numbers aren't a bit out now. I'd think there's far less demand for
second residential lines nowadays, as people don't want dedicated
lines for fax machines or dial-up internet access. Of course, business
still likes direct-dial numbers which certainly has driven demand for
new numbers in certain locations. But I wonder if the real demand in
the future will be for mobile 07 prefixed numbers. That said, well
over half the population has a mobile now and there doesn't appear to
be any problems with 07 number shortages.

Landlines are only an issue because the numbers after "01" and "02"
mean something, which means you can't (e.g.) fill the demand for new
numbers in London by using the spare capacity in the 01620 range (I'm
guessing there are rather fewer than a million landlines in North
Berwick...).

Since mobile codes signify nothing of any use ["the operator that you
signed up with eight years ago, before porting your number twice to
get whizzy new phones" is not IMO information that's of any use], the
same problems don't arise.

There are a billion unique numbers with the 07 prefix. Even if you
take out the 070 range (used for personal numbers IIRC), that means
everyone in the UK can have around 15 mobile devices each.


Yes I had considered the non-geographic nature of mobile numbers, but
I hadn't done the maths, so thanks for that! However I was aware that
mobiles only use the 077, 078 and 079 number ranges - though having
just checked this I see that 075 has just been allocated as a new
mobile number range. Meanwhile 070 personal numbers are moving to a
new 06 range to avoid confusion with mobiles, whilst 076 is for
pagers. So that means that 072, 073 and 074 (and eventually 070) will
be available for mobile numbering in the future too. So, as you say,
there won't be any shortage of numbers.

I'll take issue with you saying that "mobile codes signify nothing of
any use" these days - when calling from a landline you may be charged
at different rates according to what mobile number you're dialling -
and they charge according to which network owns that number range
(i.e. that of the network or provider the number was originally with),
as opposed to which network the mobile subscriber may now be with
(i.e. after porting it around).

I've just had a quick check here http://www.magsys.co.uk/telecom/
tarifres1.htm and from a *very quick* glance it would seem that on
many residential tariffs calls to most mobiles are charged at the same
rate, though this certainly wasn't always the case - and calls to the
Three network remain cheaper than other networks.

On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 04:01:30 -0800 (PST), Mizter T wrote:
I've just had a quick check here http://www.magsys.co.uk/telecom/
tarifres1.htm and from a *very quick* glance it would seem that on
many residential tariffs calls to most mobiles are charged at the same
rate, though this certainly wasn't always the case - and calls to the
Three network remain cheaper than other networks.

What provider would this be? Almost without exception I've found calls to
Three are significantly more expensive than the other 4 networks, and at
best the same price.

--
-- Michael "Soruk" McConnell Eridani Star System
MailStripper - http://www.MailStripper.eu/ - SMTP spam filter
Second Number - http://secondnumber.matrixnetwork.co.uk/

In article
,
John B writes
Landlines are only an issue because the numbers after "01" and "02"
mean something, which means you can't (e.g.) fill the demand for new
numbers in London by using the spare capacity in the 01620 range

True, though there are a number of spare codes, such as 01220, 01532,
01734, and 01999.

(I'm
guessing there are rather fewer than a million landlines in North
Berwick...).

Not long ago Benbecula was officially listed as being short of numbers.

--
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:

On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 01:48:57 -0800 (PST), John B
wrote:

Landlines are only an issue because the numbers after "01" and "02"
mean something, which means you can't (e.g.) fill the demand for new
numbers in London by using the spare capacity in the 01620 range (I'm
guessing there are rather fewer than a million landlines in North
Berwick...).

Well, you *could*. All you'd need to do, assuming the modern
exchanges can be modified to cope, is to do away with STD codes.
They're of limited relevance these days anyway, as I recall another
poster said earlier in the thread.

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.