Ofcom is proposing introducing "conservation" measures to all the remaining UK 0 plus four-digit area codes. The consultation runs until 11 January:

http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/conserve/

The proposals are that all UK five-digit area codes (including the leading zero, i.e. 01xxx) are to be given Conservation status where numbers are allocated to telephone providers in 1,000 number blocks rather than the traditional 10,000 blocks.

More on this


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/6702462/Prospect-of-new-telephone-shake-up-raised-by-Ofcom.html

As Ofcom continues to struggle to deal with this horrendous problem, can anyone see any relevance to the issues of concern in this forum?

There is a simple answer to the problem - re-nationalise BT, so you do not need an independent regulator to manage both a national system and a competitive market. If done properly, one body would then be in complete control and a government minister would have to take all of the blame.

(N.B. The latter comment is not a serious proposal from myself, as it would be politically totally unacceptable in a consumerist world.)

When everything was done by BT, there was a clear and simple system for those places that had migrated to six-figure local numbering (from three and four digit local numbering).


The first two digits of the local NNnnnn number were assigned to one exchange (a block of 10K numbers). If more numbers were needed in that exchange, another 10K block was issued.

You could tell where a number was based by looking at the "N" digits in
(0xxx) NNnnnn
and some exchanges would use several such NNnnnn blocks.

Likewise for Director areas in cities:
(01) NNN nnnn
(0x1) NNN nnnn
the N digits showed the exchange name. A big exchange might have dozens of NNN blocks.

This was in the days before PhONEday.


Then 'cable' arrived, and BT lost control of the numbering process. It was handed to Oftel and then on to Ofcom.

In most places there was only one, occasionally two, cable companies competing with BT.

The cable companies were allocated numbers in 10K blocks, but most chose to cover a wider area than BT with one block of numbers. No longer could you be sure where a number was based.

As the market was opened further, dozens of companies applied for blocks of numbers. Each company was issued with a 10K block of numbers even if they only had a few hundred customers in that area.

So, for the fictitious area (01632) you might have originally had a number of BT exchanges with
- North being 55xxxx and 56xxxx, with a dependent exchange using 51xxxx and 52xxxx;
- East being 61xxxx, 64xxxx, 65xxxx and 67xxxx;
- South being 42xxxx and 46xxxx, with a dependent exchange using 49xxxx, and 40xxxx;
- West being 44xxxx and 45xxxx, with a dependent using 41xxxx; and
- Central being 72xxxx, 73xxxx, 75xxxx and 77xxx, with a dependent using 79xxxx and 70xxxx.

A cable company arrives and is issued 48xxxx, 58xxxx, and 78xxxx which they use anywhere and everywhere within the 01632 area.

Another provider arrives and is allocated 33xxxx, 43xxxx and 53xxxx which they also use across the whole area.

Later, the market is opened up for VoIP and other providers.

Company "A" gets 47xxxx, "B" gets "74xxxx" and so on.

BT needs more capacity in their West exchange but all the 4x blocks are in use. They are allocated 37xxxx for this.

It is getting very hard to tell 'where' within the area, a particular number might be.

More providers arrive and in short order 32xxxx, 33xxxx, 36xxxx, 39xxxx, 54xxxx, 57xxxx, 50xxxx are allocated.

In any area, there are only 79 blocks of 10K numbers available. Those beginning 0x, 1x and 99 cannot be issued.
Those beginning 0x and 1x are allocated as National Dialling Only. They cannot be dialled locally.
Those beginning 99 cannot be issued because of the risk of people ringing 999 by mistake.


A minor company will hold 10 000 numbers even though only a few dozen might be in use. With dozens of companies holding on to one or more blocks in every area of the country, everything is 'allocated' even though very little of it is 'in use'.

That's where it all went wrong. Numbers were previously allocated in 10K blocks per geographical part of a town or city. Nowadays they are issued in 10K blocks per company. This has led to a lot of wastage.

The proposal is to now issue those numbers in blocks of 1000. So for companies only using a few dozen or few hundred numbers in an area, they can immediately return 9000 unused numbers to the pot.

What will happen is that those blocks will be snapped up by yet more companies, and we'll be back to the 'everything allocated, with very little in use' situation within a few years again.

You have to laugh at the telegraph article...

""Such a move, similar to London sharing 0207 and 0208 but for the regions, would make the traditional link between areas and codes a thing of the past.""


They really don't get it.



London has one code. It is 020.

For any number (020) NNNN nnnn the four 'N' digits tell you precisely which exchange it is.

(020) 7253 is Clerkenwell
(020) 7504 is Camden
(020) 7620 is Waterloo
(020) 7833 is King's Cross
(020) 8864 is Harrow
The whole of the (020) 2xxx, (020) 4xxx, (020) 5xxx, (020) 6xxx, and (020) 9xxx blocks are available for future expansion within London.


This same numbering logic would hold true if (029) eventually covered the whole of Wales.
At present  (029) 20xx and (029) 21xx are Cardiff.
Other digits would be assigned to other places.
Wales currently has 53 of the (01xxx) area codes allocated, with a maximum capacity of (53x79=) 4187 of these 10K blocks.
The (029) area code currently uses two blocks (20xx and 21xx), and has 7898 blocks free.

catj wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2009 at 11:00am:

A minor company will hold 10 000 numbers even though only a few dozen might be in use. With dozens of companies holding on to one or more blocks in every area of the country, everything is 'allocated' even though very little of it is 'in use'. That's where it all went wrong. Numbers were previously allocated in 10K blocks per geographical part of a town or city. Nowadays they are issued in 10K blocks per company. This has led to a lot of wastage. The proposal is to now issue those numbers in blocks of 1000. So for companies only using a few dozen or few hundred numbers in an area, they can immediately return 9000 unused numbers to the pot. What will happen is that those blocks will be snapped up by yet more companies, and we'll be back to the 'everything allocated, with very little in use' situation within a few years again.

The "conservation" measures, this consultation and any other exercise Ofcom wishes to carry out are necessary because of one thing. That is, the fact that the issuing of numbers in the current manner is totally inefficient. It's not because there is more demand from subscribers (commonly referred to as "consumers") but because of the way in which large blocks of numbers are allocated to providers who only need a few creating unusable wastage.

Telephone numbers are a shared resource and must be managed responsibly. To cut to the chase, continue reading from the "Improving efficiency of number usage" heading below.


This sort of thing really does infuriate me. Putting "conservation measures" in place as a result of the shared resource being used up with threats of having more number changes or an extra code (overlay code) in one particular area is shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted!

And then we have foolish journalists writing stories in national newspapers such as Phone change for London as 020 3 becomes third code.


I'm not too concerned about the loss of the significance of locality of the first few digits within a local number. This still holds good for single BT exchange lines. For others, including those provided in large blocks, for example, for use in offices (i.e. for DDI purposes) there often isn't any significance of where they are within a particular STD area anyway, and this includes those provided by BT.


Improving efficiency of number usage

My thoughts on improving efficiency are that there needs to be a whole new way of allocating numbers. In general terms, I see two types of communications provider with different needs:

1. The main providers such as BT, Virgin Media (ntl:Telewest), Cable & Wireless and so on who operate the bulk of the infrastructure.

2. Smaller providers, typically those operating VoIP services or selling local geographical numbers for redirection.

The first group of providers require many numbers, and in contrast, the second group require very a few.

The large providers need to be able to have allocations of numbers which are consecutive for use with large telephone systems. Those with only a small number of subscribers in an area code should only be given a small number of numbers.


Of course, this all hinges on being able to implement a solution where small providers can have a few numbers, maybe tens or hundreds. What are the technical limitations?

Not quite the same topic, before anyone mentions it, but thought this may be of interest

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/mediatechnologyandtelecoms/6703784/BSkyB-attacks-plans-to-allow-BT-to-raise-prices.html

Others here who are far more clever than me will probably understand it.

The whole phone numbering system seems archaic to me. There should be one centrally-run database of all the numbers, then they can simply be issued one at a time as they are needed. None of this allocating 10,000 numbers at a time business, which is a hang-over from when numbers referred to a particular exchange. These days, you can port your number from one operator to another, so clearly having an entire block allocated to one provider isn't necessary.

I think the time has come for whole-number dialling anyway. Now mobiles are so ubiquitous, how many people dial numbers with no area code these days? Most regularly-used numbers are saved in a memory somewhere, so rarely actually need to be dialled. This would free up loads of new numbers, as local numbers starting 0 and 1 could be used. This would still allow codes to be used to identify where a number was located. It would also mean companies no longer had "national dialling only" numbers to hide their geographical alternatives to 087/084.

Isn't it funny that we are always hearing stories about the death of the landline, yet landline numbers are running out. That just shows there is serious mismanagement of the numbering system somewhere.

sherbert wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2009 at 1:57pm:

Not quite the same topic, before anyone mentions it, but thought this may be of interest http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/mediatechnologyandtelecoms/6703784/BSkyB-attacks-plans-to-allow-BT-to-raise-prices.html Others here who are far more clever than me will probably understand it.

One does not have to be a genius to work out that liabilities have to be met from current income, reserves or borrowing. The latter are only past and future surplus income respectively. The only source of income for an honest trading company is its customers. It appears that when Openreach was split off it took its share of the pension fund liability.

Quote:

What are the technical limitations?

The main limitation is the number of digits that need to be dialled before a routing decision is made.

When you dial the first digit, if the digit is 2 to 9 then it is a local number, whereas a 0 says the next digits are going to be an area code, unless the next digit is another zero, then there's going to be a country code instead.

Once you have dialled the area code part of the number, the next two or three or four digits also determine some routing information within that local area.

The digits of a telephone number are referred to (without the zero trunk code) as SABCDEFGHI.
For some small part of London SABCDE is 20 7890 for a number like (020) 7890 nnnn.
For some small part of Birmingham SABCDE is 121  678 for a number like (0121) 678 nnnn.
For some small part of Bedford SABCDE is 1234  77 for a number like (01234) 77nnnn.

In the past, the final routing decision occurs at the E digit. In some SABC area codes already, and in all SABC area codes in the future that decision is going to be made at the F digit level.

That immediately makes the routing database ten times larger.

In the past, you could be sure that all (01234) 77nnnn numbers were using the same provider and were located within the same small geographical area. Now that range will be further split into ten smaller blocks, each potentially a different provider and location.

This has already happened with 08xx and 09xx numbers. With those it can be especially confusing as each small block of numbers might have a different charging structure. Dialling a number that is just one digit different might have a completely different price.

catj wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2009 at 11:01am:

You have to laugh at the telegraph article... They really don't get it.  London has one code. It is 020.

I think the problem started when they lost "01" and were given 071 and 081.   And it was compounded when the by-then 0171 and -0181 were migrated directly to 020 7 and 020 8.  If they'd put all the original area codes into, say, 020 2 and put all the ones allocated since the split into, say 020 3, then people would have realised what was happening.  As it is, they think 0171 went to 0207 and 0181 to 0208 and I dare say there are a lot of frustrated people still trying to dial 7 digit local numbers ,..

There's certainly quite a few who dial 0207 3xxx xxxx when trying to call the newer (020) 3xxx xxxx numbers.

Less than 45% of London to London calls are dialled using only the eight-figure local number.
More than 55% of London to London calls are dialled using an unnecessary 020 area code, from within the same 020 area.

catj wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2009 at 11:40pm:

There's certainly quite a few who dial 0207 3xxx xxxx when trying to call the newer (020) 3xxx xxxx numbers. Less than 45% of London to London calls are dialled using only the eight-figure local number. More than 55% of London to London calls are dialled using an unnecessary 020 area code, from within the same 020 area.

But is that because people try to dial seven digits and when that fails dial the full 11, or is it because they simply don't know, or don't think of, dialling only the local number?

Are these figures only for landlines?

jrawle wrote on Dec 4^th, 2009 at 10:54pm:

Are these figures only for landlines?

One suspects that mobile companies do not keep records of misdialed calls! Even if they do, I doubt if they break them down according to the local geographic code equivalent to the cell from which the call was made. I am probably not alone in sometimes forgetting that one always has to dial the full number when using a mobile. Furthermore, I am probably also not alone in sometimes forgetting to omit the area code when calling local numbers on a landline when away from home.

As observed previously, Ofcom is probably to blame for making the change from 0171 and 0181 to 020 too simple. Those of us with lists of full (un-punctuated) telephone numbers were able to substitute 0207 and 0208 for 0171 and 0181, as if the one code had replaced the other. There was no extensive spending on a TV advertising campaign to explain that "inner" and "outer" London had been re-united, so as to undo the effect created when it was necessary to explain that they had been split. If Ofcom had been prepared to endure the criticism it would have undoubtedly suffered had it deliberately made that changeover less straightforward  than was necessary, and for causing the additional costs to be incurred, then the present confusion would have been avoided.

Yes, those figures are for landlines, because from mobiles the area code is always required.

Most of the people now calling other London numbers by dialling all eleven digits from landlines within London, have previously tried dialling the final seven digits and found that it doesn't work. They were prompted to do that after seeing most numbers formatted as 0207 xxx xxxx and 0208 xxx xxxx on TV and in newspapers, and spoken like that on the radio, for most of the last nine years. When dialling seven digits didn't work, most simply assumed that local dialling no longer works within London. There was no clue that eight-figure local dialling would work.

Some of those people simply dial the 020 area code for all calls whether using their mobile or their landline without any thought that local dialling is possible from landlines, but that surely is a minority.


The change from 0171/0181 to 020 for London occurred at about the same time that non-geographic 08xx numbers and 09xx premium rate numbers came to prominence, and mobile telephones all moved to 07xxx; all of which do not use parentheses around their 'area' codes. For whatever reason, both Ofcom and BT temporarily stopped using parentheses on geographical numbers for several years, even though parentheses were recommended. Had the parentheses not been removed, I guess that most of the 'area code problems' would never have happened. In recent years, parentheses have been re-introduced for the area codes of geographic numbers.

I think parentheses are simply out of fashion. It does look rather archaic on the rare occasion you still see it! It wouldn't be much use anyway, as people would still write (0207) 234 5678. I don't really see why it's necessary to keep local dialling. It isn't as if you're charged more for using the code. It only takes a couple of extra seconds to dial 020. I still think now's the time to do away with it, and free up some extra numbers.

Unless anyone would like to point out the benefits of local dialling?

Parentheses around geographic area codes are not archaic.


They are a core part of ITU-T recommendation E.123 : "Notation for national and international telephone numbers, e-mail addresses and Web addresses" which can be found at:  http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-E.123/en

See also:  http://revk.www.me.uk/2009/09/it-is-not-44-0207-123-4567.html

catj wrote on Dec 5^th, 2009 at 7:46pm:

… When dialling seven digits didn't work, most simply assumed that local dialling no longer works within London. There was no clue that eight-figure local dialling would work.

I think that hits the nail on the head.  :(



jrawle wrote on Dec 5^th, 2009 at 8:56pm:

… It only takes a couple of extra seconds to dial 020. I still think now's the time to do away with it, and free up some extra numbers.

Is your plan for national dialling for London only then? The majority of the population will have to dial five digit codes. ::)



jrawle wrote on Dec 5^th, 2009 at 8:56pm:

Unless anyone would like to point out the benefits of local dialling?

A big waste in numbering capacity. All the space from 2xx through to 998.

I don't see why everyone should have to do without local dialling simply because some, maybe through their ineptitude, choose not to use when it is available.

Dave wrote on Dec 5^th, 2009 at 9:28pm:

jrawle wrote on Dec 5th, 2009 at 8:56pm: … It only takes a couple of extra seconds to dial 020. I still think now's the time to do away with it, and free up some extra numbers. Is your plan for national dialling for London only then? The majority of the population will have to dial five digit codes. ::)

However many digits, up to five, it's hardly a huge burden. Plus there's only one additional code any particular person would have to add, which would be the same as their own, which they presumably already know!


Dave wrote on Dec 5^th, 2009 at 9:28pm:

jrawle wrote on Dec 5th, 2009 at 8:56pm: Unless anyone would like to point out the benefits of local dialling? A big waste in numbering capacity. All the space from 2xx through to 998.

I fail to see why full number dialling wastes numbers. On the contrary, retaining local dialling wastes numbers. With full number dialling, all the current numbers would be available, plus ones with local numbers beginning 0 and 1. It would also mean national numbers would eventually no longer need to start with 0, opening up a huge range of additional area codes without having to add an extra digit to everyone's numbers.

jrawle wrote on Dec 6^th, 2009 at 1:50pm:

I fail to see why full number dialling wastes numbers. On the contrary, retaining local dialling wastes numbers. With full number dialling, all the current numbers would be available, plus ones with local numbers beginning 0 and 1. It would also mean national numbers would eventually no longer need to start with 0, opening up a huge range of additional area codes without having to add an extra digit to everyone's numbers.

What are all of these numbers going to be used for?  :-?  :-? :-?

Dave wrote on Dec 6^th, 2009 at 2:27pm:

What are all of these numbers going to be used for?  :-?  :-? :-?

Eventually moving to new, shorter codes to give more local numbers without resorting to overlay codes.

Although, in effect, this does amount to lengthening numbers, I suppose. As we know, numbers are presently 10 digits, not 11, so if the national dialling prefix "0" becomes part of the number, that's an extra digit. And if the next digit for geographical numbers can be anything rather than just 1 or 2, again that makes numbers harder to remember.

Area codes (021), (022), (025), (026), and (027) are at present unused. Each allows for 80 million numbers.

Area codes (0110), (0111), (0112), (0119), (0101), (0171), and (0181) are at present unused. Each allows for 8 million numbers.

More than 130 of the (01xxx) codes are at present unused. Each allows for 800 000 numbers.

Area codes beginning 04... are entirely unused. That's room for another 800 million numbers.

Area codes beginning 06... are entirely unused. That's room for another 800 million numbers.


The only changes likely to happen now are area codes changing to a new shorter code so that longer local numbers can be introduced.

There might be the odd rural area that sees sudden massive development gaining a new (01xxx) area code, much in the same way the new Ebbsfleet area was created a few years ago.

I believe the move to (02x) for Southampton, Portsmouth, and Coventry to have been a big mistake. They should have moved to (0111), (0112), and (0119), as seven digit local numbers would have been long enough.

Wasn't the original idea that the whole country would move over to 02x numbers? This is actually a half-way house to full number dialling as it frees up numbers that were previously national dialling only. For example 01703 012345 wouldn't have been available but is now 023 8001 2345 so can be used.

Having eleven-digit numbers beginning 02 will not give any more numbers than having eleven-digit numbers beginning 01.

The trick in the allocation of area codes is that a single code needs to cover a fairly wide geographical area. It would be crazy for one city to be divided up by multiple codes. The US has that nightmare scenario in place. Current UK practice is that when most of the numbers in an area are used up, the area code is changed and becomes one digit shorter. At the same time, a particular digit is prepended on the front of all remaining local numbers (perhaps an '8', leaving the other seven initial digits between 2 and 9 available for future expansion within that area).

There are still several (01xxx) area codes in some rural areas of the UK that have less than several hundred of the 800 000 numbers within that area code actually allocated and in use.

While there are several (01xxx) areas that are very close to having all numbers allocated and in use, the problem of 'number shortage' in most (01xxx) areas is simply that created by dozens of companies holding on to blocks of 10 000 numbers each, with only a small percentage of those numbers in each block actually in use. That is, in the past, only a small number of blocks (allocated by geographical part of town, city, or county, per local exchange) would be in use and the others available for future use. The change to 'allocation by company' has been very inefficient, and in many areas gives a false sense of 'running out'.


If I had been planning the shuffling of numbers around in 1995-2000, I would have pushed the old (0xxx) geographical codes to (01xxx) as has already happened, but would have moved the pre-existing (0x1) codes with seven-digit local numbers to (02x1) instead of to 01x1. For new area codes (e.g. the now 011x codes) needing seven-digit local numbers, they'd be (02xx) instead. For new area codes (e.g. the now 02x codes) needing eight digit local numbers, they'd be (03x) instead. We would have ended up with the simple system:
(01xxx)  xxxxxx [and (01xxx) xxxxx and (01xx xx) xxxxx]
(02xx) xxx xxxx
(03x) xxxx xxxx
giving a simpler and more logical migration path from six to seven-digit local numbering in the future, and from seven to eight-digit local numbering in the future; but then again, hindsight is a wonderful thing.

catj wrote on Dec 6^th, 2009 at 11:20pm:

The trick in the allocation of area codes is that a single code needs to cover a fairly wide geographical area. It would be crazy for one city to be divided up by multiple codes. The US has that nightmare scenario in place.

I'm far from convinced that the system here is such a nightmare. Within a thirty or so mile radius of where I lived in the UK, the area codes 01892, 01622, 01634, 01732, 01689, 020, 01322 and 01959 were in use, possibly along with others (memory has faded a little). This really is no different to say the situation in New York city with its five area codes serving a population of eight or so million. At least the system here is consistent and understandable with fixed-length area codes and a standard format. In comparison, the Ofcom-administered system is a mess. If one set out to deliberately design from scratch the most useless and complex system, then the result wouldn't be far removed from the UK numbering scheme. Whilst our system is far from perfect, and it has its particular challenges, it works very well here, in Canada and in quite a few other nations and territories, both near and far.

Numbers in the US might be written in a consistent format, like xxx xxx xxx or +1 xxx xxx xxxx, but that's where the simplicity ends.

For the number xxx xxx xxxx; within some states you can still dial just xxx xxxx for local numbers within your own area. Within some areas, you cannot dial local calls as xxx xxxx, you instead have to dial the full xxx xxx xxxx numbers. In some areas if you dial the full xxx xxx xxxx number for a local call, the call fails.

For adjacent area codes, sometimes you can dial xxx xxx xxxx and other times you have to dial 1 xxx xxx xxxx adding the 1 prefix. Sometimes you can dial either, other times one or the other will fail to connect or will end up connected to the wrong person.

From mobile phones, I believe that there are other changes in what you have to dial, especially concerning when to dial a 1 or not.


In the UK, dialling is consistent:
- dial local number only, and omit the area code, if the area code is the same as yours (if you do happen to dial with the 0 trunk code and the area code, you are charged the same anyway).
- dial 0 trunk code, area code and full local number if the area code is different to yours.

That's it!

It's the number plan that is inconsistent, but the number of rules is small:

2+8 to represent (02x) xxxx xxxx [in 5 areas]
3+7 to represent (011x) xxx xxxx [in 6 areas]
3+7 to represent (01x1) xxx xxxx [in 6 areas]
4+6 to represent (01xxx) xxxxxx [in 580 areas].
4+5 to represent (01xxx) xxxxx [in 41 areas] - nine-digit NSN.
5+5 to represent (01xx xx) xxxxx [in 12 areas].
5+4 to represent (01xx xx) xxxx [in 1 area] - nine-digit NSN.

As long as you can spot that the area code is (02x) or (011x) or (01x1) then you can work out the format of the area code and local number. The remainder are mostly (01xxx).

It's just the 12 areas with 5+5 and 5+4 numbering that you have to remember: (0138 73) Langholm; (0152 42) Hornby; (0153 94) Hawkshead; (0153 95) Grange-over-Sands; (0153 96) Sedbergh; (0169 73) Wigton; (0169 74) Raughton Head; (0169 77) Hallbankgate/Brampton; (0176 83) Appleby; (0176 84) Pooley Bridge; (0176 87) Keswick; (0194 67) Gosforth.

May I throw a spanner of reality into the debate. (I would be grateful if someone would correct my facts and terminology.)

"Local" numbers can only have meaning if they reflect people's sense of locality. The locality that is defined by a certain code serves to reinforce that sense or even to create it. The importance given to this varies greatly and it can serve for good or ill, especially when one gets into issues around where boundaries fall.

Before STD was introduced, this was highly significant. When distinct local charging rates were offered it was still relevant, although not as critically as some assume. Charging zones were defined as groups of coded areas and "local" calls were those within a zone or to adjacent zones. We are now left with the option to omit the area code when dialling as the only significant feature. (One must note that charging zones still exist, even if "local" and "national" rates are generally the same. Indeed Talk Talk has now reintroduced the distinction to its tariffs.)

Since the universal implementation of STD it has been considered proper to always provide the full string of digits to be dialled when quoting a telephone number in formal communications. There was a messy period whilst distinct inter-exchange short access codes were retained, but I understand that these have now gone. We now have "national numbering" which means that the "number" is what you have to dial to access it (this may not make much sense to those with no memory of the time when numbers were only on exchanges and accessing the exchange was a separate process.)

The point of interest for me is the extent to which people (informally) quote and record numbers without the full national dialling code. How many vans and shop fronts now carry only the latter portion of the telephone number for a "local" business? How often do local newspapers and other publications do the same? How often is the area code considered unnecessary when giving one's number in a telephone conversation or personal letter? How many address books omit the full code for "local" contacts?

My own experience of Birmingham and London suggests that there are very few 0121's in Birmingham address books and phone memories and that there would have been relatively few 01's in London. The split and subsequent re-unification of the London area will however have probably created sufficient confusion to ensure that there are many unnecessary 020's, often with punctuation following the subsequent 7, 8 or 3. (Those who wish to use names in caller display are denied the opportunity to record the short form of the number in their phone memory as CLI is provided in national format, which could explain some of the unnecessary dialling.)

With my limited experience, I am keen to know how far the area code reflects people's sense of locality away from the urban conurbations. As the world becomes smaller, I wonder how far the need to have our sense of locality reinforced through recognisable telephone area codes becomes lesser or greater. The technical issues are now modest as they do not impose limitations in the way that they once did, technology now presents opportunities to do whatever best serves our needs.

The fundamental problem for Ofcom is always about how far into the future one should look, the degree of confidence in the accuracy of one's estimations of what may happen and how far one can sell the disruption caused by any current change to those who will be affected. The public expects Ofcom to have (and also to have previously had) perfect knowledge of the future and therefore to never have to make any change. The only tolerable change is a correction of errors it has made previously, so it can never win, as it is always seen to be making or admitting a mistake.

Apart from the specific consideration of alternative methods of achieving the stated objective, the basic question is of whether there is any purpose in adopting measures to conserve visible geographical integrity in the numbering scheme, or accept that a number is just a number and the only aspect worth preserving for the public is the 01 or 02 to indicate that it has a specific geographic termination point. The, possibly very wide, area within which this point falls could always be discovered by consulting a database of the information needed to maintain charging zones (given that these are to remain).

I hope these thoughts are of some interest. I would be keen to read other observations and any necessary corrections to this posting.

Quote:

How many vans and shop fronts now carry only the latter portion of the telephone number for a "local" business?

In London, a very large number of take-away meal, and other such establishments, have signage like 8222 4455 as the 020 is utterly redundant; all of their customers will be within the same borough.

Showing less digits (eight instead of eleven) also allows the digits to be larger and/or the business to save money by not having to buy two zeros and a two.



Having said that, within London there are countless thousands still showing various old 0171 and 0181 (pre-2000), 071 and 081 (pre-1995), and 01 (pre-1990) numbers on the front of their premises, as shown at: http://01forlondon.wordpress.com/ - please do send in your contributions.

idb wrote on Dec 7^th, 2009 at 3:08am:

catj wrote on Dec 6th, 2009 at 11:20pm: The trick in the allocation of area codes is that a single code needs to cover a fairly wide geographical area. It would be crazy for one city to be divided up by multiple codes. The US has that nightmare scenario in place. I'm far from convinced that the system here is such a nightmare. Within a thirty or so mile radius of where I lived in the UK, the area codes 01892, 01622, 01634, 01732, 01689, 020, 01322 and 01959 were in use, possibly along with others (memory has faded a little). This really is no different to say the situation in New York city with its five area codes serving a population of eight or so million. At least the system here is consistent and understandable with fixed-length area codes and a standard format.

Google just told me:  New York — Area Code: 212, 315, 347, 516, 518, 585, 607, 631, 646, 716, 718, 845, 914, 917

So, I'd think that it's a pretty good bet that anybody living there is almost certain to have to dial the full 1-nnn-nnn-nnnn for virtually every number they need to call.  


Quote:

In comparison, the Ofcom-administered system is a mess. If one set out to deliberately design from scratch the most useless and complex system, then the result wouldn't be far removed from the UK numbering scheme. Whilst our system is far from perfect, and it has its particular challenges, it works very well here, in Canada and in quite a few other nations and territories, both near and far.

Well it wasn't designed from scratch, of course - It's all down to history.  Originally, every city, town, village and hamlet had it's own manual telephone exchange.  Your phone number would be, say, Medway 21.   As they got bigger, numbers were tacked on the front, so you may end up with Medway 654321.  Originally you'd pick up the phone, speak to the operator, and they would put you through.  Eventually, you could dial other numbers on your own exchange directly, but "trunk" calls would still need connecting by the operator.  Although there were often "short-cut" codes, such as 91, that would take you to an adjacent exchange. (apparently it was possible to get most of the way across the country by daisy-chaining these, but it made for very long dialing sequences, was not officially supported, and as you used lots of local connections, call quality suffered!)  When STD (Subscriber Trunk Dialing) came along, the GPO needed a way of mapping exchange names to numbers, so they used the first two letters of the exchange name, and a sequential number to differentiate them.  So Medway became ME4.  With a 0 on the front to indicate it's an STD call, that was 0634.  As most phones were supplied with letters marked on the dial next to the numbers this meant people only had to remember one extra digit, the 4 in this case.

As we don't have our towns arranged around the country alphabetically, this distributed the numbering about fairly randomly, but this was beneficial in that it was unlikely for another 063n to be nearby, so making it less likely that people would be likely to dial the wrong one.  Bear in mind that people were much less likely to have any dealings with anybody non-local in those days.

By this route, all but the very smallest of exchanges got their own area codes.  The tiny ones would usually end up tacked onto the nearest big town, using the towns STD code and the shortcut code to reach their exchange.  This is why we ended up with numbers such as (0xxx xxx) xxxx.

Obviously, as things have got sorted out, as number use has increased, things have got a bit more rational; village exchanges have been absorbed into the main towns, the NGN and mobile numbers got separated out, and the whole industry got opened up.  

Obviously there is still some way to go, however I think it's a little more logical to be able to tell at a glance the usage of, and thus approximate cost to call, a number.  Yes, some areas are running out of numbers, but I'd rather they move to shorter area codes than overlay another code, as otherwise you end up with the situation we had in London where, as soon as 071/081 came in, people stopped being able to dial local numbers for a proportion of their contacts, and indeed, often didn't know what prefix to dial for any given number.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Dec 7^th, 2009 at 10:52am:

With my limited experience, I am keen to know how far the area code reflects people's sense of locality away from the urban conurbations. As the world becomes smaller, I wonder how far the need to have our sense of locality reinforced through recognisable telephone area codes becomes lesser or greater. The technical issues are now modest as they do not impose limitations in the way that they once did, technology now presents opportunities to do whatever best serves our needs.

I'm wondering exactly the same things, SCV. I think STD codes still do give people a sense of locality, both in urban and rural area. If a business advertises its number with the local code, people have more confidence that they are dealing with a local firm.

However, I do not believe be ability to dial just the local part of the number is necessary in the modern world where landlines are fast being replaced by mobile phones. That's why I would advocate full 11-digit dialling for all numbers to free up some extra numbers, hopefully avoiding the need for overlay codes that would lose the sense of identity with a particular local code.


catj wrote on Dec 6^th, 2009 at 11:20pm:

Having eleven-digit numbers beginning 02 will not give any more numbers than having eleven-digit numbers beginning 01.

Hmm, I'd need to think carefully whether or not this is true, as it isn't trivial to work out. It's true that, while it would free up some "national dialling only" numbers, it would create some new ones, and that there simply aren't as many codes if they are only 3 digits long. Which system wastes fewest numbers? Neither is as good as going over to whole-number dialling.

irrelevant wrote on Dec 7^th, 2009 at 3:32pm:

idb wrote on Dec 7th, 2009 at 3:08am: catj wrote on Dec 6th, 2009 at 11:20pm: The trick in the allocation of area codes is that a single code needs to cover a fairly wide geographical area. It would be crazy for one city to be divided up by multiple codes. The US has that nightmare scenario in place. I'm far from convinced that the system here is such a nightmare. Within a thirty or so mile radius of where I lived in the UK, the area codes 01892, 01622, 01634, 01732, 01689, 020, 01322 and 01959 were in use, possibly along with others (memory has faded a little). This really is no different to say the situation in New York city with its five area codes serving a population of eight or so million. At least the system here is consistent and understandable with fixed-length area codes and a standard format. Google just told me:  New York — Area Code: 212, 315, 347, 516, 518, 585, 607, 631, 646, 716, 718, 845, 914, 917 So, I'd think that it's a pretty good bet that anybody living there is almost certain to have to dial the full 1-nnn-nnn-nnnn for virtually every number they need to call.

New York State (pop 20m, area around 60% the size of the UK) does indeed have 14 area codes, covering POTS, cellular and VOIP. New York City, pop 8m, area around 75% the size of Greater London) has 5 area codes, again covering various types of numbering. I'm pretty sure that Greater London has more than five area codes.

Generally, there are three dialing patterns in the US - 7D, 10D and 1+10D, depending on overlays, splits and what is defined as a local call area. I maintain that this is extremely straightforward - the first few pages of a typical telephone directory will make it crystal clear what one needs to dial, and what is considered a 'local' call, which is important as local calls from a residential line are often free. Intercept messages may, depending on location, actually tell you what to do if you get it wrong.

catj wrote on Dec 7^th, 2009 at 10:50am:

Numbers in the US might be written in a consistent format, like xxx xxx xxx or +1 xxx xxx xxxx, but that's where the simplicity ends. For the number xxx xxx xxxx; within some states you can still dial just xxx xxxx for local numbers within your own area. Within some areas, you cannot dial local calls as xxx xxxx, you instead have to dial the full xxx xxx xxxx numbers. In some areas if you dial the full xxx xxx xxxx number for a local call, the call fails. For adjacent area codes, sometimes you can dial xxx xxx xxxx and other times you have to dial 1 xxx xxx xxxx adding the 1 prefix. Sometimes you can dial either, other times one or the other will fail to connect or will end up connected to the wrong person. From mobile phones, I believe that there are other changes in what you have to dial, especially concerning when to dial a 1 or not. [...]

True, but I still maintain it is very straightforward with either 7D, 10D or 1+10D configurations. Any given phone book will generally describe exactly what you need to dial to get any given number, and detail what will be considered 'local' (ie usually free), 'extended area' (in some cases) and 'long distance' - for billing purposes.

While I can't give an absolute answer for all cellular providers, I do not believe there is any ambiguity when calling from cellular devices due to the numbers being parsed before the call is established.

This is a reminder to anyone who wishes to respond to this consultation, that it closes tomorrow.