|
HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
On Sun, 19 Jul 2009, Mizter T wrote:
On Jul 19, 11:32 am, John B wrote: On Jul 19, 10:55 am, Mizter T wrote: I think there's a number of other examples where an official or quasi- official body of one sort or another defines London in different ways. Examples (from the present day)? Perhaps I've overstretched myself here... hmm! OK... Snip a huge list of official or quasi-official bodies which are not making *any* attempt *at all* to define London. It's a list of bodies which have defined a region for their own purposes, and named it after London, because London is the most obvious thing in it. Seriously, do you think if you went to talk to the chief dredger at British Waterways and asked him if his mum, who lives in Bishops Stortford, lives in London, he'd say yes? tom -- Next issue - Nigel and the slavegirls ... or, why capitalism can never work! |
HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
|
HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
snip
In uk.transport.london message ebf97407-1b18-47b0-8820-1c4ef6dc7169@c1g 2000yqi.googlegroups.com, Sun, 19 Jul 2009 03:37:24, John B posted: [as a side note, I utterly hate American-designed websites which insist on you putting a county in the address field... especially the ones that force you to pick from a list a county that doesn't exist...] snip Why do you think it is American since county is not a part of United States (or Canadian) addresses? |
HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
On Sun, 19 Jul 2009 23:26:30 +0100, Roland Perry
wrote: In message , at 23:10:09 on Sun, 19 Jul 2009, Charles Ellson remarked: There *is* an underlying technical issue, in that out-of-area codes don't scale, because they involve running wires from one exchange to the other. Surely it's all done with software now? In any case, the exchanges are now connected by high bandwidth glass, not copper wire. The software switches calls within the exchange, but they have to get there first. I'm not sure if it does any more. ISTR the exchange "owning" the number now rejects the call and instructs the originating exchange where to send it (all done in milliseconds) BICBW. That's what they do for number portability. Perhaps it's also used for out-of-area numbers, but I'm not aware of it. A trawl of the OFCOM website suggests they only recognise "number portability" in terms of mobile and 070x numbers. AFAICT their explanation seems much the same as how the System X version was explained to me for "permanent diversion" which took over on lines previously hard-wired to a remote location. The older version on some exchanges required use of a directory number at the exchange actually serving the subscriber to which calls were silently diverted by the exchange which "owned" the number; IIRC that became unneccesary once everything was replaced by System X or newer. Call diversion tends to be charged by use, whereas an out of area number would be a flat rate. It would not be the first time that the same service was sold at different rates with different names. The originating exchange can only send to the receiving exchange specified by the code (there won't be an "exception routing table" for the out-of-area numbers). And that exchange then has to deliver the call to a distant POTs line. ITYF that like 0345, 0845 etc. it can deliver to a "numberless" circuit. The circuit still has to deliver to the premises via POTs. Geographic numbers are done by ISDN, and/or the receiving party collecting the calls from the exchange. |
HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
On 19 Jul 2009 22:37:41 GMT, James Farrar
wrote: John B wrote in news:7e4d44a7-3974-43c8-883a- : doesn't define government or geographical boundaries. The two are not identical. They can be. (perhaps if you had left a bit more in....) |
HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
On 19 Jul 2009 23:10:17 GMT, James Farrar
wrote: "Tim Roll-Pickering" wrote in : James Farrar wrote: There is a huge variation around the country in the local authorities' requirements for minicabs. I have a friend who use to run a minicab business in Aylesbury, but now runs a similar business in Middlesex. Time traveller, is he? (for m.t.u-t'ers, Middlesex hasn't existed for 44 years) It exists. The Local Government Act abolished only its council. So where is the Lord Lieutenant of Middlesex? What's a Lord Lieutenant? The monarch's representative in an English or Welsh county (as defined in the Lieutenancies Act 1997), a Scottish city or an area in Scotland designated by an Order in Council; in the City of London (including the Temples) the function is held by a commission presided over by the capital's Lord Mayor. When the bomb drops and destroys central government, (s)he takes over; until then, (s)he attends ceremonies, banquets and bar-mitzvahs with or on behalf of the monarch. |
HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
In message , at 21:23:05 on
Sun, 19 Jul 2009, Clark F Morris remarked: [as a side note, I utterly hate American-designed websites which insist on you putting a county in the address field... especially the ones that force you to pick from a list a county that doesn't exist...] snip Why do you think it is American since county is not a part of United States (or Canadian) addresses? You can usually tell if a supplier is "American" or is using a fundamentally "American" ecommerce platform. It's true that the County isn't part of the address in the USA, but what happens is that Americans "buy in" the 'expertise' regarding the format of addresses in other countries. So once you've told it you are in the UK it switches the fields to what if fondly believes a UK address should look like. -- Roland Perry |
HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
In message . li, at
00:32:35 on Mon, 20 Jul 2009, Tom Anderson remarked: There *is* an underlying technical issue, in that out-of-area codes don't scale, because they involve running wires from one exchange to the other. My understanding is that there are already wires running from one exchange to the other. That's how the phone calls get around, d'you see. As others have pointed out, those "wires" are often fibre with many calls MUXed together. And from a system architecture point of view they are also "trunks", and not "subscriber lines", therefore not suitable for a classic "wired in" out of area number. Out-of-area numbers don't involve special wires. It's done with software, in the routing layer. But it's not done terribly well, so there is still a cost - cheaper than special wires, but more than zero. Diverting the calls would make best use of the infrastructure. Clive Feather gave a good explanation of this some time ago on this group. From what i remember, everyone agrees that there's a sensible way to do number porting that wouldn't require exchange Q to be involved in a call from A to B just because B's number was once at Q, but that's not how things work at the moment, and getting it changed is going to be a painful process. As painful as the process for getting a new scheme for numbers ported from one telco to another, I expect. That's been dragging on for years. -- Roland Perry |
HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
In message , at 02:04:47 on
Mon, 20 Jul 2009, Charles Ellson remarked: ISTR the exchange "owning" the number now rejects the call and instructs the originating exchange where to send it (all done in milliseconds) BICBW. That's what they do for number portability. Perhaps it's also used for out-of-area numbers, but I'm not aware of it. A trawl of the OFCOM website suggests they only recognise "number portability" in terms of mobile and 070x numbers. There's an EU Directive that says all numbers must be portable. Landlines are at the moment. AFAICT their explanation seems much the same as how the System X version was explained to me for "permanent diversion" which took over on lines previously hard-wired to a remote location. Currently number portability is implemented by the "old" exchange having a list of numbers which have been ported, and forwarding them to the relevant new exchange. This has many disadvantages and will be replaced by a new "Direct Routing" system which interrogates a central database to discover which exchange (and which telco) the call should be delivered to. The older version on some exchanges required use of a directory number at the exchange actually serving the subscriber to which calls were silently diverted by the exchange which "owned" the number; IIRC that became unneccesary once everything was replaced by System X or newer. Calls are still diverted. Maybe System X means you don't have to use up a "mapping" number at the destination exchange any more. Call diversion tends to be charged by use, whereas an out of area number would be a flat rate. It would not be the first time that the same service was sold at different rates with different names. Call diversion, as an explicit service, costs a lot of resource (eg CPU). I'm speculating that the telcos can deliver an "unlimited" number of diverted calls cheaper than running a leased line (and hence implement it that way, today). But the customer probably prefers a flat rate, rather than paying per call. -- Roland Perry |
HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
On Jul 19, 11:34*pm, James Farrar wrote:
There is a huge variation around the country in the local authorities' requirements for minicabs. *I have a friend who use to run a minicab business in Aylesbury, but now runs a similar business in Middlesex. Time traveller, is he? (for m.t.u-t'ers, Middlesex hasn't existed for 44 years) It exists. The Local Government Act abolished only its council. Or is Derby not in Derbyshire? Wrong. Derby is still in the ceremonial council of Derbyshire, and the ceremonial country of Greater Manchester still exists and contains all the GM boroughs despite the county council's abolition - but the ceremonial county of Middlesex was abolished at the same time as Middlesex County Council. -- John Band john at johnband dot org www.johnband.org |
HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
On Jul 20, 1:09*am, wrote:
In article , (Tim Roll-Pickering) wrote: Arthur Figgis wrote: * Humberside was split into North Humberside and South Humberside. Not that many locals would use the word in their addresses, especially after it was put out of its misery in 1996. I believe "Avon" has faded even faster, though Bristol addresses didn't need it anyway as it's a large post town. Does anyone use "CUBA"? Castro? -- John Band john at johnband dot org www.johnband.org |
HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
|
HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
|
HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
Alistair Gunn wrote in :
In uk.railway Mizter T twisted the electrons to say: Of course even if one omits the post town then it'll get through, especially if one is posting from within that post town - e.g. London.) It's amazing what parts of the address can be omitted, and still have the item reach the destination! My personal favourite was the letter which had (something like) the following on it :- Mr & Mrs Smith The house with the white(?) door opposite the church $VILLAGE Incorrect, albeit not massively, postcode ... A few years ago, someone wrote just my name on an envelope, meaning to add the address later. She forgot to do so and posted it in a town some 10 miles from where I live in suburban Surrey. It arrived the next day. Peter -- Peter Campbell Smith ~ London ~ pjcs00 (a) gmail.com |
HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
On Jul 20, 12:19*pm, wrote:
In article , (John B) wrote: On Jul 19, 11:34*pm, James Farrar wrote: There is a huge variation around the country in the local authorities' requirements for minicabs. *I have a friend who use to run a minicab business in Aylesbury, but now runs a similar business in Middlesex. Time traveller, is he? (for m.t.u-t'ers, Middlesex hasn't existed for 44 years) It exists. The Local Government Act abolished only its council. Or is Derby not in Derbyshire? Wrong. Derby is still in the ceremonial council of Derbyshire, and the ceremonial country of Greater Manchester still exists and contains all the GM boroughs despite the county council's abolition - but the ceremonial county of Middlesex was abolished at the same time as Middlesex County Council. A less confusing term than "ceremonial county" (let alone "ceremonial country" - the mind boggles) is "lieutenancy" which neatly encompasses the various changes caused by the effective return of County Boroughs, now termed Unitary Authorities. Dear God, that was a bad bit of typo-ry on my part. What I intended to say was: Wrong. Derby is still in the ceremonial county of Derbyshire, and the ceremonial county of Greater Manchester still exists and contains all the GM boroughs despite Greater Manchester County Council's abolition, but the ceremonial county of Middlesex was abolished at the same time as the abolition of Middlesex County Council. Although I suppose Wales from 1400ish to 1973 could probably have been viewed as a 'ceremonial country'. I'm not sure adding yet another term, referring to an official that c.nobody has heard of, is helpful - 'ceremonial county' at least makes clear that This Exists, This Is Officially Recognised, but This Is Not How Government Is Organised. -- John Band john at johnband dot org www.johnband.org |
HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
Martin Edwards wrote in news:kgz8m.17902$m%4.11960
@newsfe25.ams2: Another favourite is Kingston, Surrey. Oh no it isn't. As a relative newcomer to London (a mere 30 years ago) I'm still bemused by the fact that people in Kingston, Sutton, Croydon et al do not regard themselves as being in London and often do not even know that they are. I'd be reasonably sure that if you stopped 100 people in the streets of those boroughs and asked which county they were in, 90+ would say 'Surrey', and probably 50+ wouldn't believe you if you told them they were in London. It seems to me that you have to get quite close to central London, at least south of the river, before the locals regard themselves as living 'in London'. Peter PS. The confusion of Kingston-dwellers is no doubt compounded by the very visible headquarters of Surrey County Council, listed on their website as: County Hall Penrhyn Road Kingston upon Thames Surrey KT1 2DN -- Peter Campbell Smith ~ London ~ pjcs00 (a) gmail.com |
HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
On Jul 20, 1:55*pm, Peter Campbell Smith
wrote: Another favourite is Kingston, Surrey. *Oh no it isn't. As a relative newcomer to London (a mere 30 years ago) I'm still bemused by the fact that people in Kingston, Sutton, Croydon et al do not regard themselves as being in London and often do not even know that they are. * I'd be reasonably sure that if you stopped 100 people in the streets of those boroughs and asked which county they were in, 90+ would say 'Surrey', and probably 50+ wouldn't believe you if you told them they were in London. |
HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
John B wrote:
It seems to me that you have to get quite close to central London, at least south of the river, before the locals regard themselves as living 'in London'. Hmm. Kingston definitely; Croydon and Sutton less so (or at least, I don't think Croydonians view themselves as in Surrey - whether they view themselves as Londoners is another question...) The main reason is almost certainly down to the survival of the counties in the mailing addresses. A postal county was never needed for CROYDON, so people have had much less of a reason to include "Surrey" in their addresses, whereas until 1996 "Surrey" was needed for KINGSTON. (That said, BROMLEY and TWICKENHAM also didn't require counties - what's the view there? And aren't there some DARTFORD addresses within the Greater London boundaries?) Before 1965 Croydon was a county borough (then lacking Coulsdon and Purley which formed an Urban District) so Surrey County Council had less of an impact there. My experience of the Sutton attitude is different but it's possible opinion within the borough is divided. Yes indeed. Surrey CC HQ was supposed to move to the outskirts of Woking in the mid-2000s, but the project got cancelled after the council threw a hissy fit (allegedly 'because of a poor settlement the [Tory] council received from the government' - which makes perfect sense, because obviously selling up a town centre site in Kingston wouldn't pay for a brownfield site outside London. I'm guessing the council bigwigs just didn't fancy the extra commute down to the place they're actually supposed to be running...) I recall Kingston University was due to get the county hall - possibly it was the plan for the university to get it below the going rate with the government making up the difference? |
not about HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
Clive Feather gave a good explanation of this some time ago on this group.
RFC 3482 gives a thorough, somewhat numbing, overview of number portability: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3482.txt The right way to do it is to look up each number when the call is placed to find out where to deliver it. The wrong way is to implement it as a variety of call forwarding. As of 2003 when the RFC was written, the UK did it mostly the wrong way, with some BT switches doing it closer to the right way. A quick look at the OFCOM site suggests nothing much has changed since then. UK portability will always be inferior to North American portability, since it doesn't permit porting between landline and mobile, but there isn't much to be done about that. R's, John |
HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
"Tim Roll-Pickering" wrote The main reason is almost certainly down to the survival of the counties in the mailing addresses. A postal county was never needed for CROYDON, so people have had much less of a reason to include "Surrey" in their addresses, whereas until 1996 "Surrey" was needed for KINGSTON. (That said, BROMLEY and TWICKENHAM also didn't require counties - what's the view there? And aren't there some DARTFORD addresses within the Greater London boundaries?) AIUI before postcodes a postal county was needed in all addresses, apart from those of London and some other major cities, though it was the county of the post town, not that of the actual address. So Tatsfield in Surrey had a Tatsfield, WESTERHAM, Kent postal address. At some stage after postcodes were introduced it became permissible to omit the county where the post town was the 'driver' of the postcode - so BROMLEY, BR1 xxx, but CHISLEHURST, Kent, BR7 5xx. Later still it became permissible to omit all counties from addresses. And aren't there some DARTFORD addresses within the Greater London boundaries? Yes - Crayford in the London Borough of Bexley has DARTFORD addresses. Most if not all of the London Borough of Bexley is within the DA postcode area, but apart from Crayford has SIDCUP, WELLING, BEXLEY, BEXLEYHEATH, or ERITH postal addresses. Peter |
HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
wrote in message
In article , (Mizter T) wrote: As I said, I do write and speak the codes properly myself, which can throw people somewhat. But I also use 8-digit numbers from my landline, so it all makes sense to me! (Less so I suppose to those who only use mobiles.) It would be instructive to know what proportion of within-London calls are dialled from London landlines as 11 digits. Rather a lot, I fear. Probably so -- is there any (price) penalty for so doing? |
HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
Mizter T wrote:
On Jul 19, 1:49 am, John B wrote: On Jul 18, 7:57 pm, Arthur Figgis wrote: Lots of places have signs but no distinct government. I think I've seen "England" on signs, and even "London" is rather complex concept to pin down as a specific "thing". England exists, legally, though - e.g. the Department of [English] Health. Rubbish - see Charles Ellson's answer. The Department of Health has a whole number of UK-wide responsibilities as well as its (primary) responsibility for healthcare in England and Wales. England does of course exist legally - though there are a number of areas where a reference to England is actually an abbreviated reference to England *and* Wales (e.g. reference to contracts being enforced according to "English law" in "English courts"). In the past one could have said that constitutionally Wales was basically part of England, but with devolution this description would be less apt. London is easy: the Corporation's area is the City of London, the GLA area is Greater London, and there isn't anything else. Yes there is. There's the London postal district - and there's a whole number of places within Greater London that are outwith the London postal district (e.g. in the south east fringes there's lots of places with "Bromley" as the post town and hence BRx postcodes - back when the postal county was properly included as part of the address, these places would have had Kent in their address too, and many people still continue to include it). It was never properly included. Postcodes were trialled in Watford and we were told from the outset not to put the county name. |
HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
On Jul 20, 3:47*pm, Martin Edwards wrote:
It was never properly included. *Postcodes were trialled in Watford and we were told from the outset not to put the county name. Yeah, that's perhaps because Watford was a major post town not requiring a county. There were 110 of these (http://en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/Postal_county#Usage ) has a list. The 'canonical' address for everywhere outside these 110 post towns did have a "postal county" until 1996. These matched no given set of ceremonial, geographic, or historic counties, including Middlesex (two detached segments in north-west London, including Spelthorne which was added to Surrey, but not including Potters Bar, which was added to Hertfordshire at the same time), Merseyside, North Humberside, but no Greater Manchester, Rutland, or Huntingdonshire. A bit weirdly, recently, the "former postal county" field in one of the post office databases has been changed to 'Rutland' for LE15 and part of LE16. This rewrites history for the sake of some campaigners who found it offensive that they were continuing to get mailshots from people including 'Leicestershire' in their address - it would have been better in my opinion to cease supplying the field entirely, or make it much harder to get hold of, in the hope that people supplying such mailshots would start using the canonical addresses! This is of course making it much harder to justify the continued existence of 'North Humberside' and 'South Humberside' in that database, so expect to see those gone soon too. -- Abi |
not about HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
In message , at 13:36:53 on Mon, 20 Jul 2009,
John Levine remarked: RFC 3482 gives a thorough, somewhat numbing, overview of number portability: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3482.txt The right way to do it is to look up each number when the call is placed to find out where to deliver it. The wrong way is to implement it as a variety of call forwarding. As of 2003 when the RFC was written, the UK did it mostly the wrong way, with some BT switches doing it closer to the right way. A quick look at the OFCOM site suggests nothing much has changed since then. They are on the way to implementing the central database approach. http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/cond...iew/statement/ UK portability will always be inferior to North American portability, since it doesn't permit porting between landline and mobile, but there isn't much to be done about that. That's more of a billing issue, as the termination revenue is what mainly funds the mobile networks, so you need to know when you place a call how much it's going to cost you (as caller). Even if the billing system could be arranged to charge different amounts for numbers from the same dialling code. -- Roland Perry |
HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
Tim Roll-Pickering wrote:
John B wrote: It seems to me that you have to get quite close to central London, at least south of the river, before the locals regard themselves as living 'in London'. Hmm. Kingston definitely; Croydon and Sutton less so (or at least, I don't think Croydonians view themselves as in Surrey - whether they view themselves as Londoners is another question...) The main reason is almost certainly down to the survival of the counties in the mailing addresses. A postal county was never needed for CROYDON, so people have had much less of a reason to include "Surrey" in their addresses, whereas until 1996 "Surrey" was needed for KINGSTON. (That said, BROMLEY and TWICKENHAM also didn't require counties - what's the view there? And aren't there some DARTFORD addresses within the Greater London boundaries?) Before 1965 Croydon was a county borough (then lacking Coulsdon and Purley which formed an Urban District) so Surrey County Council had less of an impact there. My experience of the Sutton attitude is different Sutton is (Surrey) on timetables and (London) on tickets. Or is it the other way round? General references to it as Surrey are quite common, though might be because there are so many Suttons. Even in Greater London it doesn't seem to be known for anything, other than occasional Thameslink passengers finding themselves there rather than Gatwick or Brighton. In contrast, Croydon, Twickenham etc are probably well enough known in their own right - you only need to specify if you mean a different Croydon. -- Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK |
HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
Arthur Figgis wrote:
Before 1965 Croydon was a county borough (then lacking Coulsdon and Purley which formed an Urban District) so Surrey County Council had less of an impact there. My experience of the Sutton attitude is different Sutton is (Surrey) on timetables and (London) on tickets. Or is it the other way round? The tickets I have to hand from a few years ago (great for bookmarks) say "SUTTON LONDON". I can't remember seeing it on timetables, but a quick check of Qjump shows they call it "Sutton (Surrey)". |
HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
In message , at 15:38:00 on
Mon, 20 Jul 2009, Recliner remarked: It would be instructive to know what proportion of within-London calls are dialled from London landlines as 11 digits. Rather a lot, I fear. Probably so -- is there any (price) penalty for so doing? Not on the calls. But if we'd been brave enough to make everyone dial 11-digit numbers then the various "PhoneDay" code changes would have been much simpler, and saved money that way. -- Roland Perry |
HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
Abigail Brady wrote:
such mailshots would start using the canonical addresses! This is of course making it much harder to justify the continued existence of 'North Humberside' and 'South Humberside' in that database, so expect to see those gone soon too. The use of North Humberside had a useful function in that it was a firm indication that the sender had got my name off a list, and was almost certainly sending junk, instead of being someone I actually wanted to hear from. -- Arthur Figgis |
HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
"Roland Perry" wrote in message
In message , at 15:38:00 on Mon, 20 Jul 2009, Recliner remarked: It would be instructive to know what proportion of within-London calls are dialled from London landlines as 11 digits. Rather a lot, I fear. Probably so -- is there any (price) penalty for so doing? Not on the calls. But if we'd been brave enough to make everyone dial 11-digit numbers then the various "PhoneDay" code changes would have been much simpler, and saved money that way. Well, I live in London, but dial 15-digit numbers even for local numbers as I use an indirect (free) service. Of course, I don't dial the 4-digit prefix, but have it on a memory button. I can't understand why anyone chooses to pay BT's phone charges when these are entirely optional (apart from the line rental). I can call the US for less than BT's local charges. |
HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
On Mon, 20 Jul 2009 07:14:23 +0100, Roland Perry
wrote: In message , at 02:04:47 on Mon, 20 Jul 2009, Charles Ellson remarked: ISTR the exchange "owning" the number now rejects the call and instructs the originating exchange where to send it (all done in milliseconds) BICBW. That's what they do for number portability. Perhaps it's also used for out-of-area numbers, but I'm not aware of it. A trawl of the OFCOM website suggests they only recognise "number portability" in terms of mobile and 070x numbers. There's an EU Directive that says all numbers must be portable. I know, but the way OFCOM talks about them seems to suggest that they use a different phrase for landlines. Landlines are at the moment. They were around 20 years ago. We had some fun at work when some "XXO" (151 for engineers) circuits were transferred from one exchange to another. Previously the system had worked by translating "1??" to a directory number feeding the building's PABX which fed the test room; this had worked quite happily until the transfer after which it was found that calls were being charged instead of free, the local exchange refused to pass the calls unmetered (it was suspected that it was an "undocumented" anti-fraud feature) so the original translation of 1?? was restored and the own-exchange number was put on permanent diversion to a directory number on the exchange up the road. AFAICT their explanation seems much the same as how the System X version was explained to me for "permanent diversion" which took over on lines previously hard-wired to a remote location. Currently number portability is implemented by the "old" exchange having a list of numbers which have been ported, and forwarding them to the relevant new exchange. This has many disadvantages and will be replaced by a new "Direct Routing" system which interrogates a central database to discover which exchange (and which telco) the call should be delivered to. The older version on some exchanges required use of a directory number at the exchange actually serving the subscriber to which calls were silently diverted by the exchange which "owned" the number; IIRC that became unneccesary once everything was replaced by System X or newer. Calls are still diverted. Maybe System X means you don't have to use up a "mapping" number at the destination exchange any more. Call diversion tends to be charged by use, whereas an out of area number would be a flat rate. It would not be the first time that the same service was sold at different rates with different names. Call diversion, as an explicit service, costs a lot of resource (eg CPU). I'm speculating that the telcos can deliver an "unlimited" number of diverted calls cheaper than running a leased line (and hence implement it that way, today). But the customer probably prefers a flat rate, rather than paying per call. |
HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
On Mon, 20 Jul 2009 12:55:55 +0000 (UTC), Peter Campbell Smith
wrote: Martin Edwards wrote in news:kgz8m.17902$m%4.11960 : Another favourite is Kingston, Surrey. Oh no it isn't. As a relative newcomer to London (a mere 30 years ago) I'm still bemused by the fact that people in Kingston, Sutton, Croydon et al do not regard themselves as being in London and often do not even know that they are. That is because they're not in London, they're in Greater London. snip |
HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
On Mon, 20 Jul 2009 02:31:29 +0100, Charles Ellson
wrote: On 19 Jul 2009 23:10:17 GMT, James Farrar wrote: What's a Lord Lieutenant? The monarch's representative in an English or Welsh county (as defined in the Lieutenancies Act 1997), a Scottish city or an area in Scotland designated by an Order in Council; in the City of London (including the Temples) the function is held by a commission presided over by the capital's Lord Mayor. When the bomb drops and destroys central government, (s)he takes over; until then, (s)he attends ceremonies, banquets and bar-mitzvahs with or on behalf of the monarch. Scottish cities don't have one, the monarch's representative is the Lord Provost (not sure if they take over if the bomb drops though). |
HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
|
HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
Charles Ellson wrote in
: On 19 Jul 2009 22:37:41 GMT, James Farrar wrote: John B wrote in news:7e4d44a7-3974-43c8-883a- : doesn't define government or geographical boundaries. The two are not identical. They can be. Yes, they can be, but in the real UK the set of government boundaries is not identical to the set of geographic boundaries. |
HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
John B wrote in
: On Jul 20, 1:55*pm, Peter Campbell Smith wrote: Another favourite is Kingston, Surrey. *Oh no it isn't. As a relative newcomer to London (a mere 30 years ago) I'm still bemused by the fact that people in Kingston, Sutton, Croydon et al do not regard themselves as being in London and often do not even know that they are. * I'd be reasonably sure that if you stopped 100 people in the streets of those boroughs and asked which county they were in, 90+ would say 'Surrey', and probably 50+ wouldn't believe you if you told them they were in London. It seems to me that you have to get quite close to central London, at least south of the river, before the locals regard themselves as living 'in London'. Hmm. Kingston definitely; Croydon and Sutton less so (or at least, I don't think Croydonians view themselves as in Surrey - whether they view themselves as Londoners is another question...) At least part of that is down to the fact that Kingston and Croydon, on the ground, are quite clearly self-contained towns in their own right. Bromley is the same. I don't know Sutton well enough to know if that falls into the same category, though I suspect it is as the key to these things seems to be whether the place is on the Underground or not. {Do you like the way I brought us back on-topic? ;-) } |
HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
Charles Ellson wrote in
: On 19 Jul 2009 23:10:17 GMT, James Farrar wrote: "Tim Roll-Pickering" wrote in : James Farrar wrote: There is a huge variation around the country in the local authorities' requirements for minicabs. I have a friend who use to run a minicab business in Aylesbury, but now runs a similar business in Middlesex. Time traveller, is he? (for m.t.u-t'ers, Middlesex hasn't existed for 44 years) It exists. The Local Government Act abolished only its council. So where is the Lord Lieutenant of Middlesex? What's a Lord Lieutenant? The monarch's representative in an English or Welsh county (as defined in the Lieutenancies Act 1997), a Scottish city or an area in Scotland designated by an Order in Council; in the City of London (including the Temples) the function is held by a commission presided over by the capital's Lord Mayor. When the bomb drops and destroys central government, (s)he takes over; until then, (s)he attends ceremonies, banquets and bar-mitzvahs with or on behalf of the monarch. A total non-entity, then. No wonder I had no idea what one was - and I'm interested in politics! |
HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
Abigail Brady wrote:
On Jul 20, 3:47 pm, Martin Edwards wrote: It was never properly included. Postcodes were trialled in Watford and we were told from the outset not to put the county name. Yeah, that's perhaps because Watford was a major post town not requiring a county. There were 110 of these (http://en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/Postal_county#Usage ) has a list. The 'canonical' address for everywhere outside these 110 post towns did have a "postal county" until 1996. These matched no given set of ceremonial, geographic, or historic counties, including Middlesex (two detached segments in north-west London, including Spelthorne which was added to Surrey, but not including Potters Bar, which was added to Hertfordshire at the same time), Merseyside, North Humberside, but no Greater Manchester, Rutland, or Huntingdonshire. A bit weirdly, recently, the "former postal county" field in one of the post office databases has been changed to 'Rutland' for LE15 and part of LE16. This rewrites history for the sake of some campaigners who found it offensive that they were continuing to get mailshots from people including 'Leicestershire' in their address - it would have been better in my opinion to cease supplying the field entirely, or make it much harder to get hold of, in the hope that people supplying such mailshots would start using the canonical addresses! This is of course making it much harder to justify the continued existence of 'North Humberside' and 'South Humberside' in that database, so expect to see those gone soon too. -- Abi Phew! You know a bit about this. I should only like to point out that, at the time, there was only one post town, and we were it. :-) -- As through this world I've rambled, I've met plenty of funny men, Some rob you with a sixgun, some with a fountain pen. Woody Guthrie |
HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
Charles Ellson wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jul 2009 12:55:55 +0000 (UTC), Peter Campbell Smith wrote: Martin Edwards wrote in news:kgz8m.17902$m%4.11960 @newsfe25.ams2: Another favourite is Kingston, Surrey. Oh no it isn't. As a relative newcomer to London (a mere 30 years ago) I'm still bemused by the fact that people in Kingston, Sutton, Croydon et al do not regard themselves as being in London and often do not even know that they are. That is because they're not in London, they're in Greater London. snip Conversely, I frequently have to tell people in Birmingham, where I now live, that Watford is not in London, though it is actually in Hertfordshire and about thirty miles from the Square Mile. Many also think it is the same place as Watford Gap, which is named after a village of 400 people in Northants. -- As through this world I've rambled, I've met plenty of funny men, Some rob you with a sixgun, some with a fountain pen. Woody Guthrie |
HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
In message , at 20:13:24 on
Mon, 20 Jul 2009, Charles Ellson remarked: There's an EU Directive that says all numbers must be portable. I know, but the way OFCOM talks about them seems to suggest that they use a different phrase for landlines. Fixed line. http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/cond...iew/statement/ -- Roland Perry |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 03:26 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk