Hello  :)

I'm wondering if 0115 is a free landline number?

I'm using T Mobile and have Free calls to landline and mobile, I live in Essex

I never seen 0115 number before, just wondering if it's a free number

Thanks  ;)

0115 is the STD code for Nottingham.

So its free  :D

ken979 wrote on Nov 9^th, 2010 at 1:59pm:

So its free  :D

Ahem, 'inclusive'

I'm rather inclined to wonder why the OP did not consider the more obvious option of entering 0115 and "area code" as a Google search where a large number of hits for Nottingham would have resulted.  Also this very discussion forum has numerous sticky posts etc that show that all numbers commencing 01, 02 and 03 are classed as free calls in any inclusive call packages or free minutes bundles.  Its not as though Nottingham is even a small town!

I can only assume that in some parts of Essex it is fairly rare for some members of the local populace to make calls outside the county boundaries. ::)

I may be mistaken but I have a nasty feeling that some phone companies charge for 01481 which is the code for the Channel Islands and looks like an ordinary innocent 01xxx code.

BT certainly charge:
http://www.productsandservices.bt.com/consumerProducts/displayTopic.do?topicId=25502&s_cid=con_FURL_calls_tariffs

The Isle of Man may also have a similar trap for the unwary.

allegro wrote on Nov 11^th, 2010 at 7:55am:

I may be mistaken but I have a nasty feeling that some phone companies charge for 01481 which is the code for the Channel Islands and looks like an ordinary innocent 01xxx code. BT certainly charge: http://www.productsandservices.bt.com/consumerProducts/displayTopic.do?topicId=25502&s_cid=con_FURL_calls_tariffs The Isle of Man may also have a similar trap for the unwary.

One wonders why there isn't a pre connection announcement for anyone calling the Channel Islands or Isle of Man from a UK line to avoid there being a problem.  Ditto Channel Islands and Isle of Man mobile numbers also have codes within the main 076 to 079 prefixed UK mobile number blocks and some UK mobile providers include them in bundled minute plans and some don't.

Not just Jersey and Isle of Man, Guernsey has a separate area code for landlines and several more for mobiles.

There's a list at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_numbers_in_the_United_Kingdom#Crown_dependencies

catj wrote on Nov 11^th, 2010 at 5:23pm:

Not just Jersey and Isle of Man, Guernsey has a separate area code for landlines and several more for mobiles. There's a list at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_numbers_in_the_United_Kingdom#Crown_dependencies

How about Sark and Alderney ;)

NGMsGhost wrote on Nov 11^th, 2010 at 6:34pm:

catj wrote on Nov 11th, 2010 at 5:23pm: Not just Jersey and Isle of Man, Guernsey has a separate area code for landlines and several more for mobiles. There's a list at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_numbers_in_the_United_Kingdom#Crown_dependencies How about Sark and Alderney ;)

They are in the link ;)

NGMsGhost wrote on Nov 11^th, 2010 at 8:22am:

One wonders why there isn't a pre connection announcement for anyone calling the Channel Islands or Isle of Man from a UK line to avoid there being a problem.  Ditto Channel Islands and Isle of Man mobile numbers also have codes within the main 076 to 079 prefixed UK mobile number blocks and some UK mobile providers include them in bundled minute plans and some don't.

A good point for discussion has been raised; I offer some comment, including some general points on pre-call announcements.

Given the complexity of our numbering system, there is an onus on anyone giving out a telephone number to make it clear what it is, in respect of any possible unexpected calling cost. A person or a business based in the Channel Islands or the Isle of Mann would probably make callers from the UK mainland aware of the fact that they are based offshore in some way.

One should always be aware of who one is calling before making a telephone call, or be ready to accept a risk if choosing to call an unknown number. I strongly advise against the practice of calling back to a number provided as CLI, simply to find out who called. I disagree with and oppose those, including Ofcom, who recommend this practice.

Because nearly all providers have a very complex charging structure, it is the responsibility of the caller to make themselves aware of the costs of making a call, insofar as they are able. The fact that providers do not make this information readily accessible prior to calling is an unacceptable disgrace, which is not relieved by pre-call announcements.

Where certain numbers are treated very differently from others that are similar, e.g. where 076-079 calls are generally free of charge, apart from certain exceptions which are expensive, then I can see a strong argument for a pre-call announcement. This should simply advise that the call is not free, as would have been expected, and advise the caller to refer to their tariff before choosing to proceed.

I am not sure whether appropriate terms for this to be a regulatory requirement could be defined. I believe that pre-call announcements can only be a long stop, a last resort to be engaged to cover cases where proper methods of advising call costs are likely to have failed. They should never be seen as an acceptable alternative to proper information being provided at the proper time - when one is contemplating making a call. Advising that a call which is likely to be thought to be free of charge, is not, could however be a case where the longstop is required. (The 080 from a mobile anomaly is an obvious example where a common misconception has to be addressed.)

I am aware that detailed pre-call cost announcements are a feature of some fringe low-cost services, designed for those of very limited means or with the time and will to go to lots of effort to save money. They cannot however have a place in the general telephone system, where there are many different tariffs and meaningless warnings or unnecessarily repeated advice would be an annoyance.

The classic exception with mainland geographic and 0845 numbers being excluded from packages are those used by ISPs. A pre-call announcement is obviously unsuitable for these cases.

For those mobile providers who exclude some 076-079 numbers from unlimited packages, when these are used by the vast majority of callers, I believe that it is worthwhile to ask them to consider providing a simple pre-call announcement. There may be other cases where vital cost information could not be readily made available to callers before they make a call, or the need to check is likely not to be recognised.

Mobile phones currently occupy the codes from 074 to 075 and 077 to 079. The codes from 071 to 073 will come into use later.

The 076 code is supposed to be used for paging services, though some mobile phones on the Isle of Man use 07624 (to match the 01624 landline area code).

The Isle of Man now has other allocations for mobile phones (including 07524 and 07924); I'd guess that 07624 usage for mobile phones will be gradually phased out.

This site is quite good. You can either enter the UK dialling code to find out the town or enter the town to find the dialling code

http://www.alexnolan.net/onlinetools/dialingcodesuk.htm

Unfortunately that list is more than 15 years out of date.

It appears to be an early 1990s list, butchered to add the 1995 phONEday '1' in all the right places, and further edited to add the various 2000 Big Number Change changes.

However, since the early 1990s, there have been hundreds of other code changes - none of which appear to have been actioned in that list.

Raughton Head (to pick one random example) moved from (069 96) xxx to (069 74) 76xxx -- now (0169 74) 76xxx -- a very long time ago. That site still lists Raughton Head as 016996xxx.

Additionally, it isn't so much an "area code list" as an "initial digits" list.



If you want something searchable that is regularly updated from Ofcom's master list then consider using Codelook.

http://www.telecom-tariffs.co.uk/codelook.htm



The original data source is Ofcom. Ofcom's files are mostly updated on a weekly basis:

http://www.ofcom.org.uk/static/numbering/#geog1

http://www.ofcom.org.uk/static/numbering/sabc.txt

http://www.ofcom.org.uk/static/numbering/s1_code.txt

However, even Ofcom's files apparently contain many errors:

http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/consultations/telephone-numbering/responses/Stevens_Mr_N.pdf



Other pages with fairly accurate data include:

http://www.numberingplans.com/?page=dialling&sub=areacodes&ac=GB

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_Kingdom_dialling_codes



This list has been out of date for a long time, but appears to have been recently updated:

http://www.ukphoneinfo.com/locator.php

However, again, it is a list of "initial digits", rather than of "area codes" (i.e. the "codes" also include a few digits from the local subscriber number). This site also fails to recognise all of the 5 digit area codes.


Most other lists found on the web seem to be very much out of date.

sherbert wrote on Nov 12^th, 2010 at 7:41pm:

This site is quite good. You can either enter the UK dialling code to find out the town or enter the town to find the dialling code http://www.alexnolan.net/onlinetools/dialingcodesuk.htm

Also this one;-  http://www.usefulinformation.eu/phone/phone_a.html



.

That list fails to recognise all of the 5 digit area codes:

013873 - 015242 - 015394 - 015395 - 015396 - 016973 - 016974 - 016977 - 017683 - 017684 - 017687 - 019467


It also fails to separate the area code part from the local number part for Cardiff, Coventry, Portsmouth, Southampton, and all of Northern Ireland.

For example, the Belfast "area code" is not 02890; the correct designation is (028) 90.

Given the number "Belfast 9500 5500" dialling 02890 9500 5500, as hinted by the "area code list", connects to the wrong number.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Nov 12^th, 2010 at 5:01pm:

Given the complexity of our numbering system ...

This is a fascinating topic in itself.

Does anyone have any views on the relevance to call charges?

Finally, an accurate UK area code list:   http://www.telephonenumbers.co.uk/Geographic-Codes/i=2

I was beginning to think that there was no such thing anywhere online.

Just a short "off topic" point..

In the links provided by catj, Mr N Stevens in his HUGE letter/feedback to Ofcom, notes Berwick to be Berwick-on-Tweed, however as far as I can see via Google it IS Berwick-upon-Tweed or simply Berwick.

I wonder where he got the other name from?

Ofcom have three current area code lists on their website (.txt, .pdf, .html). One says -upon- and the other two say -on- so it looks like even Ofcom can't agree with themselves.

I think BT used -on- many years ago. I also agree that -upon- is likely to be the correct one.

Indeed Berwick-upon-Tweed is correct

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berwick-upon-Tweed

Some place names use "on" and some use "upon". Hyphens are also used not always used. I generally refer to the OS for, what I assume to be, correct spellings.

catj wrote on Jul 30^th, 2011 at 7:23am:

Finally, an accurate UK area code list:   http://www.telephonenumbers.co.uk/Geographic-Codes/i=2 I was beginning to think that there was no such thing anywhere online.

Handy - but it's still ridiculous that we should be lumbered with 3 (020 etc), 4 (0121 etc.) and 5 (01200 etc.) digit area codes.  

If North America can manage with 3 digits, why could the very-expensive Oftel/Ofcom not manage something like that?

Quote:

It's still ridiculous that we should be lumbered with 3 (020 etc), 4 (0121 etc.) and 5 (01200 etc.) digit area codes.   If North America can manage with 3 digits, why could the very-expensive Oftel/Ofcom not manage something like that?

The US uses three-digit area codes and seven digit subscriber numbers. This gives about eight million numbers per area code. In areas running out of numbers, a new area code is allocated covering part or all of the old code geographic area. These are the so-called "overlay" codes. New York has multiple area codes covering the same area. The end result is numbers within the same building having different area codes and a very confusing set of rules as to exactly what you need to dial to connect.

In the UK, subscriber number lengths are adjusted according to population density. Each area code originally covered roughly the same land area (with a number of exceptions in major cities and in the most remote rural areas), so areas with low population density have a longer area code and a shorter subscriber number.

UK telephone numbers originally had three or four digits in rural areas and four or five digits in towns. Over time these numbers have all grown longer. Nowadays it is common to see four, five or six digit subscriber numbers in rural areas, five or six digit subscriber numbers in towns, and seven or eight digit subscriber numbers in cities. Six, seven and eight digit subscriber numbers are the most common.

In order to have a consistent total number length, using longer subscriber numbers means having shorter area codes. Popular formats include 2+8, 3+7, 4+6 and 5+5, with a few places still using the shorter and older 4+5 or 5+4 formats (total length is one digit shorter).

Most towns have 790 000 numbers available (4+6), while a city might have 7 900 000 numbers (3+7). London and several others each have 79 000 000 numbers (2+8).

If the UK had stuck to using four digit area codes and six digit subscriber numbers, London would now have 27 area codes, almost one per borough. Birmingham and Manchester would each have seven area codes. Cardiff, Bristol and Reading would now be on their third area code.

A number of cities have a three digit area code and seven digit subscriber number. These include Glasgow, Bristol, Leicester, Manchester and others. If that system had continued in London, London would now have three area codes and be heading towards starting a fourth.

Instead, London now has a single area code, 020. London has a two digit area code and eight digit subscriber numbers. Northern Ireland uses the same system, but with the 028 area code.

At one time there was a plan to convert the whole country to that 2+8 format. The whole of South-East England would have used the 023 area code, the whole of Scotland perhaps 027, and the Midlands all under 024. There would have been a single area code for South-West England, and another for Northern England. The 029 area code would have covered the whole of Wales.

All that you would have been able to tell from the eight-digit subscriber number within your new area code was that it was somewhere within about 150 to 200 km of wherever you are. Further expansion of that system was abandoned some years ago, but not before Coventry and a few others had been lumbered with it.

The UK has a flexible system built using a (mostly) consistent ten-digit number length. In low population density areas, longer area codes are paired with shorter subscriber numbers. Conversely, in high population density areas, shorter area codes are paired with longer subscriber numbers.

This new system closely matched demand for numbers until Ofcom allowed up to 600 providers to each reserve 10 000 numbers (nowadays 1000 numbers) within each area code - but that's a whole other conversation.

catj wrote on Jul 31^st, 2011 at 6:36pm:

Quote: It's still ridiculous that we should be lumbered with 3 (020 etc), 4 (0121 etc.) and 5 (01200 etc.) digit area codes.   If North America can manage with 3 digits, why could the very-expensive Oftel/Ofcom not manage something like that? The US uses three-digit area codes and seven digit subscriber numbers. This gives about eight million numbers per area code. In areas running out of numbers, a new area code is allocated covering part or all of the old code geographic area. These are the so-called "overlay" codes. New York has multiple area codes covering the same area. The end result is numbers within the same building having different area codes and a very confusing set of rules as to exactly what you need to dial to connect.

I accept that overlays and splits can cause confusion, and lead to eleven digit mandatory dialing, however I do believe that the benefits outweigh the drawbacks. Here, telephone numbering over a vast area is entirely consistent, which means that forms, databases and anything else that requires the input of a number are easier to implement. We also have significantly fewer area codes than the UK, even with greater area and population. These codes also fully integrate mobile numbering without the need for any additional codes. The Ofcom geographic numbering plan is a mess. It has had ample opportunity to create a modern framework for the UK, but has decided not to implement anything of benefit to the consumner. I vaguely recall reading that telephone numbers in the format XXX-XXXX are far easier for the average customer to remember than those in the London format XXXX-XXXX.

Hello Newbie here...looking forward to chatting with you at some time

usually followed by a 9, so 01159 for most of Nottingham City area.

ANDYTOO wrote on Sep 5^th, 2011 at 7:35pm:

...usually followed by a 9, so 01159 for most of Nottingham City area.

That will be (0115) 9xx xxxx.

Nottingham also uses (0115) 2xx xxxx, (0115) 7xx xxxx and (0115) 8xx xxxx.

All are under the single (0115) area code.